Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:56, 22 February 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

SqueakBox and Personal Attacks

Finally, I have got to ask for help on this. In spite of agreeing in the past to leave me alone and to cease personal attacks in general, SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, editing my talkpage (something I had requested he not do and I have agreed not to edit his...which I have abided by) multiple times, removing an obvious self-deprecating joke, and now is making his personal attacks on me again. This user, with a long, distinguished list of blocks and interventions, has been begging for a indef block forever. Granted, he's not calling people "Nazi scum" or even calling people "rude brat". Now it's these: "I would sum up your comments as trolling" "your foramtting is lousy and your refusal to fix it is typical of your arrogant behaviour". Can something be done? He has worked very, very hard to antagonize, vilify, harrass, and belittle many users on Misplaced Pages. Something has got to be done about this highly disruptive, verbally violent user. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) if more links and diffs for history of attacks is needed, let me know... but they'd fill up an entire page.

I think it's safe to say that the patience of the community is wearing thin. I, for one, am very tired of seeing the same names appear at AN/I with issues. I recommend that both parties find a way to solve this on their own, because I have a feeling that if administrator action is required, it will be of a grave nature. - Philippe | Talk 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We did, and he is reneging on it. I leave him alone, I do not edit his userpages, but I cannot get rid of his following and attacking. I have worked hard to not be involved with him. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through some history and at the risk of taking sides, I have to say it looks to me like SqueakBox is the short fuse in this dispute. He's very quick to use colorful adjectives to describe other people and their actions, in statements that could probably often be considered personal attacks. I think at the least, he could use a stern reminder about civility from an uninvolved admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak is a decent person. I blocked him in the past, and he impressed me with his ability to understand that a time out was right in that case. What SqueakBox doesn't like, being a decent person, is any hint of the promotion of pedophilia, racism and a number of other things that decent people don't like. Each time I've investigated an issue with Squeak recently, it's turned out that the problem was excess of decency. Make of that what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Translating that into objective terms, he acts inappropriately but since he does so in accordance with your POV then it must be okay. In the interest of neutrality I don't think the cause he's fighting for, even if it's the majority POV, should be a determining factor. Considering blowing up at people as an "excess of decency" means little since "decency" is subjective, and even if his views were considered decent by matter of fact, you can be excessively decent and still conduct yourself appropriately. We don't judge people based on their views but on how they act, the two being mutually exclusive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:44, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Pro-pedophile advocacy brings the project into disreupte and has led to bans. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing, not pro-pedophile advocacy or anti-pedophile advocacy in particular, leads to bans. And regardless of the reasons, inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. You can't justify it by saying you were acting for the good of Misplaced Pages. If you want to do good things, you do it the right way, or you leave it to someone else. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak mainly does NPOV pushing, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, do you disagree with ArbCom in the SqueakBox and Zapatancas RfAr when they found that Squeak was edit warring support of his POV? I agree largely with SqueakBox's POV when it comes to pedophilia-related topics, but that doesn't mean that I think his POV (or mine) should be presented as the thesis for an article. A broad subject like adult-child sex can be neutrally described and discussed without running the risk that someone will become confused and think that it is somehow OK. --SSBohio 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The history is perhaps more complex than you have seen, Equazcion, this is perhaps a case for dispute resolution (possibly arbcom) and I have initiated that while also resolving the current flame at VPs talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that Squeakbox has a long fuse, but that it's been re-lit over and over by a succession of POV warriors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rules should be applied consistently - you get the same sentence for assaulting sinners as saints... oh, and assaulting a sinner makes a sinner of the assaulter. i.e. If you are on the side of the angels, then act like one! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's a denial of human nature. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• this is wikipedia, not the nsdap. its not the job of any editiors on here to attack verbalyl any users that he doesnt like just becuase he feels that they are "acist" "pedophilic" or any other pejorative. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on , as usual, Smith Jones. Thanks for cutting through the "acist" crap, again. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I just don't understand why it was necessary for Squeak to even edit Vigilance's page. I didn't see any attacks, I saw the (rather odd) addition of a template. How does that involve Squeak at all? Why even get involved? Frankly, if I were he, I think I'd have walked away from that, even if I thought it was incredibly offensive, because of previous involvement with Vigilance. Strikes me as an astonishingly bad choice to even engage there. - Philippe | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SJ and other users. As demonstrated in a (now deleted) subpage of VP's, this user has a history of disruption and repeated harassment of editors on stigmatic, personal grounds. I would not personally support an indefinite block, but see the umbrella WP:PAW as a good dividing line when it comes to what articles this user should e allowed to edit. Lambton /_C 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• VigilancePrime's deleted subpage was an attack page against Squeakbox that contained similar content to the material currently on VigilancePrime's user page. The subpage was deleted by MfD:
  • Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox

with comment from the closing admin that : " The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor..." When content is deleted by MfD as an attack page, what is the policy on re-creating that content on a user page? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be holding up a mirror on his talk page. It is not disruptive to simply list edits that you dislike. Lambton /_C 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. You brought up the deleted subpage, not me. So I provided the MfD link and the quote from the closing admin, who found that consensus in the discussion considered it an attack page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I should note, though I had hoped to stay out of this, that EVERYONE in that discussion saw it as an obvious keep except: SqueakBox (of course, as it quoted his poor word choices), you, Jack-A-Roe (always jumping to his defense and a partner with him in deleting content you don't like), Will Beback (same difference), and Pol64 (who was very soon after permablocked for the same type or aggregious personal attacks). As one user said, "Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks." Other comments about the former page: "The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links.", "no apparent policy vio", "does not violate bad faith or civility", and finally "This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct." VigilancePrime (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

You're entitled to your opinion too, sure. In the situation with your user subpage attacking SqueakBox, the MfD consensus did not agree with your interpretation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up because it demonstrated something (listed edits, just like his user page), not to discuss its creditability as a project, which I would have to look at in further detail. Lambton /_C 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, the MfD Jack refers to was closed against consensus, with comments 2:1 in favor of keeping the page. It went to DRV, and VP, in the kind of selfless act I'd like to see more of, agreed to withdraw their DRV request in exchange for SqueakBox's agreement to stay away from VP's userspace. It's not a matter of opinion; it's reading the MfD & DRV. I believe Jack-a-Roe's description above is inconsistent with the facts. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's the third opinion expressed here about the way that MfD was closed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The process of the MfD resulted in deletion of that page, and the closing admin described it as an attack page. That's the history, not an interpretation. If someone wants the facts they can view the archived page directly, and they can check the DRV too. They don't need me or anyone else to interpret it for them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I applied arithmetic to the situation; Referring to that as mere opinion is like saying that evolution is just a theory. A 2:1 ratio in favor of keeping is no demonstration of consensus to delete; Therefore, the MfD was closed against apparent consensus. The deletion review was tied 7:7 when VigilancePrime stepped up and ended the drama by agreeing to the deletion per user request, provided that Squeak were to leave VP alone. A consensus in support of the MfD closer's point of view has never been demonstrated, and was, in fact, explicitly opposed. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel I must say a few words here. I'm sure SqueakBox will believe I'm persecuting him but he still has not offered me (or anyone else he has unfairly stigmatized) any sort of decent apology for labelling me a passive supporter of pedophile activists (because of I speedy closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/North American Man/Boy Love Association), repeatedly calling a now deleted Category:Rape victims "your beloved category" (because I asked him to nominate it for deletion rather than unilaterally depopulate it). He has unfairly accused Haemo (talk · contribs) of pedophile sympathies, during his RfA no less. This is the umpteenth ANI thread about his short fuse and while I understand that it's not always easy to deal with POV warriors and the typical sockpuppeting nonsense that surrounds many of the PAW-supervised articles, his behaviour cannot be tolerated. Guy, I've told you this before and you refused to listen . Now all I can do is repeat it and you'll tell me again "ah, deep down SqueakBox is a good chap" and of course, I can't even disagree with that. But tell me: how many times can you say this before doubt starts creeping in that maybe a good chap can sometimes go overboard, way overboard. If need be, I'll go back and dig out all the diffs that have popped up in the numerous ANI threads and User talk threads where SqueakBox's behaviour has been utterly unacceptable. There are many people who have the courage and patience to work with PAW but somehow, SqueakBox is the one that keeps generating ANI threads. Where does it stop? Fighting the good fight doesn't buy you a get out of jail card. SqueakBox has got to stop or leave. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS for Guy. It had been a while since I got involved in that crap. But I just looked back at the details of our last conversation about SqueakBox. I was trying to explain that SqueakBox was not a good idea to mentor Pol64 (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, that experiment did not work out so well. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop editing altogether or be blocked from editing PAW? For me, based on his disruption and its rather narrow focus, a modest and workable solution would be a permanent curfew on PAW. I have saved quite a few of his mistakes, and would be happy to set up an e.mail so that I can communicate them to you off wiki. digitalemotion 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch needs more good-faith editors like SqueakBox, not less. Those topics are difficult areas for Misplaced Pages. More editors participating can help air out what otherwise might be a dark corner. Concerns about those topics affect the whole community, so the community is best served by more people becoming involved. It doesn't matter what POV editors bring, more participation is better in highly polarized situations. With more editors, it's less likely that discussions devolve into POV-pushing arguments. With more editors, it becomes easier to find actual community consensus, because there's less chance of getting sidetracked into arguments between indivudals or small groups.
• Whatever else comes of this AN/I report, I hope that more administrators and other editors visit the WP:PAW project and bring their skills to the various articles involved with those topics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jack should probably specify that he/they only want editors that will edit to their liking. NPOV is not the goal, "SPOV" or their POV is. Fair warning: If you have even the slightest disagreement, you'll be labeled a pedophile, vilified, harrassed, personally attacked, and listed at Wikisposure. Contribute at your own risk, as this phenomenon has been widely documented (though much of it has also managed to have been deleted). VigilancePrime (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't twist my words. Your opinions and ideas are yours, not mine. I wrote what I intended to write. All POVs are welcome - a wide cross-section is preferable, to avoid POV-pushing - the editing must be NPOV of course. Broader attention on these topics can only be a positive thing for Misplaced Pages. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it comes across as assuming bad faith. Beyond that, I made it clear to VigilancePrime that the Arbitration Committee is willing to provisionally open any related case put before them, but that such a case needs to be submitted privately via email. VigilancePrime, however, does not wish to disclose his email address to the Arbitration Committee. Which is his right. I, for example, refused to disclose my real identity to the OTRS (a condition to joining), therefore, I don't do OTRS (although, it isn't as if VigilancePrime disclosing an email account amounts to the same thing, privacy-wise). But there's no way around this: arbcom-l is the venue for complaints about these topics (and, yes, it being a private procedure is not optional), so, VigilancePrime may wish to avoid editing that set of articles, because the constant public complaints are becoming increasingly disruptive. Thx. El_C 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I twisted nobody's words. I added my own. Stop the false-issue whining.
2. How is this complaining? Oh, "I was asking for it", eh? And reporting abuse is wrong now?
3. I have stopped contributing to those after being driven off those articles by Squeak, Jack, Will, now-perbablocked Pol, and the admin Herostratus. This choice was made after all the above actually happened to me and a couple other editors. If we don't edit to their satisfaction (meaning their bias rather than to actual neutrality), WP:STEAM and WP:PA become the license of the day.

If you want the littany of diffs that demonstrate the longstanding harrassment and name-calling and personal attacks (getting back to the issue at hand, from which many seem to be trying to distract), let me know and I'll post them all right here.

VigilancePrime (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly act as a go-between: If VP wants to make any submissions to ArbCom, they can email me and I'll pass them on. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In one edit to my talk page, Squeak described me as a troll, an idiot, hysterical, uncivil, a liar, disgusting, intolerable, rude, and a brat. In his defense, he did end his comments by saying thanks. I could cite multiple examples of similar commentary and worse, either in edits or edit summaries. Part of that history is hidden by deleted edits, however. I've tried very hard to assume good faith in Squeak's conduct, since it's motivated by pure motives. But, at some point, even the most ardent and righteous zealot must forswear zealotry in favor of harmonious editing. I sympathize with SqueakBox's frustration, but not with how he expresses it. In my view, he doesn't understand that his approach to these conflicts creates a vicious cycle whereby his sharp comments don't get him the outcome he seeks, which frustrates him more, so that his next round of comments is even more strongly worded, and so on. His ArbCom case and his history of warnings and blocks bear out my concerns about his conduct.

There's another side to SqueakBox, however. He's got a significant contribution history (41,415 edits), largely undeniable improvements to the encyclopedia. Similarly, he's undeniably passionate about the topics he covers, and about this project. One example that springs to mind is when he & I worked out our differences on the inclusion of a photo in a biographical article. We started on opposite sides of the question, but we maintained open communications and worked things out. Over the time we've collaborated here, I've had several thoroughly enjoyable interactions with him, and, aside from Misplaced Pages work, he's been patient enough to help me with my Spanish.

I'm honestly in a quandry . He's made multiple contributions to the encyclopedia and I have a good deal of respect for him. Conversely, he's engaged in the same pattern & practice of contentious commentary and tendentious editing on multiple occasions over multiple subject areas. He's been warned; he's been blocked; he's been to ArbCom. None of these have worked to modify his behavior. No matter how good the reason, we all have to play nicely if we're going to play in the same sandbox. SqueakBox does that, for the most part. But, when he breaks from that, he does so spectacularly. --SSBohio 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that SSB. There's no denying that Squeak can be a positive force. It's also clear that one can only sympathize with the frustration that comes with editing and policing delicate articles. But random insults and accusations don't help, they make things worse. SqueakBox tends to get away with it because powerful admins like Guy protect him as a useful guardian of these delicate articles. Similarly, ArbCom doesn't want to intervene (I did ask), lest they be accused of supporting pedophile activists. It's just oh so easy to look the other way. But many have demonstrated that it's entirely possible to counter extremism on Misplaced Pages without resorting to insults, accusations, blatant contempt for Misplaced Pages processes, etc. It's not too much to ask of SqueakBox. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pascal, I've been tarred with that brush too. It's perhaps the most personally painful accusation I've ever had leveled against me, in any forum. I give no quarter to any harm inflicted upon a child. Those that know my personal history know why. A friend of mine, raped as a child, survived two unsuccessful suicide attempts, but did not survive his third. I've assisted SNAP in my own small way in investigating and bringing to justice Catholic priests who had abused children, including schoolmates of mine. Accusations of pro-pedophile activism against you, me, and others has been part of the problem, to be sure. --SSBohio 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that's interesting. I admit until now I had you pegged as a PPA, and I don't even edit in the area - had just watched contribs, the kinds of editors (including now-indefinitely-banned ones) and proposals you supported and opposed etc. :/ Certainly says something for assumptions that can be made (and also how important it is to be careful in a place like this what impressions one gives off). Orderinchaos 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view, one of the big problems with discussions around this topic is that any perspective other than absolute deletionism is tarred as PPA. I find it disgusting that I even have to assert that I oppose the sexual abuse of children. For the record, I oppose murder, arson, and jaywalking, but I never need to assure anyone of that. I've faced repeated intemperate remarks from Squeak and others, and been forced to defend my commitment to child safety more than once.

I think that the pro-pedophile viewpoint is notable, and I see zero chance that someone would read an article that neutrally covers that view and come away thinking that child sexual abuse is a good idea. We've been shooting mosquitoes with an elephant gun in this topic area, largely initiated by Squeak and editors in league with him, and enabled by sympathetic admins and editors swayed by pejoratives. That all of these are well-intentioned is beside the point. Well-intentioned people have done some pretty unwise things throughout history. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime has been canvassing around this, as around so many issues , hardly the act of a good faith editor. I am extremely unhappy to not only have to put up with VPs abuse but also his canvassing his friends. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, will an admin do something about it or will people just allow him to troll me off the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of some of your comments, I'd view VP's action more as a case of victim notification than canvassing. Despite your insinuation, VP & I are not "friends;" However, I'm glad VP let me know about this because, while I don't agree with VP's methods, I agree that your actions have been problematic. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing I find rather irritating right now, no offense, but it's that damn "thanks" in your signature. It's like, dude, what are you thanking me for? If you say "thanks" at the end of each one of your comments during a heated argument with a person, it makes it sound as if you think you've "won" something with each comment you make. Believe it or not, and some might disagree with me, but removing that "thanks" would really help ease some tension in your exchanges with people. Thanks, Equazcion •✗/C • 18:44, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC) (see what I mean?)

I agree. To thoroughly insult me, then thank me doesn't come across as polite, but rather as rubbing salt into the wound. I'd recommend saying thanks only when it appears not to be meant sarcastically. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but where does Squeak get off saying people are behaving hysterical. As far as I know, he can't see me on his monitor. How does he know one is hysterical, without seeing the person's face. Thanks :) Fighting for Justice (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone start an RfC on this? —Whig (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants to start an RfC because it's not really an effective process to resolve this kind of problem. It's not like SqueakBox just suddenly started having problems controlling his temper. There was an arbitration process a while back that resulted in him being on civility parole for a year. He was blocked 3 times for violating that parole. After he told me and I quote, "if you think there is anything frivolous about propmoting pedophilia perhaps you would care to explain it", he was asked by arbitrator Morven (talk · contribs) to get a grip and tone it down. A few weeks later there was the Haemo incident, Morven asked him to tone it down. A few weeks later, Guy assigned him as Pol64's mentor. The result was SqueakBox encouraging Pol64 to have SSB desysopped. And that's just the incidents I remember hearing about. There have been countless threads on his behaviour here and they always end up dying out because no admin has the guts to say "enough is enough". I can tell you exactly how an RfC will end up: the two conclusions will be "SqueakBox is unacceptably rude and uncivil. He should get a grip" and "deep down SqueakBox is a good chap and he often faces trolls and sockpuppets". And then nothing will happen and new ANI threads will appear periodically. Bottom line is that as long as we continue to tolerate crusaders which are fighting the good fight through unacceptable means, no ANI thread, RfC and I even suspect arbitration case will really make much of a difference. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not an admin (though I'm open to being drafted). I think that Squeak was intending to encourage the desysopping of SGGH or Gonzo fan2007, but I'm not sure since it's 100% based on my recollections. Squeak has successfully advocated the banning of certain users based on their supposed status as pedophiles, pro-pedophile activists, or sockpuppets. At least one of these accusations has been erroneous, based on my investigation. I wonder how many other contributors have been driven away by the civility and abuse issues raised here. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, my bad. It was SSGH indeed. The thing is: there's nothing wrong with identifying pedophile activists trying to impose themselves in relevant articles and there's nothing wrong with advocating a ban for them. Of course, if you work on PAW articles and you label everyone you're in disagreement with a pedophile activist, well, you're gonna be right quite often. You'll also be wrong quite often and really these accusations are extremely hurtful for the victims. That pattern of behaviour participates in the toxic paranoia on these talk pages and they scare away a lot of editors who would be willing to try and arbitrate disputes but (not so surprisingly) are quick to give up in the face of the "you're either with us or with them" attitude. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Update Since this discussion opened, users (Barry Jameson, Digital Emotion, and GroomingVictim) have been banned, with El C referring inquiries to ArbCom and citing their history of editing these topics as the reason. I feel a sufficient chilling effect to make me think twice about contributing to content in this area, especially since these actions are similar to actions SqueakBox has advocated for in the past. --SSBohio 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT

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

Result: Widely acknowledged as true, good luck finding anyone who cares. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has been edit warring on the layout guideline page. She wants an expansive view of "see also" sections. She started nitpicking the section in December. Earlier this week she made an undiscussed change and it was reverted. Today she inserted disputed text. The text she proposed two days earlier on the talk page had ZERO positive remarks before she edited the page. Two editors told her this was disputed text., . Her text was removed, and she reverted.. She was called out for edit warring and inserting non-consensus text again . When it was removed again, she made a disruptive WP:POINT removal of the admonition not to make see also into a link farm.. This material has, in one form or another, been in the guideline for nearly two and a half years. When this edit was reverted as POINTy, rather than go through another revert, she had Crum375 come by and perform the edit for her..

This pattern of gaming revert wars by SlimVirgin and Crum375 is well known. Crum375 has never edited this page. Crum375 has never edited this talk page. Quite simply, Crum375 has no dog in that fight and is there to act as a warring proxy so SlimVirgin doesn't cross 3RR. This behavior is the definition of meatpuppetry. This behavior is deliberately gaming 3RR to make a disruptive pointy edit.

Something needs to be done to break up this tag team meatpuppetry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:29, February 17, 2008 (UTC)

Admin action suggested? Any misuse of admin powers? Do you seriously want them blocked for meatpuppetry? (I strongly object to the removal of the section that represents a long-standing consensus as well, as would most people, I think, but seriously - meatpuppetry?) Relata refero (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly no abuse of admin powers, but I have to say I'm curious about the pattern of editing you describe. I've seen other similar reports about these editors; I'd be interested to know what the story is here. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have that page, along with most policies and guidelines, on my watchlist, and have been following the issues there. I happen to believe that "See also" contents depend on editor discretion and talk page consensus, not on rigid rules. I made an edit to that effect, noting my opinion in my edit summary. This was not based on any communication or coordination with anyone. If Schmucky has a problem with my edit, the article's talk page is a better place to address it than here. Crum375 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is in fact saying he has a problem with what he perceives as meat-puppetry, rather than merely a problem with that specific page. The problem is that shared interests leads to the appearance of meat-puppetry among people who agree and the appearance of wiki-stalking among those who disagree. One must AGF as much as possible or one will see conspiracies everywhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Crum. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are (at least) three issues here. First, as an experienced editor, SlimVirgin must know that WP:3RR doesn't allow her to revert three times, particularly without consensus. (In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.) After SV reached three reverts, Crum375 appeared. Second, SV often claims "stalking" whenever someone else edits an article for the first time; Crum375 had never edited WP:GTL before. Third, this type of editing is occurring on other guideline and policy pages, for example WP:CITE, where SV even started a section heading naming another editor to discuss sockpuppetry (subsequently changed when I pointed out SV's violation of WP:AGF and WP:TALK ). There appears to be a double standard; the WP:3RR violations and SV's accusations of "wikistalking" and sockpuppetry should stop, and extra eyes are needed on these policy and guideline pages, where ownership tendencies are apparent (reference the numerous past similar issues at WP:V, WP:RS and others). Policy and guideline pages benefit from stability, yet SV edit wars on them to instate her preferred versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 and SlimVirgin have established this pattern dozens of times before. Edit wars are bad. Meatpuppetry, even the appearance of it, is bad. I don't think it is out of line for administrator intervention to tell these two to stay out of each others edit wars. If one sees the other in "trouble", they can use the talk page to gain consensus rather than continue the poor behavior of edit warring. Two simple and well established rules: 1. Don't edit war. 2. Don't edit war for your friends. Why should this pair be immune to that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think we should assume good faith here, the Crum375 and SlimVirgin accounts do overlap a lot in their editing interests, and invariably back each other up in editing disputes. However, these accounts are probably just two close friends who talk to each other, not the same person. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not alleging they are the same person. Close friends who talk to each other and whose interests overlap should not be tag team edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ah, sorry, I misread your post. I agree that since Crum375 has never made an edit to that page or its talkpage before intervening in this current dispute to revert for his friend, the claim that he "had it on his watchlist" is highly unlikely. I believe that he either followed another editor's contributions to this page, or was contacted directly and asked to intervene. Any other hypothesis is pushing AGF to the point of credulity. Therefore if revert-warring on this guideline continues, SlimVirgin and Crum375 should be regarded as a single account. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Here's witchhunt #3141529. Will 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requiring editors to play fair isn't a witch hunt. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That Crum is Slim's meatpuppet most of the time, I think has been said by various people, many times before. Good luck getting anything done about it, though :) 'Meatpuppet' is a controversial word if you think about it, and it's usually used towards new users or those who work on a very limited type of articles. Merkinsmum 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim's postings are far more subtle, cogent, and bright than Crum's, so I just can't imagine they're the same person. There's too much stylistic difference. The duckling editing is obvious—Crum will show up whenever she does, on disputes. I basically agree with Merkinsmum and earlier comments: most everybody knows he follows her around, and that they must communicate off-site (which isn't disallowed).

But what to do? Admit they have a six-revert rule, and...? *Shrugs.* I mean, really, what can you do? You can't police that stuff.

I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my policy. Marskell (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"what can you do? You can't police that stuff." If this behavior is recognized and it's bad, then it's blockable. It's disruptive, it's pointy, it's 3RR, it's gaming. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. If Crum and Slim are acting together and they go over 3RR, collectively, then block one or both. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Are you an admin? Want to watch their edits together? Block on the first breach of 3RR? Feel free. Marskell (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a recent example from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Animal Liberation Front references, Crum375's sole contribution to the discussion was a post that began with - "I think SV is right" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point was lost in the shuffle; even without Crum's additions, SlimVirgin edit wars on policy and guideline pages. WP:3RR is not an invitation for SV to revert three times; talk page discussion was underway, and there was no consensus for her version. The double standard troubles regular editors like me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution is aptly described in User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring: "Block for edit warring, not 3RR." The double standard troubles me too. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack, and somewhat ironic given the claims of meatpuppetry. Sandy, I thought you and I had agreed to stay out of each other's way. There were 11 editors on that guideline's talk page wanting a change; just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to deprive you of it. SlimVirgin 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge SV. You're defending yourself by putting Sandy on offense based on the content dispute. What is at issue here is the behavior of serial tag-team edit-warring. Care to comment on the behavior? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, if anyone's behavior needs correction it's yours: you start an ANI thread about me for having posted an edit expressing my view to an article on my watchlist, with an appropriate edit summary. If you don't like my edit, the proper place to address it is on the article's talk page, not here. Crum375 (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking your bait to defend myself Crum. You didn't use the talk page. You dived straight into an edit war to defend SV. This is a pattern that has occurred dozens of times, and I'm calling you on it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I wasn't "defending" anyone, and I didn't see a need to add anything to the talk page, as my edit summary said all that was needed to explain my view. You, on the other hand, attacked me for my edit, with no evidence to back your assertions, and a complete lack of good faith. That is behavior that requires correction. Crum375 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try and defuse this.

'No evidence' is absolutely correct, it was just a single example. However, I fancy it's happened to most people who've disagreed with SV on something. I am not currently in a dispute with her, and I certainly know I wouldn't win a dispute that descended to reverts, so it doesn't affect me; but it is true that it appears to be a pattern of behaviour on your part. If that is a mistaken impression, as it well may be, since I haven't studied your behaviour, only noticed it a half-dozen times, I apologise. However, I would be very careful about demanding evidence; I imagine it might be possible to check over a six month period what percentage of times SV reverted to the limit you've turned up to take it over the limit. (There are several alternative methods I can vagely think of.)

You have four options: deny you have a tendency to do that, throwing around accusations of bad faith and demanding evidence; say you're concerned that this is generally believed, and say you'll look out for signs of it happening; admit that you have this tendency, and that its because you trust SV to find difficult situations, to make the right calls in those situations, and what's wrong with that; or to just not comment any more, because there's nothing anyone could do. I would strongly recommend the third or fourth options, rather than the first, which might just madden people enough to start thinking about evidence.

Now, I go, because there really is nothing to be done here. I knew I should have closed this earlier. Relata refero (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Schmucky, you made 3 reverts of your own in about 10 hours. Takes two to tango. Gimmetrow 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case it took 3. But this is a single instance where I am involved with those two. What I pointed out, and what several others have agreed with, is that this is pattern behavior by SV and Crum. That's why it's an incident needing community attention, and not just a one-off dispute. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

And I'm saying that you have your own reversion issues in this very dispute, and you were the only one reverting SV. Gimmetrow 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Everyone knows that Crum follows SV around, everyone knows that SV tends to over-revert because she never "loses" editwars while Crum's around, everyone, apparently except Schmucky, knows that nothing's ever going to be done about it, because its not technically illegal, and because SV's paid dues. Can I close this before people begin snapping at each other worse than they are already? Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) As he contacted me, I must admit that I came down rather hard on Crum. I don't suggest ignoring the sum of his contributions here and I don't mean to denigrate mainspace contributions he has made independent of Slim. But there is zero daylight between these two editors on policy, and when they do run up to more than three reverts in tandem, it should be called out. (Gimme does point out the obvious: you can't have an edit war alone, Schmucky. My own record, admittedly, is not umblemished on P&Gs.)

"It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack." I must address this. TimV and I rarely interact and it would be hard to construct an argument that we conspire. I do, often, wind up on discussion pages with Sandy. But I never, ever follow her to revert disputes. I have never gone to the medical articles she works on, for instance, even when I know she's having difficulty. I make a point of not doing so, precisely because people view us as friends. I've actually been watching the LAYOUT dispute unfold on my watchlist, and haven't commented for this reason. It would be wise, Crum, to adopt a similar strategy. Marskell (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Marskell for your partial retraction. I believe that editing Misplaced Pages should be a fun process — I can't see another good reason for investing a lot of effort over a long time for free. If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. I do agree that canvassing of others for help, e.g. by putting out a call on IRC or elsewhere, is wrong, especially if the others have no particular interest in the issue. I don't see a problem with like-minded editors working on a given entry, however, if this is something they are interested in and enjoy doing. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Crum, is that you seem to suddenly have a strong opinion whenever Slim gets into a revert dispute. Schmucky is right, no doubt: a look at your contribs would turn up dozens of examples of this sort. Between you, she, and Jayjg, there's likely hundreds. A reasonable person is going to call this gaming of 3RR.

Simply offering an opinion in support of a wiki-friend is not something I have a problem with, as far as it goes. It's what human beings tend to do. But reverting has specific policy implications. I'd advise, bland as it sounds, that you pause and ask yourself whether you should revert to Slim the next time you notice something like this (or have it pointed out). Maybe, instead, you should just move along and leave it. As I've just discussed with you off-site, I don't think you're insensible to the fact that people view you and Slim as tandem reverters, and I don't think you're unconcerned. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, you need to stop the poison. This is one of several poisonous threads you've either started about me or gleefully joined in. It has been going on ever since I opposed you changing the content policies many months ago. Since then I've had nothing but the drip, drip, drip of toxicity from you, SandyGeorgia, and Tim, and from one or two other of your friends, but especially from you and SG. I would say there's much less harm in following someone's edits to articles than turning up, as you do, to attack people simply because your friend disagrees with them about a content issue or admin action. If I'm wrong about this, I hope you'll prove me wrong in future.

That's hopefully all I have to say about this. Crum is a good editor, and a kind, decent, and intelligent human being, who does not deserve the abuse you've heaped on him in this thread. SlimVirgin 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not start this thread and I'm not participating gleefully. Schmucky raised a specific concern: gaming 3RR. It's valid, in this case. My first comment re Crum was obviously intemperate, and I did retract in part.

Anyway, if you're concerned about people dealing in poison, I'd start at home. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. Thank you for that clarification, Crum, as I may have misunderstood your position previously on other pages, where I have plenty to contribute. Since SlimVirgin has left inappropriate and threatening warnings on my talk page about "personal attacks" (which have never occurred), it appears that this discussion is very upsetting to her and would best be wrapped up. It's surprising that an admin considers discussion initiated by someone else on ANI of her three reverts in three hours as a personal attack. I've reviewed this thread and am unable to find any instance of a personal attack by me, but do find examples of failure to assume good faith in SlimVirgin's false accusations. I hope admins reading this will consider the double standard the next time they're inclined to block another editor for edit warring, and I'm dismayed to see that SlimVirgin has continued unfounded accusations on other policy talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SV accused someone who didn't let her get her way of committing a personal attack? I'd say these tactics by SV and Crum are getting old. Yes, this is an implied warning that this behavior of theirs needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages needs a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" policy. I've seen rank and file editors summarily banned for the sort of behavior that gets explained away when people higher up the pecking order do it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern here was not so much the meatpuppetry that was raised originally by Schmucky as the double standard tolerated wrt edit warring. The change to WP:LAYOUT arose out of a content dispute SlimVirgin was having at Keith Mann; expressing concern about an admin edit warring to change guideline/policy when engaged in a content dispute is not WP:LAME. The false accusations of a "personal attack" on my talk page are a new concern; I'd like to see SV use diffs more often to back her allegations. That another policy change is proposed at WP:V because of content disputes arising in other Animal Liberation Front-related articles is also a concern. Repeating, more eyes needed on policy and guidelines pages, to help avoid edit warring and ownership issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, there is absolutely a double standard regarding the edit warring of olde-tyme-valued-contributers. As a community we need to either decide that's what we want or decide that's what we don't want. Right now it's not entirely clear (consensus may be changing). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, how dare you continue this extreme bad faith? As you know very well, the proposal for change at LAYOUT was not started by me. It was started by Sean's Potato Business supported by CrZTgR and Boracay Bill. All I did was agree with them, because I had seen Threeafterthree a few weeks earlier go systematically through a bunch of articles removing See also links for no reason. He was even removing links that weren't in the article, but that he thought ought to be -- though he didn't add them; he just removed them from See also, citing LAYOUT in the edit summaries. Altogether about 11 editors on that page wanted that change.

This is exactly what you did to Zeraeph. Constant needling and personal comments about her to other editors until you got her into a position where she was so upset, she started lashing out at you. Then you used that to get her banned. If you want yet another ArbCom case, Sandy, you're heading in the right direction. I hope instead you'll accept my proposal of yesterday that we simply try to avoid each other instead. It's a big encyclopedia.

I've also changed the attack header to this thread. SlimVirgin 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing diffs may help refresh memory. Here is the talk page where you started the discussion at WP:GTL about the long-standing guideline during a dispute at Keith Mann. Please stop the personal attacks on me and repeating the tale that I got Zeraeph banned. Remember, I didn't want the ArbCom, I didn't want her banned, I wanted escalating sanctions; you put up roadblocks to sanctions, and right after I put up a very generous compromise and then announced I would be busy with my family for several hours, the ANI thread was closed (I believe that was supported by Crum and the thread was closed by Jossi) and the issue went to Arbcom, against my wishes and better judgment, as I knew the evidence and what would ensue. I'm sure when you write these things, you believe them to be true; please review history and diffs before making unfounded allegations and attacks on me, as the community tires of rehashing old history. Had you supported or allowed reasonable sanctions, that whole situation might have been avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply to the unfounded accusation of personal attacks on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) A look at Keith Mann leads me to assess it as being a bit on the hagiographic. That's typical of articles with advocacy wikiprojects standing over them, and unsurprising considering that of the sixteen cited works, six are autobiographical and three are from advocacy groups on his side. But that's neither here nor there. More relevant is that the "see also" references all appear in the big navbox, so either the latter is excessively comprehensive, or the "see also" section is redundant. Guideline or no guideline, something in the current layout of the article ought to give.

What really bugs me is that this is yet another instance of people changing a policy/guideline to gain traction in a dispute. I've been in another of these, with the same people no less, and in my opinion it is destructive of any kind of order within the project. Policies and guidelines should be stable, or else they are useless. WP:BOLD, applied to policies and guidelines, is an invitation to abuses; it makes the "solution" for any dispute over a "rule" spread the dispute to the rule itself. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Like all editors, SlimVirgin and Crum375 sometimes agree, sometimes do not. I've seen them have very serious disagreements about articles in the past. It seems that they are in agreement about WP:LAYOUT. Editors agreeing is not "meatpuppeting". Jayjg 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please provide a link to "SlimVirgin and Crum375 very serious disagreements about articles in the past." Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Even Dan Tobias and I disagree sometimes. Well, actually we disagree a lot. None of that seems to be to the point. The accusation is that a person-- a friend, an ally, a conspirator, what-have-you-- stepped forward to take over from SlimVirgin when she was about to run over the 3RR limit. That the same person did not assist in some other circumstance is irrelevant; it should not be that we are excused from our sinning because we aren't consistent about it! Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR applies to individuals, not groups of people. If Crum agrees with Slim's edits, and disagrees with a person reverting her, then he is not "meatpuppeting" in expressing his beliefs via his edits. A "meatpuppet" is a non-Wikipedian recruited to do a Wikipedian's bidding. Slim and Crum are both longterm independent editors, each with their own unique interests. When two independent editors agree that a particular article version is a better one, it is not a "sin" for them to express that view via their edits. Jayjg 05:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That they may have disagreed in the past, even seriously, isn't relevant to the issue at hand (which is tandem reverting on an article Crum had never edited before), but I'm relieved to see now that both Jayjg and Crum375 have noted that editors sometimes have similar interests and edit similar articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, it would be wonderful if I could get every person who ever reverted me on an article they'd never edited before sanctioned as a "meatpuppet". Look here, User:Tiamut did this exact thing to me, just two days ago. I was involved in content disagreement with Nishidani, and suddenly Tiamut shows up to revert for him. But I didn't come running to AN/I, complaining about her being a "meatpuppet". Do you think I should have? Because if this is the new standard, I should have no difficulty getting at least a half dozen people sanctioned as "meatpuppets" over the next month. And then my editing would be so much easier. Jayjg 05:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, how do you feel about SlimVirgin falsely accusing SandyGeorgia of personal attacks? Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do come running to AN/I or to WP:AE. For all we know, there may be some kind of off-wiki coordination, perhaps a mailing list of some sort. Relata refero (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, your other examples do not have dozens of previous instances of the exact same tag-teaming behavior that SV and Crum have. I mean, there seems to be a lot of "ho hum, of course they do and it's well known that they do, but who cares" responses here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

As I said 48 hours ago, yes, that is the general attitude. Now can I close this thread? Relata refero (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that a lot of people don't care that it's happening, so much as it's difficult to do much about it. How's about just a polite suggestion to Slim and Crum on this board, that perhaps they could try not to edit in a way that could be and has been frequently seen as meatpuppetry? Whether it is or not, there's the perception by many that it is, and so maybe they could try to avoid that appearance for much of the time, much as an admin might avoid blocking someone with whom they'd had many previous disputes themselves (to give an unrelated example), as it may appear malicious to the person. That is assuming people care what others think. For instance I have people I like on wiki but I wouldn't read their contribs and step in to back them up in every dispute they were having, or the value of my opinion is lessened. But if I think something really wrong is being done to them I step in, then I think it gives more of the sense of an outside view. Hope you all get my point lol. Merkinsmum 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merkinsum, Marskell already covered that (polite suggestion to Slim and Crum about their editing patterns to avoid the perception of tandem reverting) pretty well. I've covered my concern that there's a double standard wrt WP:3RR (that most editors would be blocked for three reverts in three hours when talk page discussion is ongoing and there is no consensus). Crum375 and Jayjg have both put to bed the issues of ownership and "wikistalking" that sometimes surface when others edit articles SlimVirgin is editing, by clearly stating anyone can edit an article where they have something to contribute. So the only remaining issue I have here are the false allegations of a personal attack on my talk page, but I have no problem with closing this thread now Relata refero, since I don't expect much to happen on that front and I think this discussion has run its course. I'm glad these threads aren't being closed precipitously and that discussion can run its course; I've been on the receiving end of threads closed prematurely right after I announced I'd be busy with my family for just a few hours. Since the concerns about meatpuppetry were raised by Schmucky the Cat, I wonder if s/he considers the matter resolved, and whether the thread should be closed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, if you think Jay and Crum have put the issue to bed, then you are more easily satisfied than I. I merely think that it is unlikely that anyone will be able to do anything about it.

About closing the thread, yes, certainly, I'll wait for Schmucky to conclude. Relata refero (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Put to sleep, no. But this conversation has exhausted its usefulness, so I think it best to close. There's a possible thread for WT:3RR in here somewhere. Marskell (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thread started. Marskell (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's way past stale. While Jayjg and Crum may be correct according to the letter of our policies that they can purposefuly proxy for SV in a revert war, I think that is seriously against the spirit of collaborative editing, etiquette, & etc. It's no surprise they didn't defend their actions, but chose to attack those raising the issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

User refuses to communicate, continues to introduce possible copyvio images and mos issues.

I've reported this twice already, but as of yet, nothing has been done and the user continues to cause issues Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive363#Problem_User_follow-up. This is the last report with a link to the first. I first took this to village pump but a suggestion was made for me to take it to AN/I. Marcopolis (talk · contribs) has uploaded many copies and parts of an image which I'm sure are a copyvio (can't find the original, but another editor also agreed these were likely not his own work) yet he's claimed them as his own work. He continues to insert them in to the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which also introduces some formatting issues in addition to the questionable origin of these images. Links to several copies of this image are to be found in the first report. User claims to speak English, but I cannot continue to assume good faith at this point. I've continually used edit summaries, made posts on the article talk page, and made comments on his talk page, but he hasn't responded to a single one of them. Nor does he use edit summaries to do anything except label the photos he uploads. Another editor had previously asked him a question in English but I can find no evidence that he ever answered them. It seems the ONLY conversation he's engaged in, has been in Korean with another Korean editor. He claims to be going to school in Montreal and a native french speaker. Someone who can speak either Korean or French well enough needs to get through to this editor, or he has to prevented from continuing to edit wikipedia since he either refuses to or can't communicate over issues he's creating.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

These two edits on the same day seem extremely questionable. In one article he tries to introduce improper formatting , and yet in another article he removes it --Crossmr (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I speak neither Korean nor French, but I wanted to suggest that we might find somebody who does at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Korea. I have previously had to hunt down translators to help with editors who do not speak English, and I've found the WikiProjects a helpful way to do so. Elsewhere, I see these individuals are listed as willing translators from Korean. Most active among them seem to be User:Styrofoam1994 and User:PC78. Perhaps if we approached one of them, they might be able to help you open a dialog with this user to clear up questions about his image use. I'd be happy to approach one of them about it, if you'd like, or you can try it yourself. Alternatively, perhaps a French/Korean speaking administrator will come along who can handle things without the need of a go-between. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like PC78 just has a page for holding templates, I'm not sure he actually speaks korean. The other fellow has a notice up about being tied up for a couple weeks. I'll try asking to get started though.--Crossmr (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the notice on the other fellow's page, but his contribution history suggests he's doing stuff anyway. I hope he has the time to help out. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Korean editor and don't see any big problem on the mentioned user. The format looks not good, but I think he intended to put more contents in the spaces. Some of his pictures don't look like professional photos. Admin, BorgQueen can speak Korean. --Appletrees (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the formatting is that he's changing it away from what's recommended in the MOS as well as what is already established in the article. The problem with the image in question is he claims it as his own work, but the logos from the lines are way too perfect to be his own creation, and he keeps uploading it, both in complete form and cropped sections of it. The bigger issue is that he can't or won't communicate and just continues to insert these things over and over even though they're being removed with explanation.--Crossmr (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition when a map he uploaded as his own was deleted as a copyvio Image:Seoulsubway.jpg instead of discussing it or realizing the problem he just uploaded it under a new name which was once again speeded as a copyvio Image:Submapvers.jpg. I'm not denying that he's adding lots of great images to the project that aren't a problem, the problem is when he does something against guidelines or policy, he just keeps doing it over and over no matter how many times someone tries to communicate with him or undoes the edit.--Crossmr (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'am just asking him, in french, to be more precise on the origins of his pictures. Wait and see .... Yves-Laurent (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its specifically the images in this section. My second post outlines all the various copies and crop jobs on this one questionable image he's claiming as his own work: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#Problem_user.--Crossmr (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I translated Crossmr's comment on his talk page to Korean. I hope that works. I'll keep an eye on his talk page. --Memming (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know enough french to see he says he made them in illustrator and photoshop. Exactly how did he make them? Did he just cut the logos from another source, or did he perfectly reproduce them? There is still an issue here whether they're cut and pasted or whether or not he perfectly reproduced them by hand, it amounts to the same thing. There is also a formatting issue with the image he keeps trying to insert in to the article. Someone may want to kindly suggest to him that he remove English from his user page as its becoming very apparent at this point that he doesn't speak enough English to communicate effectively in it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, i'am askink him for the pictures. Each thing in its time. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly tell him to relax on adding the image to the article? There are more issues than just copyright here. This is where the problem comes in. He can't communicate in english, another editor has an obvious issue with what he's doing, but he just keeps doing it over and over.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stumbled through some french to try and get through to him again. Even though you were explaining what the problem was, and it appears asked him for further detail he just kind of ignored what you said and added the image yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I add a message to him wich explain that the wiki syntax has to be prefered to HTML and that he have to speak with other user instead of always make the same modifications without explanation. I haven't got a lot of free time this week, and four days ago i present an article to FA election in the french wiki. So i think that was my last message with this kid. Yves-Laurent (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I really appreciate the help. As you can imagine its quite frustrating dealing with someone who keeps doing stuff over and over that you can't communicate with.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He told me that he will use the wiki syntax for his next edit. A vous les studios Yves-Laurent (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As well does anyone know if there is an equivalent section for the MOS in french or Korean which explains how to properly format section headers so we can also get him to stop trying to format them with HTML?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look to the interwiki : fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style#Comment structurer un article ? give the basic structure of an article and fr:Projet:Aide/Recommandation/Code HTML told that it's better to use the wiki syntax but it's not an official rule. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No but we have the same encouragement here, and really its a standard. And its already set up with wikiformatting in every article.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to use my real name?

Hi,

I would like to know if it's okay with other editors if I use my real name to edit Misplaced Pages. Jason (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can edit under any name you like, as long as it is not promotional or offensive. However, you cannot redirect your userpage to an article, and your signature really shouldn't point there either. - Revolving Bugbear 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead, I do. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one reminder, that you can't uncork the genie. If you use your real name, and things go pear shaped somehow, you cannot magically take back the information about your real name. It's out there. SirFozzie (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jason Smith, you need to fix your signature to avoid Cross-namespace redirects which are not allowed. Also, given that you claim to be Jason Smith, the actor, you should not edit that article, per Misplaced Pages's Conflict of Interest guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not OK to use your real name to edit Misplaced Pages if your real name is also the name of someone famous, unless you are willing to prove it by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation office. Try info-en-q@wikimedia.org. It is also not forbidden to edit an article about you but it is discouraged, please read the conflict of interest policy. Thatcher 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, It's not like everyone knows my name. I'm not a household name like Barry Bonds. I was only asking if you're allowed to edit Misplaced Pages if you have an article about yourself. Jason (talk, profile) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit, although you might want to steer clear of the article about yourself for various conflict of interests purposes. However, if for whatever reason you think that somehow having you appear by your name here might in the future potentially lead to trouble, as anyone can see anything you do on the internet at any time, you might want to follow Moscow Rules like some of the rest of us do and use a name other than your real one. That is a matter which apparently several other editors have encountered, and I can't know that the same thing might happen to you, but stranger things have happened. By the way, this isn't actually my name either, although "John" is actually my middle name. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how true that is, Thatcher. Misplaced Pages:U#Real_names merely says You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. I've always assumed the {{userpage otheruse}} on my userpage, making it clear that Tonywalton is not Tony Walton. suffices. If I'm incorrect there let me know and I'll be on to the Foundation straight away to prove my bona fides! Tonywalton  09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You also might want to avoid using your real name if it's anything similar to this name in an XKCD comic, or if you've changed your name to GoldenPalace.com. --Elkman 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

T-Rex has some words of wisdom on this. But many Wikipedians use their real names, I used to use my full real name as a signature. Haukur (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Those words of wisdom could equally be taken to mean either "don't use your real name online" or "don't shoot your mouth off online", of course ☺ Tonywalton  14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

there are so many cranks on wikipedia, I'd suggest you'd be off your rocker to use your real name - I had people contact my place of work and all sorts of shit. Use an alias and don't tempt fate. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Outing of Misplaced Pages Editor User:Griot by Tawdry Tabloid Journalist

Comments on the Article

(this was posted by Griot as an additional subsection, originally copied from comments on User talk:Griot#Looks like you've been set up) —Random832 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was disappointed to read the article, having talked with her by phone and e-mail. I had nothing to tell her about you at all, nor any of the articles that she was interested in. —Whig (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We talked for awhile but she did not use anything that we discussed. I don't want to publish details inasmuch as I asked her to maintain the privacy of my real name and she has honored that. I have had no involvement in editing articles pertaining to Ralph Nader nor have I had any prior dealings with you. —Whig (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I exchanged some correspondence with her, but she lost interest when I wouldn't discuss any individual editors (in particular, Griot.) --jpgordon 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Original post

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

Submitted by: User:Griot

Last week, I was the subject of a tabloid article in the SF Weekly called "Misplaced Pages Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco" in which author Mary Spicuzza (Wikiname: Marynega) tried to “out” me and obtain my real name. The article explains how she employed her newspaper’s IT systems manager “to work some of his computer nerd magic,” presumably to link my IP address with my name. She then, on the basis of information from the IT manager, “hung out in Griot’s neighborhood” hoping to locate me. Was she trolling with a WIFI detection device looking for my IP address and home location? It’s hard to believe she would just walk around at random looking for me, because of course she doesn’t know what I look like.

Using the resources of a newspaper to unmask a person’s online identity is unconscionable, but there is even more to this tawdry episode. Mary Spicuzza subtitled her story “The Edit Wars of San Francisco.” However, Mary Spicuzza was moved to write her article not by disagreements at Misplaced Pages about San Francisco topics, but by something altogether more personal, as I will explain.

The cyber-vendetta. Mary Spicuzza wrote, “I first learned about (Griot) during a conversation with my sister, Jeanne... (He) seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page.” Mary Spicuzza doesn’t say that the “page” in question was in fact a Misplaced Pages article about Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Another editor nominated this article for deletion on notability grounds; I was one of 16 editors (out of 19) who voted to remove the article from Misplaced Pages. An article about Spicuzza’s company, Seasons & a Muse, Inc., was also removed. Mary Spicuzza also doesn’t mention that her sister Jeanne was banned on two occasions from Misplaced Pages for sock-puppeteering at Ralph Nader articles, each time for six months.

After Jeanne Marie Spicuzza’s “page” was removed from Misplaced Pages, another Spicuzza family member — she describes herself as “21 year old female,” where Jeanne Marie is nearly 40 — began keeping a MySpace blog about me. In her latest entry, she describes herself as “Accomplished,” gives a link to her aunt’s (sister’s?) SF Weekly article, and pronounces it “Awesome!” (The Wikip spamblock feature does not allow My Space links, but trust me.)

(In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister, it should be noted that Jeanne Marie claims to be unacquainted with Misplaced Pages. In the Comments section to her sister’s SF Weekly article she wrote, “I do not participate on Misplaced Pages, nor do I use it as a source” (see comment #10, dated Feb. 13, 2008). However, this statement contradicts author Mary Spicuzza’s claim to have heard about me first from her sister Jeanne; moreover, the quotes Mary Spicuzza used in her article show an understanding of my Misplaced Pages dealings with Jeanne Marie that Mary could not have acquired on her own.)

The hit is in. On Jan. 23 of this year, Mary Spicuzza joined Misplaced Pages under the name Marynega and wrote this invitation on my Talk page: “My name is Mary Spicuzza and I’m a reporter with the SF Weekly. I’m working on an article about Misplaced Pages and I’d love to speak with you. May I give you a call?” Given my history with the Spicuzza family, I let it slide. Next day, Mary Spicuzza wrote invitations to other Misplaced Pages editors, several of whom, I noticed, had had disagreements with me. She wrote six more times to my Talk page asking for an interview, five more than she wrote anyone else. Never did she mention her connection to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. She was counting on me not recognizing her name. She only wanted my perspective, she said, “on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia.”

The author clearly misrepresented herself, and it was easy to see why. Mary Spicuzza wanted to make me the subject of a tabloid article, something along the lines of: "At last I tracked down Griot. But should I tell him that I was Jeanne's sister? I pitied him, I really did. Still, he deserved what was coming to him. And I had tracked him this far. It would be a shame not to let him have it. But still, maybe I should wait a bit longer..." The author has trouble distinguishing between investigative journalism and theater.

False portrait of the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages editors who manage to slog through “Misplaced Pages Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco” will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.” She holds these views because she sees Misplaced Pages through her sister’s eyes and because she deliberately sought out people like her sister who had had run-ins with me. If Mary Spicuzza had looked objectively at my work on Misplaced Pages, she would have seen that 99 percent of what I’ve done here consists of copy editing to make articles easier to read. But Mary Spicuzza had a cyber-vendetta to pursue; her sister’s cyber-honor was at stake.

It gets even weirder. In a very odd twist, Mary Spicuzza’s article quotes her own niece (sister?) SeeknDistroi, who wrote her by e-mail, "Yeah, Griot. ... You disagree with him, he harasses you, you get blocked." I know that SeeknDistroi is a Spicuzza because her Oct. 17 entry at the Matt Gonzalez Talk page is identical to her Oct. 17 entry on her MySpace blog (“Investigation of edit history and User:Griot contributions reveal bad faith. Documentary to follow (how's that for a B-movie, Griot? Or should I say Matt?”). Mary Spicuzza quoted SeeknDistroi, her own niece (sister?), for her tabloid article about me, the evil Griot. How’s that for keeping to journalism ethics and standards?

Right about the time Mary Spicuzza was “hanging out in my neighborhood” looking for me, she wrote my Talk page to tell me what I suspected all along: “Hey Griot, I just wanted to give you a heads up — my editor and I have decided to make you the main focus of my newspaper article. Best, Mary.” We exchanged several messages after that, with me asking “Why me?” I wanted her to come clean about her connection to Jeanne-Marie Spicuzza and the Spicuzza blogger who have been harassing me for six months, but she didn’t do it. Finally, I wrote her a longer message by e-mail explaining that I knew who she was. I copied this message to her editor and managing editor, believing they should know the true motive behind her story. I told her, “Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking.”

Now a disclosure: Last week I was banned for one week for sock-puppeteering. I would like to apologize to the Misplaced Pages community for this. I can tell you with complete certainty that it will never happen again because I am not going to edit at Misplaced Pages anymore. This place makes me tired.

Where to now? I don’t think it matters to user Marynega (Mary Spicuzza) if she is punished at Misplaced Pages; she joined only to research her article. It doesn’t matter to me either whether she is punished or banned. For me, the larger questions that remained to be answered are:

1. Mary Spicuzza mentions interviewing members of the Wikimedia Foundation (she doesn't, of course, report what they said, as Misplaced Pages wasn't the real subject of her article). Did they talk about me with her? And if they did, do they have some kind of policy for talking about editors?
2. How safe is a Wikipedian's online identity? Does Mary Spicuzza's "magical computer nerd" have a chance of finding anyone's identity?
3. What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else pursuing an edit war off Misplaced Pages, in this case onto the pages of a print newspaper?
4. What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else misrepresenting themselves on Misplaced Pages for their own purposes? For example, should someone researching a topic be discouraged from registering if his/her only goal is to conduct private research by interviewing editors?

Documents of interest to this matter:

• The article: "Misplaced Pages Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco"
• Petition to delete the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article from Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza
• My Talk page (I'd like to get people's take on this): Griot's User Talk
• Tom Walsh and Will Harper: SF Weekly editors

Ummm - I'm not sure how this ties in here, but I just completed this checkuser request tonight - Alison 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages editors ...will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Very recognisable. Sounds like accurate reporting to me. Relata refero (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you have an axe to grind. did you actually read this hatchet-job, or are you simply projecting? --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. What's your point? Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I find the account above a little overheated, its basic facts are true and disturbing: a journalist decided to use her position and the resources of her paper to carry on an on-Wiki battle -- by stalking, personal attacks, and, in effect, the real-life equivalent of sockpuppeting by the quoting of a phony and misrepresented witness -- on behalf of her own sister. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was done deliberately and with malice aforethought. This is a textbook lapse of basic journalistic ethics and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and her editors, perhaps looking for yet another gotcha story, fell for it.

In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister... You don't need to bend over backwards to do that, given her long track regard of sockpuppetry -- which she's denied even when caught red-handed -- and ban evasions. Besides, given that she's posted at SF Weekly's website, she's left behind her IP number with them, and they can compare -- if the paper's management and editors have the slightest shred of intellectual honesty -- that IP number with edits made by the same IP number on Misplaced Pages. For their covenience, if they're reading this, they can just replace "XXX" with the IP number and see where it leads.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/XXX
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:XXX

Betcha I know what they find. --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that they'll care that their "investigative journalist" used a couple of sockpuppets to get a good story. Sometimes I wonder what happens to people's memories of RW ethical judgments once they spend enough time on here. Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having actual real-world experience of journalism, yeah, I do know that they'll care -- at least about the appearance -- of ethics, especially when the evidence in shoved in their faces, and I can easily dig up examples to back me up. Other than your content-free cynical affect of "the real world", what else do you wonder about? --Calton | Talk 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point, of course. The point was that standard journalistic ethics hardly cover the avoidance of sockpuppetry in order to get a story. (I can dig up examples of deception that are considerably worse. So much for "content-free".) Ours do, but we have different aims.

Other things I wonder about are available elsewhere on this board, particularly the persistence of incivility among some of our longer-term accounts. Relata refero (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether the Foundation has a policy on talking about editors is worth asking them about. We've had a couple of cases that suggest they don't have one, and I think it's needed, not only when it comes to talking about editors but article subjects too. SlimVirgin 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and i'll say it again, Outing is highly dangerous and will get a wikipedian killed or seriously injured. Also the foundation has a moral duty to protect its editors and atleast in Europe a legal duty to do just that. 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Killed? Natalie (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "killed" is a condition somewhere in between "deleted" and "redacted"(?) Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Indefinite block of Griot David D. (Talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. Ex-user Griot writes "In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Which pretty accurately sums up what Griot and his dozen or more sock puppets' contribution to the project has been in the course of his residence here. Read through his talk page--he was playing the Mary Spicuzza bit for all he could, blowing it into a major drama, writing volumes when a simple "I don't wish to speak with you" message to Spicuzzacould have ended it nicely. But noooooooooo, he has to turn his user page into an extended onanistic rant, providing ample fuel for Spicuzzi's fires all by himself. All the while lashing out at others rather than take responsibility for what his own bad behavior brought upon his own self. Outed? He outed himself. Well at least we won't be hearing his misogynistic rants anymore; "tawdry journalist"--how mid-20th century! Although in his latest email to me he informed me "It's been a long time since you got laid" and was kind enough to call me "a dried up " (ohh, I'm sorry, is that "outing the poor little fella?") Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Outed? He outed himself" No he didn't, but again i to am not going to defend his appalling behavior. What i want you and this journalist to understand that not every wikipedia editor lives in a nice safe western democracy. Other editors like me edit very controversial topics like Terrorism or Democracy, both which could lead an editor getting hurt if shes in the wrong part of the world. I'm glad this Griot is perm banned, sounds like hes been very disruptive, but there is a bigger issue at stake here. 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypno, I agree entirely with your sentiment. However, I don't think it applies to this case, in which the purported victim is just a boy behaving badly crying wolf and hiding behind a charge of "outing." In fact, from what I recall of the article, all of the info about Griot was gleaned from the public Wiki archives of Griot's own seemingly uncontrollable compulsion to engage in bombast; and I assume the SFN's own bombastic claim of sleuthery via IP address was itself gleaned from Wiki edit histories. Yes of course there are important issues here, but in this case, methinks the "outed" editor protesteth too much. Was it an unethical use of journalistic resources? I'll leave that for the paper to worry over; the article provided full disclosure in the article itself, and the authors trickiness in getting griot's attention is as old as the journalism game and pretty tame. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly going to stick my neck out to defend Griot as a constructive encylopedist, given his recently uncovered farm of sockpuppets and his long history of combativeness. Still, the most rational explanation of events here is that someone carried a Misplaced Pages-based grudge against him to the point of using the resources of a major publication to try to belittle and "out" him. Does anyone, anywhere, still have a sense of perspective? The fact that the editors of SF Weekly went along with this is puzzling, at best. Two conclusions: while anyone is free to say anything to the press, it might be worthwhile to have some sort of common-sense policy about what the Foundation will say about specific editors. Secondly, I used to wonder which was the lamer free paper: SF Weekly or the Bay Guardian (formerly a neck-in-neck race). Now there's a clear winner. MastCell  18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacking

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this. Someone seems to have added a non-existent page to my watchlist. How much else of the system is open to hacking? Peter jackson (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the right place to go. Nakon 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• You can save your time, though. Check the article histories; what probably happened was that an article on your list was moved to a new name (perhaps by a vandal) and then moved back, and the new name remains on your watchlist. --jpgordon 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean I should check the history for every article on my list? Is that saving time? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have anything to worry about, this is just the result of pagemove vandalism. If you really want to find out, go to the history page and click "view logs for this page" to see if there was a bad move somewhere. east.718 at 17:46, February 19, 2008

This thread made me smile. Even knowing this I still occasionally do a "WTF" when cleaning out my watchlist and see some bizarre title. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What history page? The non-existent article hasn't got one. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The history page of the article that was moved, if you know what it is. -Jéské 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But I don't: this is a circular argument. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Irony and ArbCom enforcement

Can someone other than myself deal with this? As a result of this AE report I placed Radical-Dreamer (talk · contribs) on a variety of editing restrictions per WP:ARBPIA. As you can see here, these restrictions included civility supervision. His first comment: this gem, aimed at yours truly. I'm unwilling to block, due to the fact that the comment was directed at myself - can someone else please decide on appropriate action? Moreschi 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the comment certainly was uncalled for, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing whether it's incivility, or just minor disgruntlement. He should certainly be warned about it, though, if he keeps it up, a block might be warranted. Justin_(u) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an accusation of abuse of admin tools is incivil, and someone on ArbCom civility parole ought to be more careful. Is WP:AE backed up, or should this report be directed there? Avruch 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly an assumption of bad faith. Read the terms of the civility supervision - you'll see those aren't permitted. ArbCom restrictions are supposed to be enforced fairly stringently. I brought this here, as opposed to AE, to get a fast response.. Moreschi 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give him a one-time pass to vent his frustration about being called on his disruptive editing, which he's just expended; and no more leniency from here on. But a block would certainly not be out of place, either, under the circumstances. The tactic of accusing an admin enforcing policy of being motivated by anti- bias says alot about the accuser, and it's really tired on this particular set of articles. MastCell  18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's not a "tactic" if the admin really does happen to be biased. (And I'm not talking about Moreschi, who I don't know from anything.) 6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Then why are you commenting here? MastCell  01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to your second sentence, which went beyond the scope of this particular incident. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be a fine line, but saying something "not nice" isn't the same as being uncivil or what some might consider rude. It's an unfavorable opinion, and a mild one at that. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image on Birth certificate

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

Content issue. No admin action required. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article for Birth certificate previously had an image (Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG) of a Russian birth certificate. The image was deleted due to its improper licensing and subsequently removed from the birth certificate page, based on the fact that its fair use claims by the uploader David Shankbone, who has a history of adding inappropraite photos to Misplaced Pages, were invalid and that its use in Birth certificate was unnecessary and added very little valid information to the article's content. The uploader has reverted my removal of the image and added it back into the article. The uploader is adding this image for novelty purposes, as it allegedly depicts the birth certificate of a pornographic actor, although this is unverified, as is the claim that the document is a birth certificate at all. The image is not beneficial to the article at all, as there are very few Russian-readers who visit the Engligh-language article for Birth certificate, and the remaining viewers will not understand the document's content. Furthermore, because the article has no section on Russian birth certificates, the image has no place on the article as there is no text in the article referring to Russian birth certificates. This further invalidates the user's claim that the image's use in the article is fair use. Please review this issue and advise at your earliest convenience. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG doesn't need any kind of fair use justification. It is freely licensed under the GFDL. Have you tried using the talk page or contacting David Shankbone directly before bringing this here? --Onorem♠Dil 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, your choice of a link to show his "history" of adding inappropriate photos is odd. If I remember correctly, his photos were largely supported in that discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The uploader was informed. The image was nominated for deletion, but all history of that issue has mysteriously erased itself from my contribution history. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the image was speedied - but only because an identical version of the same image was available from commons, and not because of any fault in licensing or origin. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the original reason for deletion, the main issue here is that the image does not currently contribute to the article at all. If David Shankbone has sufficient knowledge on Russian birth registration to add a section to the article, I welcome his addition. However, there are no sources to indicate that this image is actually that of a birth certificate. In my opinion, it looks more like a passport. Of course, I have no knowledge in this area, but this is simply my opinion. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet era paperwork of this type and age actually would be closer to a passport in design, depending on when and where it was issued. Your request to this noticeboard was for advice on the matter, and I have no evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than what the uploader claims it to be. In this case, with regard to this image in and of itself, I don't see any issues. The inclusion of the image in a particular article is a content issue, but I note that free images (such as this one) are always preferred to non-free images. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this right - someone uploads a picture of a Russian birth certificate, and despite having no knowledge whatsoever about the subject, you suggest that it might not even be a birth certificate? Wonderful. As for the photo itself, I'd say it adds to the article, especially as free photos of birth certificates are difficult to find. Black Kite 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rhythmnation2004 and Birth certificate issues

That's an interesting post by Rhythmnation. Not only did Rhythmnation lie about the reason for the removal of the photo, claiming it was a "deleted image", but also now questions whether the photo is a fake. Why is Rhythmnation here? Why are they not at the Talk page to discuss why a "Soviet birth certificate" does not belong on the Birth certificate article? What admin action, exactly, is an editor who removes sourced, cited content on an appropriate article by lying in an edit summary asking for? It seems pretty relevant for a global encyclopedia to mention in a sourced caption that the Soviets used to describe a Jewish person's nationality as "Jewish" and not "Soviet". But it's a content issue, not an admin issue. --David Shankbone 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did they label non-Jewish people as "Soviet"? "nationality" may not be the right translation if not. —Random832 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question, although it might be more relevant to wonder if they named people "Catholic" "Lutheran" "Greek Orthodox" etc. for the nationality. Considering the Soviet state was officially atheist, I would assume that other religions weren't considered "nationalities" but I'm sure a little research will answer. The citation I have makes mention of the history of "Jewish" being seen as a race (when it's not, it's a religion and ethnicity) as a way to single out Jews for discrimination. --David Shankbone 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually speculating that it might have been intended to refer to the ethnicity, and that the field in question would be filled in with other ethnicities. Regardless, it's not clear that a caption describing this issue belongs above the fold in an article about Birth certificates - Anti-semitism might be a more appropriate place —Random832 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that could be, but a lot of photos are used multiple times. my Scorsese photo is on a lot of articles I never placed it on. My issue is with a content question being raised on the admin board - it muddies the water too much between content and policy/guideline enforcement. It's hard to argue that my placement of a birth certificate on the Birth certificate article is superfluous, and how many people today are willing to have their birth certificates photographed and released GFDL? Not many... --David Shankbone 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhythmnation2004 has a long history of taking issues to noticeboard well before an issue needs to be brought there. He also has issues with ownership of articles, with this one in particular being one he feels attached to. Metros (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, my own encounters with this individual suggest he's a) time-waster (in regards to his contributions to those sorts of discussions) and b) forum-shopper - check out his recent waste of bandwidth "efforts" around Harry Potter. Similar waste of times are littered through his history. I see nothing here that requires any admin intervention or any evidence that all efforts to use normal dispute channels have been exhausted. Oh and I've asked him to remove the misleading "wikibreak" notice on his userpage (for full disclosure on my part). --Fredrick day (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Nandesuka and Michael Lucas (porn star)

This admin and I had an issue in Talk:Pubic hair awhile back, and now appears to be trolling pages (ones he never edited before) removing my work., this one they restored vandalism, , . Then Nandesuka went on Michael Lucas (porn star) and again renamed the man a name that was never his. Lucas has made it clear on the Talk page that he was never given his father's name. There are sources that only refer to him as "Treivas". Then, to top it all off, I actually photographed his Soviet birth certificate, his Soviet passport, AND his US passport that ALL show his name is "Andrei Treivas". What more does this guy need to do to not have Misplaced Pages rename him simply because our "reliable" mainstream media wantonly assumed he was given his father's name when his mother never did so? The photos of these documents, at Lucas' request, are on his Talk:Michael Lucas (porn star) page - what more is this guy supposed to do? Force New York Magazine to write a new article with the correct name so Misplaced Pages will stop calling him a name he never had? I seriously doubt he is running away from his father's name--his father actually works for him at his porn company! Two issues: Please advise the admin User:Nandesuka that his trolling my work and his poor editing that seem to be focused on me (hey, at least that IP troll is congratulating him); and two, can we finally put to rest the stupid 'Bregman' business considering three different forms of identification are photographed and provided on the man's talk page, all showing his birth name was "Andrei Treivas"? --David Shankbone 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Removing photos with an edit summary of "rv vanity" does seem to be assuming bad faith, especially when those photos do seem to be relevant to the subject. Black Kite 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems incontestable to me that WP:BLP mandates that Misplaced Pages can't be a primary source for biographies of subjects about which Misplaced Pages is writing. I personally am more than willing to believe that Michael Lucas's birth name is not Bregman, and I'm personally willing to believe that the documents you photographed are authentic. What I'm not willing to do is to substitute original research for a reliable source. Like it or not, New York Magazine published this fellow's name as Bregman. All we need to do is to find one reliable, independently-published source that refers to him without that name, and then we can put the issue to bed by citing that source instead of New York Magazine. Photos taken by Misplaced Pages editors don't seem to me to meet that (fairly low) bar. Nandesuka (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not establishing the info with a photo, but with a birth certificate. The photo is merely the mechanism to reproduce that info. Are you really suggesting that a journalist is a more reliable source for someone's birth name than their birth certificate? WjBscribe 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't this be a case for a (sometimes referred to as Adrei Treivas Bregman) notation? That would acknowledge the existence of another name in reliable sources while satisfying the BLP concern (the individual's name isn't actually that). Is there an OTRS ticket somewhere that refers to this? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Has he actually been called "Adrei Treivas Bregman" anywhere other than this one piece from New York Magazine? WjBscribe 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it make a difference whether he sends a copy of his birth certificate to OTRS or has it uploaded locally? If anything, the latter is better for verification purposes... WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was more asking if the subject had formally provided notice of the error, or if he had simply posted on the talk page claiming to be himself. Either way, the birth certificate is persuasive. WP:OR would come into play if an editor drew conclusions from that document, but using it as a reference to say "Michael Lucas, born Andrei Treivas, is..." in the lead. The birth certificate documents a birth, and that birth involves the name Andrei Treivas, so it could source a statement that an individual was born and, at birth, had a given name. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that current practice has passed me by, but I will simply say that I don't believe this is a correct interpretation of our policy against original research. Misplaced Pages is, at its core, a tertiary sourced encyclopedia. Relying on photographs of things that purport to be primary documents, especially when there are reliable sources that claim otherwise, in the absence of OTRS action, goes against our best practices. Nandesuka (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That you so frequently edit war over issues where you don't understand policy (or common sense) really raises grave concerns about your status as an admin. That you are following me around with some kind of bone to pick with me also makes it questionable. At the very least, you are simply hurting your reputation; at the worst, you are hurting Misplaced Pages and affecting people's lives outside of it who consistently have to tell people that 'Bregman' was never their name (thus, again, hurting Misplaced Pages since it makes us look silly). I wish you would give more thought to your behavior, since admins are supposed to be examples for the rest of us, and you aren't setting a particularly good one with your behavior. --David Shankbone 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to assume good faith is, in the end, your own problem. I will continue to edit diligently, regardless of your wish that your writing not be edited. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka's a good admin, David. This seems to have boiled up over nothing, and it's a shame to see two good editors fall out over it, because you both have a point. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about themselves, so if the subject puts his name on his blog, for example, we can source our article to it within reason. But Nandesuka's also right that we need to be careful about when we do this, just in case someone's trying it on with us. I'm not saying anyone is in this case, but that's probably Nandesuka's concern -- that, in general, this could be regarded as OR, so caution is required. SlimVirgin 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked only into the Michael Lucas matter. I find Nandesuka's position there to be absurd. We have a copy of the subject's birth certificate - an official document that establishes his birthname. Nandesuak has instead replaced this information with information sourced from a piece from New York magazine - based on whatever research the journalist conducted. The subject has confirmed the latter is inaccurate and provided us with proof of this? To demand third party publishing of the correct name in this circumstance is absurd, contrary to WP:BLP, against the interests of Misplaced Pages readers, and has the potential to make Misplaced Pages look fairly ridiculous. I am stunned that someone trusted by the community to exercise judgment could have done so in so poor a manner in this instance. WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. "Absurd" is putting it mildly. We have WP:BLP for a reason. Black Kite 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When you say "we have a copy of his birth certificate", do you mean "He has provided a copy of his birth certificate to WP:OFFICE" or do you mean "A Misplaced Pages editor has uploaded a photo of something purporting to be his birth certificate to a talk page?" If we mean the latter, I agree that the situation is absurd, but perhaps not quite in the way you intended. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you really boiling this down to such a formality? Are you saying that if he sent a copy of his birth certificate to office (either a photocopy or photograph would I believe satisfy the OTRS respondent) that is somehow better than allowing that same copy to be uploaded locally where it can be looked at by anyone? WjBscribe 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you suggesting that the birth certificate is fake, the photo is (brilliantly) PhotoShopped, or that the uploader managed to find a Russian birth certificate from someone born on the same day and with the same name? Black Kite 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that the provenance of the document in the photo simply isn't verifiable. But see my response to SV below. Nandesuka (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• We do allow subjects to offer us sources regarding issues like that -- names, birth dates and so on. If the subject has written his name on his website or blog, that would be enough for us normally, even without a birth certificate. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about that source. SlimVirgin 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd always considered such things to be original research, but I'll take your word that I'm behind the times on this. Thanks for the correction. Nandesuka (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And please stop following me around. Are you open to recall? You still received edit warring messages (the same way you edit warred on Pubic hair), and some of your judgment that I outline above, and some of your edit summaries, are hardly what I would call admin behavior User:Nandesuka. --David Shankbone 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Have a nice day. Nandesuka (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Being familiar with the Michael Lucas (porn star) article and issues, I suggest that if a reliable source has stated that his name is something other than Andrei Treivas (apparently Lucas' birth name) that we simply note it and correctly state that it was mistakenly reported by __ as "Bregman" although he never was given his father's name. Benjiboi 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, to articulate that his father is Bregman, but that he was never given that name at birth. Good suggestion Benji. --David Shankbone 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point here is that the birth certificate is the source? If it's an official government document, and anyone can walk into the appropriate office and pay for a copy, then it's both reliable and verifiable. Of course any online image or physical copy of it could be faked, but since we already accept offline-only sources that can't be an issue. On another topic, I'm confused about how a scan of a birth certificate can be released under the GFDL. Surely the scan shares its copyright status with the original, which presumably rests with the government in question. Are they releasing birth certificates under the GFDL? Bovlb (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The birth certificate is a primary source, and we're hardly in a position to gauge the meaning and/or authenticity of a photograph of it. Who know what the rules are for the issuing of Russian documents? Jayjg 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The alleged birth certificate in discussion is printed in the Russian language, using a Cyrillic alphabet. Who here is claiming expertise to read Russian, Bregman? The interview with New York Magazine was conducted with Andrei Treivas Bregman present and answering questions, was it not? The notion that one party in a court case used Misplaced Pages to identify the other side is preposterous. --72.76.88.140 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We can rely upon reliable sources to deal with this and I have little doubt that someone will be able to interpret what the birth certificate says. Is it a false document of some sort? I'd bet we'd find out sooner than later if so. It can certainly be noted in the context as presented as such and I'm quite puzzled as to the Tin Hattish concept that Lucas is somehow engineering a pretty wonky plan to prove identity. Benjiboi 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to article talk) Hi, I read cyrillic, as a matter of fact. I transliterate his name in the documents supplied as "Andrei Lvovich Treivas" (or "Treyvas" would work as well), "Lvovich" being Mr. Treivas' patronymic. Also, did a quick search and found this link to a book that may help: . Once you get there, click the "see inside" button at the bottom of the cover art. His name is mentioned in the first sentence. Hope that meets everyone's needs. IronDuke 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

One does not read cyrillic; cyrillic is not a language. The word "cyrillic" is an adjective used to describe the alpahabet invented by Saint Cyril. The Russian language is written in the cyrillic alphabet. Already the veracity of your post is in question. Further, though you use the term "transliterate" correctly, you did not actually transliterate the documents supplied -- you may have correctly transliterated the words in a photo of a document purporting to be a birth certificate, which has not been certified in any reliable way. The book you reference is an unauthorized bio of Lucas of which he has completely disavowed himself. Thus, the only remaining reliable sources say that Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman.--72.76.80.193 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page of the article. And quite frankly I can't help but note that User:David Shankbone had been recently harassed by one or several anons in this manner across multiple forums. At this point I may be reading trolling or stalking behavior into a situation that isn't but I'll go ahead and point out that both are prohibited and will also effectively backfire as almost every case I've seen the articles have greatly improved and POV agendas neutralized. If you don't like Lucas ignore him. Benjiboi 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it's harassment of DS or an agenda of some kind, latest diff. R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One does not read cyrillic; cyrillic is not a language. The word "cyrillic" is an adjective used to describe the alpahabet invented by Saint Cyril. The Russian language is written in the cyrillic alphabet.

• Thanks very much for the “correction,” though it is at best meaningless, at worst incorrect. One can indeed speak of reading “Cyrillic” and have individuals of even modest intelligence comprehend what is being said, as you ably demonstrate. Want proof? First hit on Google: . I know, I know, it’s only Yale, but still.

Already the veracity of your post is in question.

• It is a troubling thing to me when drive-by anons question my veracity. I suppose I’ll find a way to soldier on, though.

Further, though you use the term "transliterate" correctly, you did not actually transliterate the documents supplied -- you may have correctly transliterated the words in a photo of a document purporting to be a birth certificate, which has not been certified in any reliable way.

• Ah… What? Are you actually serious?

The book you reference is an unauthorized bio of Lucas of which he has completely disavowed himself. Thus, the only remaining reliable sources say that Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman.

• You are essentially using Lucas as a source here to trash the bio. Assuming that is correct (and I have no idea if it is), you are therefore using Lucas as an authority on himself. Lucas maintains that his last name is not Bregman—but we can’t take his word on that? I am now quite concerned at your veracity, oh anonymous one. IronDuke 01:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Taulant23, incivility

Pls take a look here, is the reason the barnstar was given tolerable? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just found out User:Taulant23 is already on civility parole... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no barnstar on that page, there is a barnstar on this page User talk:Dodona#Barnstar, are you talking about a month old barnstar here?--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's that one, Dodona had it on display on his user page for a while but was kind enough to remove it when asked. See duplicate thread further below, #User:Dodona. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latha P Nair

Latha P Nair (talk · contribs) has been adding a link to Comparison of office suites into dozens of articles on application software and technologies. In many cases, the link seems of questionable relevance, since the comparison deals only with current office suites. For example, the addition of the link to the article on the long-defunct CEO (Data General) doesn't seem helpful, nor does it seem useful in Pivot table. The editor is not responsive to concerns raised on their talk page, and has re-added the links after their removal in some cases.

This is a relatively minor matter, so would I be overreacting if I issue a block for say 24 hours to try to force the user to discuss their edits? What other options are available when the editor does not respond to talk page queries?-gadfium 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They have continued to place the link in many more articles. I have rolled back the edits and blocked indefinately until they are willing to discuss their edits.-gadfium 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

White Cat

ANI regular User:White Cat is at it again. In keeping with his regular pattern of overreaction when confronted with editors who disagree with him (compounded in this case by the high emotional drama and general juvenalia of the ongoing episodes debate), User:White Cat is "assembling evidence" to "prove" the meatpuppetry of another editor. I think it's a vicious smear, but admin attention would be appreciated, especially since making this kind of very public accusation at arbcom is inappropriate. Relevant link is here and here. Of course, I may be wrong that making sock/meat accusations against other editors at an unrelated arbcom case is not problematic. Eusebeus (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's at ArbCom. I think we'll just have to let them deal with this trash. I'm pretty sure they can see this for what it is. --Haemo (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Eusebeus that this appears very inappropriate and that this aggressive behaviour is also typical for White Cat. Incidentally, I had posted to AN regarding the same issue, to little response. User:Dorftrottel 22:50, February 19, 2008
• What sort of admin action are you looking for? White Cat will not be blocked on ANI for actions on an ArbCom evidence page or workshop without a fight because this is a dangerous precedent. ArbCom can, will and has before considered all behaviour including behaviour during a case. Think the Badlydrawnjeff case. Just leave this to ArbCom because it causes more drama than good to do otherwise. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Some form of oversighting might be needed, but so far no one has requested it. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • True but the arbitrators are more than well-equipped to deal with that themselves. Leave it to them. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond his sock allegation, he is accusing just about all the editors he disagrees with of meatpuppetry;

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)

I suppose this is primarily the ArbCom's remit, but more eyes are welcome. There are only a few ArbCom members and they are busy. ANI regular? He's only edited an/i 880 times; a bit over 2% of his edits — this is his most edited page after his user and talk pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to Fidel Castro

Someone is using template transclusion to vandalize Fidel Castro, as you will see the second you click the wikilink. I caught User:PlantDraft doing this and reverted and warned him, but it appears he has help. Administrator assistance is requested. --Agüeybaná 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Related to Higher vandalism I reported above...I've reported him to WP:AIV. Nate • (chatter) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he had assistance from User:Ruddigger. Sockpuppet, probably. Anyway, this has been solved for now. --Agüeybaná 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one too. There's definitely some socking going on here... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Related to User:Poloris's vandalism on Bobby Robson yesterday? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we "obey" this . Because Mr. Fidel Castro is a communist that has ruled Cuba for 5 decades with an iron fist. Misplaced Pages is just honoring Castro the same way it has an article on Hitler. People proably Vandalize the article of Castro because they are againist his dictaorship he has held since the 1950s. I support these people because they fight for freedom, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Asking us to "repect" the article, is saying to "respect" Hitler and the Final Solution. I have the right to free speech by the Founding Fathers of the USA. Misplaced Pages cannot censor me. Its a violation of the First Ammendent. Rio de oro (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a private website, and we are neutral; that means that we neither support nor oppose these people or their actions in their respective articles. You have no right to free speech here. Get used to it. --Agüeybaná 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FREE. It gives a good explanation of why you have no right to free speech over here. The article about Castro is supposed to be written neutrally, meaning that a person who will read it will not be influenced positively or negatively about Castro-they'll form their own opinion. Having access to unbiased information is one of the best things about democracy. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was to a template: Template:Cleanup-rewrite which effects potentially hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles. It just happened that the Fidel Castro article was the most visible. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was probably less to do with Castro's politics than someone obtaining lulz from getting large, floating, difficult to remove pictures of wangs on as many WP articles as possible. It's not a new idea by any means... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Rio de oro. Exactly how does adding a penis template to an article constitute fighting for freedom? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My toughts exactly, our goal here is to present a neutral biography, not push our own pov because we disagree with the actions of a certain politician. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you guys techinally wrong, the servers are in the USA. So its USA law. Get it right you Cubans. --Rio de oro (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things, number one I'm not Cuban and I hold no particular POV over the country's political status, and two your last comment can be considered a personal attack, I recommend that you stop your pov-pushing and political trolling before you get blocked for personal attacks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the servers are, the US constitution says that congress shall not pass laws that restrict the right to free speech; it says nothing about private websites like Misplaced Pages. Get it right you gringo. --Agüeybaná 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You really are an idiot, Rio de oro. Fire in a crowded theatre mean anything to you? Can we just block this obvious troll already? JuJube (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to reopen Archtransit's sock cases and other actions

Archtransit's short career as a sysop included killing a number of suspected sock reports. In at least one case he deemed a SSP "counterproductive" which another admin later closed as an obvious sock.

Suspected sock closes to be reopened

• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Rohit tripathi60 reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Deanrules reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/124.185.79.125 reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Nationmaster reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note this does not presume a different conclusion will be met. It is merely appropriate cleanup after the actions of the user in question. Whoever reviews the last of these four, please note there is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore all comments should be set aside in re-evaluating the case.

Good thing these where re-opened, as Archtransit's actions have just proven to be wrong. Tiptoety 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Other actions

I have reopened the above sock closes; someone else needs to review his ANI and other project space actions since January 9 - 10, when his RFA passed and he ceased being scrutinized by the community.

Can a note be posted below when this is done, and any dubious matters noted and reopened or fixed?

FT2  00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Doing...Tiptoety 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, all looks okay, as there really is not much project space contributions during that period of time. There are two AfD's that where closed by him during that time though, those being Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Madiun Stadium (which had a clear consensus), and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush (which had a somewhat clear consensus). I do not see the need to re-open them though. Tiptoety 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New concern, Congolese fufu (talk · contribs) supported the Boeing 747 FAC. I just realized s/he was involved somehow in all those blocks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Its looking strongly like Congolese fufu was a sockpuppet of Archtransit. Investigating further, I noticed that one of the accounts in Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion identified as a sock of Congolese fufu, Wikipeace2008 (talk · contribs)'s edits bore a similarity to Fairchoice (talk · contribs). FT2 has confirmed that Wikipeace2008 is a match for Archtransit so it would appear all the accounts confirmed as socks by Alison in that check were also Archtransit. WjBscribe 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also take a look at this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg, and then this edit made by Fairchoice (talk · contribs). After Jehochman (talk · contribs) blocked profg (talk · contribs), Archtransit blocked Jehochman. Tiptoety 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- I've been looking at Congolese fufu (talk · contribs · logs) for a while as a possible Dereks1x (talk · contribs · logs) sock. He has been found to use socks; it doesn't surprise me to learn that he was involved in these blocks done by Archtransit who appears to be a Dereks1x sock. Easy enough to connect the dots - also please note that a confirmed Dereks1x sock is named Peace2008 (talk · contribs · logs) and one of C.f.'s confirmed socks was named Wikipeace2008 (talk · contribs · logs). Further evidence tieing the two sockfarms together. Tvoz |talk 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we need to start reviewing all of their contributions.....*sigh* Tiptoety 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone point me at a list or a category that summarizes all of these? I need to go through a lot of contribs and old FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the list of socks identified so far can be found at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Dereks1x and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Archtransit. Should the two groups be merged under the Dereks1x moniker since Dereks1x is the older of the accounts? --Bobblehead 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobblehead. What about the similarity between this and the recent posts to you and Wasted Time R? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Archtransit for the other possible socks. WjBscribe 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're talking about Zzalzzal (talk · contribs) and this comment, SandyGeorgia? He certainly has the woe is me personality and tenacity that is common with Dereks1x when he get's caught breaking the rules. The most striking similarity is the unsupported accusation of Wasted Time R and I being in collusion together. The accusations of collusion and sockpuppetry against anyone that doesn't agree with him is something that Dereks1x socks frequently make. There is a lot of similarities between Fairchoice's unblock request and Zzalzzal's unblock request as an example. --Bobblehead 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It probably would be a good idea to consolidate all the socks into a single sock category, though, to allow for an easier time finding any characteristics which may have been displayed earlier in one or more of the accounts used. John Carter (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And the answer from Thatcher is that Zzalzzal is unrelated but peculiar. --Bobblehead 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Irony. Avruch 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Are we sure that the Dereks1x and Archtransit sock farms are related beyond the coincidental Peace2008/Wikipeace2008 connection? Is there any checkuser evidence? For example, the contribs histories of the socks don't look at ALL alike... Dereks1x's socks mostly edit American political articles (like Obama, Romney, Clinton, etc.) while Archtransit's socks mostly edits Aviation articles. And I am pretty sure Archtransit is British; he worked rather a lot on the Manchester article, for example. Now, aren't we giving ARchtransit a LOT of credit to be able to maintain two separate sock farms that each edit their own completely unrelated sets of articles, one of which appears to be familiar with only American topics, and the other British? I just don't see the connection... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • LIkewise, Congolese Fufu does not appear to be among the Archtransit camp. I don't see the connection looking at the contribs history again. Congolesefufu, in terms of geographic articles, edits mostly articles on northeastern US schools (Dartmouth, Seton Hall). Also, the contribs history is quite full, and seems to overlap the contribs history of Archtransit in such a way as to preclude one person using both accounts, unless he was literally swapping between the two for each edit, and keeping each account editing its own topics. Nope, still don't see that one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking at Profg, other than the fact that Fairchoice, a now confirmed Archtransit sock, commented on his checkuser case, appears to edit mostly junk science and snake-oil articles. For a geographic connection, he edited extensively on an obscure Georgia 10th district special election: , which doesn't seem to match Archtranit's farm at all. There's just no connection in the edit histories, and again, check how that on September 1, while profg was editing some articles, archtransit was busy spamming welcome notices to new members . Again, no connection seems to exist. We really need to check these carefully before labeling them as Archtransit socks. It is easy to go overboard, and find his socks hiding everywhere, but we need to take time and really investigate these. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Dereks1x also has a history of editing aviation related articles. See confirmed sock TL500 (talk · contribs). The connection is also based on Thatcher's response to Jersyko noting a similarity between Archtransit and Dereks1x. You should also be aware that Dereks1x socks have previously indicated they live in/are from various non-US countries. --Bobblehead 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Its one thing to claim on a talk page that you are from/not from a certain country. However, when you look at editing patterns, it becomes harder to hide. Editors always "come home" and most, if not all, editors tend to edit articles in their geographic comfort zone. Its isn't about what the editors claimed; Archtransit's edits of the articles relating to Manchester show a familiarity of someone who knows the city well; likewise Profg familiarity with obscure American elections or Dereks1x's many socks that show close ties to American politics. The aviation connection is likely coincidental. Since there is no actual geographic connection among the aviation articles, and there are likely airplane fans or aviation engineers from many places, its hard to pin a real connection on that coincidence. Also, look at the contribs and editing times. The assumed sockmaster in each of these cases (Dereks1x, Archtransit, and Profg) were often editing at the same minute and in ways that seem to preclude that they are infact the same human at the keys. I've linked some evidence that precludes Archtransit and Profg being the same person, as far as the Dereks1x and Archtransit, while they don't directly overlap, consider that Archtransit edited almost exclusively in the time window of 17:00-23:00, while Dereks1x and all of his socks edit almost exclusively in the 01:00-05:00 window. Are you going to tell me that Dereks1x was blocked, and came back as Archtransit 3 months later, and was careful to edit 5 hours earlier consistantly so no one would notice, and keep it up that way for months? I mean, even if this guy is a total asshole, he still has a job and other things in his life, right? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I would say that Profg is unrelated. The different editing times of Archtransit and Congolese fufu can be most easily explained as one editing exclusively from work and one editing exclusively from home. (And in fact, there is evidence of parallel work and home sock farms here.) There are other compelling and technical reasons to consider them as confirmed sockpuppets of each other. It seems very likely that Dereks1x is ultimately behind it all, although it is not necessary to prove that to know that this user is a problem. Thatcher 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The mesage I left on Congolese Fufu's page was after a RFCU (You know, the one where Archtransit blocked Jehochman for doing a short block). I guess that if Archtransit appeared in the check, considering what happened, a checkuser would have put 1 and 1 together at that time. So my guess is that both know each other but are not the same. -- lucasbfr 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • • • The time difference could be explained if a user's work shift, school schedule changed or if impacted by another when their schedule changed, assuming their timing has remain stable might be in error. Benjiboi 11:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there is some question on the subject, I merely wanted to note that as someone familiar with Dereks1x and company, I am 100% certain that the Dereks1x sock farm and Archtransit are related. I'm not sure where Jayron32 got the "3 months later" mark. Archtransit began editing in earnest quite soon after User:VK35 was indefinitely blocked. · jersyko talk 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32 should also compare Archtransit (talk · contribs)'s edit times to VK35 (talk · contribs)'s edit times. VK35 edited between 15:00 and 01:00, which, aside from starting 2 hours earlier, conveniently overlaps Archtransit's editing times. Granted, that doesn't show anything more than a possible timezone relationship, but it does show that there was a change in Dereks1x's editing times from when he first started up to Archtransit's creation. As far as the "coming home", if Archtransit wanted to become an admin in order to "protect" his other sockpuppets, he would have been stupid to return to American politics. The editors in the American politics area have picked off 60 of his sockpuppets, there is no way he would have lasted more than a few days if he had edited in that area. --Bobblehead 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AH! The VK35 account does appear to be a bridge, both temporally and in editing style between the two sock farms. Of particular note, from my point of view, is the new user talk page welcome spam. Look at the July 8 contribs of VK35 and the September 1 contribs of Archtransit . Almost a dead match. Also, looking at the talk-page comments at User talk:VK35 it is clear that VK35 is also a Dereks1x sock. Wow. Has checkuser connected the two sockfarms yet? Do we atleast have a geographic connection (do Dereks1x and Archtransit and/or their sockfarms at least edit from the same country?). That would be the clincher on that one, and it would seem we have probable cause to at least check into that. Any checkusers out there want to look into it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

VK35 is currently too old to check. I have been informed by Dmcdevit who checked him that he edited from the same range as the current accounts. Thatcher 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Something else I was thinking of. Since both Archtransit and VK35 spent some time "welcoming" new users on a few occasions early in their careers, is it worth looking into to see if these "new users" that they welcomed were in fact part of this sock farm, and not new users at all? Just an idea to keep an eye on. They may have been legitimate, but also they may have been a way to "mark" the sock accounts by the sockmaster... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayron, there are many overlaps in style and focus that illuminate the connection between the ongoing Dereks1x farm - not just Dereks1x himself - and the Archtransit farm: too many for mere coincidence. And it is not just article edits, it is also talk space and various WP pages where he comments and actions in which he participates, like this one. As for the "coming home" issue - this is a dedicated impostor who carefully, and sometimes not so carefully, constructs personas that would appear to be internally consistent and unrelated to the traditional Derek edit areas and one another, but then sometimes one sock would edit the area that another sock specialized in, or one would comment on a particular matter in a certain way that was unmistakable to those of us unlucky enough to be dealing with him. He does research and always labors to create an edit story, but sooner or later one or another edit will catch someone's attention. It rarely has been as obvious as returning to the American politics articles, but is nonetheless easily spotted. At least for the 60 or so Derek socks we've found. As I said before, I am completely sure that there are some lurking in the wings waiting to be activated (I have also thought of the "welcome" edits as possible flags although he hasn't seemed to need that), and others quietly editing away making their histories and friends on various projects, maneuvering toward adminship, and likely one or more that already have become admins. Probably some more editors who have been blocked are part of this too but they weren't checked for the overlaps. Tvoz |talk 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I got all of that. We're already well past that, but thanks for explaining it all again. What we need to do is look into possible other outlets of this sock farm; to stop it in the future. That is why I was attempting to steer the direction of the investigation into the welcome spam. It could be an attempt to flag his own sockfarm for future uses; most of these welcomed accounts have not edited since being welcomed; which is kinda suspicious, like they are lying dormant. It gives us a list to work from to keep an eye out for future abuse. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

Hi all. After the recent kerfuffle over the Sussexman checkuser case, I took a closer look at Giano's ArbCom election to see if any further sock-puppetry could be seen from some of the SPAs which voted there. It has already been proven by checkuser that User:David Lauder has voted no less than four times there. Unfortunately, I found another account which I initially suspected was connected with someone else.

Given that it was obvious that the account was also set up to make the minimum threshold for franchise and little else, I ran a checkuser on the account, per checkuser policy. This was the result;

 Confirmed - the following:

1. Sweetfirsttouch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. La voz de su amo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As checkuser cases go, this was pretty straightforward and was a direct hit. The account User:La voz de su amo was actually used to troll on ETA-related articles, adding information about Sinn Féin. This account created an article that User:R. fiend eventually got into trouble over when he blocked User:Domer48. Trolling and votestacking on ArbCom elections.

The account, User:Sweetfirsttouch was actually used during the ArbCom case when Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked to evade the indef block placed on his account at the time. It was created two days after his indefinite block.

User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.

Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - Alison 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not controversial in the slightest, to me. If we're going to be even handed, block evasion is block evasion. It's obvious that VK snookered us all. I am blocking all three accounts per the ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All three accounts now blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, agreed, not controversial at all. How irritating to lose two editors, VK and David Lauder, in a few days; both were very good content editors when they weren't participating in such shenanigans. Black Kite 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversial? Probably among a certain clique, despite their robust support for Lauder et al's block for essentially the same transgression. Personally, I see no other option now. Though I find it rather tragic. After all the problems, all the discussion and all the effort good editors put into rehabilitating Vk, only for it to be thrown away for such a pointless reason. Rockpocket 07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel particularly hurt over this one. While I was defending his indef block against many of his supporters and under huge pressure (remember all that?), VK just waited the minimum time until his autoblock expired, then he was off again editing away and preparing his backup plan, while everyone agonised over his block. He took us all for a ride. Then he used another account to try to get Ógra Shinn Féin worked into the ETA articles by posing as a Spanish Nationalist. When he was done with that, he used his sock to votestack on ArbCom elections (not just Giano's, but many others) - basically doing what Lauder's socks were doing. Ugh! - Alison 08:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. Looking back through that ArbCom, he was denying he had operated sock or meat puppets previously (despite the overwhelming evidence) at the very same time he was operating another sockpuppet. For sheer gall, it is pretty remarkable.

This was a good find, Ali, as I hadn't bothered looking for socks, stupidly thinking no-one would be foolish enough to do it again having been caught before. I guess he felt there was no way back from his indef block and thus had nothing to lose by creating a new account. Of course, that likely means that exactly the same thing will happen this time. Rockpocket 09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but cannot be helped. While I was on Giano's side during the whole Troubles fiasco, there was no denying that VK was problematic, and there is now irrefutable evidence of this. I actually think this should show Lauder's supporters that Alison is, as she always was, a neutral party to this affair, but it's sad that both ringleaders of the antagonism on the Troubles articles - both good contributors - had to be indefinitely blocked in the end rather than them rehabilitating themselves. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 09:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's going to be the outcome here? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All the accounts are indef blocked. Vk has the same recourse to appeal as any other blocked editor, should he choose to do so. If he continues to use socks to avoid the block then those will be blocked too. We move on. Rockpocket —Preceding comment was added at 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason they should both be blocked indefinitely is that they have both socked abusively. They probably thought they were faced with no other option. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• and therein lays the problem. Having respect for the rules and regulations that govern edits here is a basic requirement for keeping your editing rights. Spartaz 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I wonder if I might put forward a suggestion: (1) as of right now, no more sockpuppets for anyone involved in 'the Troubles' ArbCom. All existing sockpuppets to be declared by e-mail (so no public humiliation) to (?) Alison; duplicate accounts to be quietly extinguished by her. Vintagekits, David Lauder, and Counter-revolutionary (I'm not sure whether I should include him) all go away and read a book for two weeks. A line in the sand and general amnesty. (2) Thereafter, any participant in 'the Troubles' ArbCom gives authority to (?) Alison to check their account and/ or any other suspicious account; Alison to have free rein to check any account listed as a participant in 'the Troubles' ArbCom.

Only my suggestion; but it'd be nice to be able to move on from this malarkey. We save two useful contributors and stamp out the abuse going forward. Now shout me down! --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In David's case, if we went through with this (and I am holding my opinion on that, for the moment) I think we would need a full apology for any and all legal threats that he made as well. SirFozzie (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

why why why do we want all this drama - just tell him to fuck off, ban the account and be done with it. I dread to think how many more thousands of manhours this user could waste. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you, Fredrick, just I don't want to be accused of trying to stomp on possible ways forward. I have trouble determining what to think in a situation where one side Assumes Bad Faith, and the other side takes advantage of Assuming Good Faith. SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with handing out bans is that, because they are so easy to evade, they are not effective. In their own fields both of these individuals are valued contributors; both of them know that they're not supposed to do this and there is no reason to suppose that, if banned, they won't simply start all over again. So: suggestion - give Alison the list of IP addresses and let her police the participants of 'the Troubles' ArbCom. (Diverting slightly, I'm astonished that ArbCom didn't run a checkuser against all the participants at the time; had they done so, it would have apparently uncovered some of this abuse at that stage.) Personally, I've got no problem with her running a checkuser against me, formally or informally, because I know that I've never edited under a separate account. SirFozzie: thank you for replying. I'm not sure that rubbing DL's nose in it would be helpful. As I understand it, the dispute was of a private nature and didn't involve WP itself; best to let bygones be bygones? PS - I've added a new User box to my User page which you might like to copy.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, so because bans and blocks are easy to evade, let's not bother blocking or banning anyone ever again ok? I couldn't care less how many articles or how much content anyone has written, when any editor trangresses to the extent we've seen recently it's time to say no more. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I write. If you want to block or ban these individuals now, fine. Will it be effective? Almost certainly not. However much we might disapprove, it might be more sensible to (try to) apply a remedy which will work rather than impose the strict letter of the law, which won't. Ultimately, all that you or I can do is make our points - the decision isn't in our hands. I also like to think my proposal is slightly more humane, which is a bit of a bonus as far as I'm concerned!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I endose your appeal to unblock willyonwheels. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What remedy do you think will be effective with David Lauder? He was banned by ArbCom for legal threats - and evaded the ban and made more legal threats. He was banned by ArbCom from editing articles about a certain politican and his activities for a year - and he evaded the ban using sockpuppets. ArbCom require him to edit using only one account and when logged in - and he evaded that using multiple accounts and IPs. Please, what possible remedy do you actually think will work? He's ignored every single remedy that's ever been used against him hasn't he? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good work Alison. Endorse indef block. --John (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both these editors will be back, in fact I'm sure they are busy editing from other sock accounts as we speak (Vk admits as much ). If they continue to edit in a policy compliant non-controversial manner there is every chance they will be able to return without anyone ever finding them. If they continue to edit in the manner in a problematic way then their accounts will be discovered and blocked immediately. Such is the game we play with many indef blocked users, I don't see why these two should be treated differently. Rockpocket 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite. They will be back. I suggest a pragmatic solution. We insist on a stipulated user name, in these cases User:David Lauder and User:Vintagekits. The users are not allowed any socks, even normally legitimate ones. They also forfeit the normal precautions of checkuser, and may be checkusered at any time. In fact they should expect this to occur randomly and without their knowledge. They accept this as a condition of continued editing. They are placed on a list for this purpose. They may apply to be removed from the list after two years of good conduct, including 3RR, civility etc. They are blocked for one month in the first instance to give everyone else a rest. This period of time also means checkuser will be able to be used in the meantime: too long a block will lose the data. Tyrenius (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• My only problem with that is that it appears to reward unwillingness to abide by policy. If every abusive sockpuppeteer were allowed to stay on the grounds that they would be back anyway, we'd have something of a problem. The problems with these guys' behaviour is not only the sockpuppetry, both have been quite disruptive and have caused a lot of aggravation, even given the parallel history of worthwhile contributions. VK has been on the noticeboards on and off pretty much since he arrived, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Ban the fuckers and block their socks if they come back. People are forgetting that checkuser is not magic pixie wiki dust. They are also forgetting that ALISON IS NOT GOD (yet). Tyrenius's proposal is an open invitation for smart sockpuppetry: one account at work and one at home and who's to know we're being fooled again? Evading checkuser is not that difficult, guys - ban'em and we can revert all their edits + block the socks (which are inevitable, yes) on behaviour pattern. What, just because sockpuppetry is inevitable we stop banning people? Noo, it doesn't work that way, not least because even if we don't ban them they'll still make socks anyway. Heaven's sakes...Moreschi 10:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And how do you suggest we deal with users who blatantly violate other policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, attacking other users with profanity and shouting into the bargain? That kind of aggression is something that has at times contributed considerably to the unpleasantness of the Troubles situation, and is part of the problem, not of the solution. An analysis of behaviour patterns and checkuser are not mutually exclusive. Checkuser in this case was obviously not easy to evade, and behaviour patterns were not pinned down. My proposal is no more such an invitation for "smart sockpuppetry" than exists with any other solution. Tyrenius (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are so many attempts to bend over backwards for guys like this. To be sure, their signal-to-noise ratio is higher than that of the typical banned vandal, but if other editors are spending two hours on unproductive administrative work for every hour of "good" encyclopedia editing by David Lauder and Vintagekits, how does that help the project? If people are going to volunteer their time to build this encyclopedia, we should do all we can to help valuable contributors maximize their efficiency. Ban editors who cause significant disruption, no matter how much other "good" they do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, as did a number of admins, but ArbCom did not, when it examined the Troubles editors. Perhaps existing practices need to be made more severe. Editors may be indef blocked and then 6 months or a year later be allowed back. If so, then my solution should be implemented. Although I used the present cases as an example, it was really intended for more general application. Tyrenius (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Moreschi is right. A lot of us have wasted a huge amount of time and effort trying to mediate The Troubles related articles (notably Alison and SirFozzie) and if we can't tell the people who have wasted ours and everyone else's time through operating sockfarms to just fuck off and not come back then we might as well give up now. Yes, VK and Lauder were productive editors when they weren't gaming the system, and it;s unfortunate that we have to lose their editing skills, but frankly patience is limited. Not to mention that I strongly suspect that all the socks in this area haven't been uncovered yet. Black Kite 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He may be right in what he says, but not in the way he says it. That creates more poison. Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

At least wikipedia is being fair and unbiased, ie not taking sides, by indef blocking both. Personally I think this should be at arbcom enforcement with say a 3 month ban on each of them with the date reset for sock evasions, isnt that more how arbcom works and both carrot and stick. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't support yet another last chance. Has anyone else ever been indef blocked three times and still be the subject of a discussion about another chance? What both these editors have demonstrated is that they have no respect for our policies. Last time they were blocked the just went and created another account and used it abusively. They are almost certainly doing exactly the same thing now. We simply can't continue to tolerate that. Lets move on and spend our time on something constructive. Rockpocket 00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep them indef blocked, at least for about 3 months, then ask them to email asking for unblock, along with promises to behave, after that. Socks are fine for everyone to have for unrelated pages if we want, but they shouldn't really be used to back each other up/edit the same pages- used abusively. Vote stacking on Giano's ArbCom vote, even, took place on both sides. For now at least, these are excellent blocks all round. Oh and... it won't be that hard to enforce as they'll be quite easy to spot if they edit the same pages in the same way. If such people turn up, checkuser at the first sign of disruptive editing etc. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Using Misplaced Pages as an IM service

This page, User talk:Ajk5055, appears to be two people chatting to eachother by signing into the same account. I am not sure what should be done about this, or even if this is not allowed, so I posted the incident here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page should probably be blanked of their comments, and then protected if they ignore warnings. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments blanked. Let's see if they express any interest in editing properly. Tyrenius (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

<<blanked as a human diginty matter>>

They apparently had a lot of problems trying to use this for chat. Ironically this post talks about how they use cell text messaging, e-mail, AND Skype, but are using a Misplaced Pages talk page for communications... oh man, I gotta save this. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the comments I can't help but feel bad for them. This appears to be the communication between parents and their daughter while she's on her way to or already on another continent. In the instances where the page was used there must have been a reason that was the only option, since email certainly would've been easier. I feel like saying "have a heart, IAR". But that's just me. They haven't edited anything other than their talk page, so I don't see the harm. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:43, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

True. I guess we could leave a note on the talk page recommending a better site or something. Still, funny stuff :D -- Ned Scott 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Tyrennus warn (or better still, politely steer) them before blocking? Since the talk page history was deleted, I have no way of knowing, but it seems unlikely to me that these people would carry on their conversation if they knew an outsider was not only reading but actively disapproving from a position of authority on the site. This whole section seems a bit inappropriate to me. I don't see why we needed to draw any attention to them (and post excerpts here), let alone block, unless we know that gentle, quiet reminders have already failed. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that the only other account to edit that user talk page was SineBot. If necessary, I'll undelete the rest of the history, but I don't think we need all of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No offense Ned but it really seems like a personal conversation that the participants aren't necessarily aware is available publicly. Perhaps you wouldn't mind removing your excerpts here. And I agree that an unblock and warning might be appropriate now. Perhaps we can assess their reasons for using that page the way they are, 'cause call me a softy but if it's their only option for communication I frankly think we should allow it. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:00, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

My own entertainment aside, it doesn't really matter if they're blocked or unblocked since the only page the edited was the user talk page. Like I noted, they have tons of other ways to communicate, and in the discussions even exchanged e-mails and text messages. There's no reason for them to be using the talk page like that, but we should make sure a message explains to them what's going on. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of a ANI report a while back where a similar incident was taking place. I can't remember which account it was, but they were also using the usertalk page as a IM. Maybe it's the same group of people, maybe not, iunno. nat.utoronto 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be the season for it. I've come across two pages in the last couple of days (User talk:Kragar and User talk:Sullke. In both cases I gave the relevant users the "it's not mySpace" warning - that worked for the latter, but I had to strengthen the warning a couple of times for the former. I have them watchlisted, but they've either gone and got Skype or have moved to another talk page... _GB 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And a couple more - User talk:Mcd26, User talk:Shp26‎ and User talk:MCD26. _GB 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As their whole purpose in being here is to pass messages back and forth, I have no problem with the block. AGF applies to editors attempting to build the encyclopedia. It is part of the buffering between users to help us avoid conflict. Giving second chances is in hope of salvaging editors. We indef block others who have no purpose here but their own amusement. If they want to contribute constructively, then they can let someone know via email. However, i do favor the idea of letting them know that their communications here are available to the whole world. I alos favor removing their comments from this page as a human dignity issue. Will probably boldly do that. Dlohcierekim 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Misplaced Pages posted on YouTube

Is there anything we can do about vandals vandalizing articles while recording it, and then posting the video on YouTube? After running a search, I was able to find a couple of said videos, such as here (and nice comment at the top), here, and here. Though, two claim to "test" Misplaced Pages's vandalism detection, so I'm not sure whether to assume good faith there or not. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What could we do? We can revert the vandalism... and possibly block the accounts, if we think they're not here to contribute. Beyond that... --Haemo (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found that online as well. You know, it's just vandalism. People just decided to turn a camera on during the process. The most we can do is just fight as we normally do. Justin_(u) 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(double ec)I'd say no there's nothing we can or should do. People can videotape themselves vandalizing anything, like graffitiing a street sign. It doesn't really show some kind of weakness on Misplaced Pages's part, it just shows that the author is an asshole. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no affiliation with youtube or any other public website for that matter and therefore there is nothing that could, or should be done. There are plenty of websites that disparage or criticize Misplaced Pages - take conservapedia for example. The best we can do is to function normally. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, not an issue really. Vandalism is always around. Jmlk17 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Boring videos are boring. I'd be more worried if it was funny. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you create a video of yourself reverting the vandalism and blocking the vandal, and post it on YouTube. MastCell  06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, the first video is of this edit: AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I like this comment for the first video: "You are sad and pathetic. Instead of investing your time in making a constructive contribution to humanity, you prefer to destruct other people's work. And then make a video about it like it's something cool to brag about. I've seen a similar intellectual level... on a rock. You are nothing but a waste of Earth's natural resources." · AndonicO 14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Best deny them recognition, and proceed as always. AGK (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot battles!

What is going on here? One bot (User:Roboto de Ajvol) is going around removing all instances of lmo interwiki . But another bot (User:AlleborgoBot) is going around and re-adding it. . ??? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Domo oregato Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Damn you!!!! I've been on a roll tonight! You broke my roll! :) Justin_(u) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Imo Misplaced Pages closed or something? User:Zscout370 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Justin:On a roll? I don't get it Equazcion •✗/C • 04:01, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

No, It's kind of an in joke. Me and User:AndonicO have been going at it. I shot him a yo mama, he came back with percentages, "I know you are but what am I?"... it got multi-lingual. It seemed to have ended with me using Norwegian to roughly describe that it's over when I say it's over. That'll show him. Then I come here, see the heading "Bot Battles!", and what pops into my head? Oh wait, shot down! You, sir/madam/member of any number of the third genders, have broken my roll. Justin_(u) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago, or a little more, I saw one of the anti-vandal-bots going at one of the archive bots, and back and forth. I wish I could find the diffs; it was hilarious. Didn't last long though. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified each bot owner of this section on their home wiki user talk pages. —Random832 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It was standard pywikipedia interwiki bot. I will try to understand the problem. --ajvol (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had asked about the same thing, after I saw a slew of lmo.wikipedia links removed from articles on my watchlist. I talked to User:Snowolf, who is an admin over there, and he told me that they decided to remove about 100K bot-generated sub-stubs, many of which were in English or Catalan (as opposed to Lombard). Not sure why another bot is adding the links back, though. Horologium (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I update my bot twice a day to the last svn version of pywikipedia bot and seems to work correctly. The article lmo:Algèria exists and there's no reason (imho) to remove its interwiki links. Seems to be an error generated by Roboto de Ajvol. :-/ So, I'm still running my bot. Please keep me updated with this discussion if I have to stop it or if the problem is mine. Thank you all. --Alleborgo (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Grounded into a double play

User:Grounded_into_a_double_play has basically made no constructive edits since creating his account. One of his first edits was creating the page Space Shuttles which was quickly redirected. Since becoming active again on Febuary 15th nearly every edit has been reverted and pages he creates either redirected or deleted , , , . He started one AFD that was a speedy keep . Tonight he created a page simply to test the AFD process . He then created a page for content that already existed in another article Dai Shi which is already covered in Villains in Power Rangers: Jungle Fury. He also has a habit of removing anything negative from his talk page, I understand this is not a vioaltion of rules but I think it's shows his attitude twoard other editors , . He now also appears to be stalking me . Even as I'm writing this he is still creating pages that already exist Master Mao Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this might qualify as WP:GAME and WP:TROLL. Second of all, it absolutely is against the rules to keep creating inappropriate pages. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And he keeps going . Ridernyc (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended Ridernyc with my actions. I wasn't trying to stalk him as he claimed. I was trying to give Dai Shi his own article. I opened up a discussion to see if there is consensus to delete. Grounded into a double play (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to directly comment, I've said what I have to say and will let your actions speak for themselves. I would however encourage you to stop editing until a conclusion is made here. You have an opportunity here to learn from the advice of others. it's up to you if you listen. Ridernyc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dai Shi be covered by the ArbCom injunction, because it is about a television character? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflicted about 500 times) I second Ridernyc's comments that this user is a disruptive editor indeed. I first caught note of him in his disruptive AfD, and gave him a warning (which he, of course, blanked). After that, I tried to undo his user page, which was a cross-space redirect to double play (it's my understanding that user pages can't redirect to article space). A couple of his edits do seem to be in good faith, but for the most part, this user seems to be quite disruptive. I don't think he would quite warrant a block yet, but should he keep it up, I'd endorse one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave him that final warning for a combination of vandalism and unconstructive edits. Since then he has been avoiding vandalism, but the editing pattern continues to be unconstructive. I tend to be sympathetic to articles about video characters, but he has been trying to write really impossible stubs about them. I think he knows better, and is trying to game us. I dont see how we can block without something more specific to block about, however. DGG (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that there are some questionable edits, for example — the Dai Shi article that is currently on AfD was created earlier by this editor, who twice removed the db tag him/herself. It would seem to be beneficial to the editor to take a break from editing and do some reading about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, as suggested. — ERcheck (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While I know the ArbCom injunction is currently in effect, I've been bold and closed the AFD early and redirected (that was what most were saying, other than the user who said "The ArbCom says keep for now"). My reasons are mentioned at the AFD, but to put it here, the show started on Monday. There is no way we can gauge whether or not articles are necessary, particularly when the content is the same. If I am to be lynched for merging an article on a television character, so be it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case it seems your actions are unrelated to notability, so I can't see arbcom getting mad about it. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In a related note, I have had to delete various other pages belonging to this new TV series because of copyright violations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In another related note, Grounded into a double play has been discovered to be a sockpuppet of long-time banned user EddieSegoura. Thank you Alison :3—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - sock of banned editor, User:EddieSegoura - Alison 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling something like this was going on, the 10 month break in editing hinted at this. Ridernyc (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My word, that's a name from the past. Eddie Segoura, the exicornt vandal. I thought he'd given up? Guy (Help!) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He has a very easy to identify MO.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs an eye on

72.76.88.140, now moved on to 72.76.12.248‎, has a negative WP:BLP agenda. Tyrenius (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If unresponsive to your warnings/messages on the talk page, go to WP:AIV after final warning. Since the IP strings are so similar, you can take the liberty of expressing WP:SOCK concerns on the user/talk pages. If it keeps up, an admin could try a string a very short string IP block. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding probation violation

User has already been warned numerous times and knows. Lawrence § t/e 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked; 24 hours now, but it should go to at least 3 days the next time in my opinion. We don't need any more of this incivility in the atmosphere. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

These reports should go to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement so they can all be addressed and archived in one place. As ever, more administrator eyes on that page would be very welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll put them there from now on; this was out of force of habit. Lawrence § t/e 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zackyusoff

Again and again, Zackyusoff (talk · contribs · logs) seems ignoring whatever my advice, warning, he seems did not change his editing style by BOLD the headings. Sometimes, make too much empty space between one heading to another.

This his editing:

So, i hope someone can deal with this situation. Thank you. --Aleenf1 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You've already done your part - you've asked civily, and pointed the user in the direction of WP:MOS. If the user does continue, it's disruptive to wikipedia, and I would file a WP:AIV after a final warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 07:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wisdom. Your conversations with him on his editing style look completely civil. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See his latest editing: He did the same thing again! --Aleenf1 04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodona

User:Taulant23 who is already on civility parole gave a barnstar to User:Dodona. The first reason is "For your work dealing with shovinist Greek Propaganda". Is it acceptable? I've kindly asked Dodona to remove that wording from his user page but nothing yet. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd say some of the wording is in poor taste - and does not really reflect what that particular barnstar is supposed to signify. Asking for a rephrase would have been my suggestion. Although, I don't think one can actually officially object to another's receipt of a barnstar. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 07:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing doing here. Taulant's currently sitting out a block, and has announced his intention to quit. Dodona is a separate case. Looks like he's removed the barnstar, though. Moreschi 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we shut this mirror site down

This site

Well, for one thing, All of Misplaced Pages's text is licenced under GDFL which allows the copying, redistribution, and modification of all text found on wikipedia as stated in the preamble of the licence text

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

— GDLF, Misplaced Pages:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

nat.utoronto 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While that is true, the mirror requires a list of editors of that article, or possibly at the very least a link here so the history can be seen. The history in the pages on the mirror do not contain editor names, and I can't see any link back here. I easily could be mistaken here though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes the GFDL requires that the authors be attributed (which that site does not). Therefore they are violating the license and legal action can be taken. James086 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

James and Crustacean are correct. That site is illegal. See Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks. It has to be properly attributed with the license or a link to the original source or else it is illegal. I wanted to bring this site to peoples' attention. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking from the RC on that site, no changes have been made since 2005, so someone will have to contact Illinois State University to shut down the site. nat.utoronto 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that we provide dumps for mirroring that don't contain full edit histories. Those need to be downloaded seperately and may not be in sync with the dump. To get around that they need to link back to us but that presents a new problem as shown here if the page has since been deleted and the edit history isn't visible anymore. That said, I've never quite understood why someone would put up a mirror of Misplaced Pages only to let it sit there without updated content. It defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopedia as a wiki. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, our dumps are far from correct, GFDL wise. We are asking for a stick to get beaten, here. 76xx, why don't you simply contact them to ask if they could remove (please) your userpage? Civility and good will can go a long way, on the Internet. -- lucasbfr 10:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

the motivation is usually gaining money from the ads on the site.:) Merkinsmum 10:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll see that this (ad-free) mirror is hosted by the Illinois State University :) -- lucasbfr 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to contact the owner(s) of the site if I can. I don't know how yet. I'll look through Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks. I want to bring this site to the attention of some more admins. Yes, show it to Jimbo Wales, why not. And I know so many users are not aware that their old user pages are duplicated there. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't really do anything for you besides offer advice. We don't have any involvement in the copyright status of the page (unless it's one we edited ourselves); nor does Jimbo or the Foundation. We could complain on your behalf, but only the copyright holder (presumably you) can legally enforce the copyright. I'd say the best way to go would be to write a nice email requesting that the page be removed from the database. If you lean on a somewhat trivial (and likely indefensible) copyright claim they could easily tweak the page to conform to the GFDL (i.e. by adding an appropriate attribution notice). — xDanielx /_C\ 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

John Payne (singer)

An anonymous editor keeps removing the birth date from this article: 11 times since 11 February. Examples: , , . I've tried establishing communication through edit summaries and the user's talk page, but to no avail. Can anyone turn their attention to this? Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you filed a report at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection? Seems a short-term semi-protect could probably take care of this. --jonny-mt 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have done so now—thanks for the suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the request: that qualifies as vandalism, so the editor should receive a warning. Skip straight to a level 3 warning, and report to AIV after the fourth. · AndonicO 14:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I warned already. · AndonicO 14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, fellas. An anon IP removing an unreferenced date of birth from a BLP is emphatically not vandalism. Please familiarize yourselves with these two sections of WP:BLP before doing anything ill-advised. If an anon IP is removing an unsourced birthday, that birthday needs to stay removed until properly sourced, and perhaps even then. Mike R (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ack, there I go again editing articles about musicians... Got confused with the removing of birth name (forget stage names exist), and the adding of "LUNATICA" (forget that albums/songs sometimes have vandalism-like names, and sometimes are in CAPS). I'll strike out the warning and apologize... Thanks for noticing Mike. · AndonicO 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd read the section about anonymous content deletion, but I hadn't read the note on birthdays. Good to know--thanks for the sharp eye! --jonny-mt 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on that point. I'll look out for appropriate citations. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacker

The talk page for this is getting ugly and they are edit-warring over the talk page now, let alone the article. The edit history for the talk page contains, for example, a recent change comment of Please fuck off which is clearly uncivil.

The background seems to be that the meaning and usage of the word hacker is heavily disputed per Hacker naming controversy. We now have a morass of POV-forks, as can be seen at Hacker (disambiguation). There seems to be a fair amount of conflict-of-interest and systemic bias.

We have already had some admin action but more is needed. I responded to an RFC earlier but it did little good. I reckon that this entire cluster of disputed articles needs a good going over by editors with a genuine NPOV.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrative scrutiny would be welcome; the talk page has been unusable for several weeks (my reaction when I read Colonel Warden's description was "getting ugly?" :-). Note, however, that one of the parties has filed an arbitration case. Nandesuka (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Banford again

Blocked user Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his block and (mostly) vandalizing Durham (HM Prison). He needs to have a peck of IPs blocked and the articles he is interested in semi-protected. See User talk:Bamford. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a solid case for WP:SSP. The evidence is there in black and white (black & white diffs that is). That would be my suggestion. However, the semi-protection would only be appropriate if multiple IPs (one IP or two could just be blocked for repeated abuse) began vandalizing said pages fairly heavily. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block on the named account to indefinite for block evasion and disruption, and blocked the active IP for 31 hours. If he switches IP's and continues, let me know or go to WP:RFPP and the page can be temporarily semi-protected. MastCell  17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lets hope this is the end. If not, a range block would be a viable option. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Ban Ray

Please could an administrator get the user BanRay to quit harrassing me. He keeps reverting my edits to the Maria Sharapova page, I think just because my vision for the article conflicts with his, and has even tried complaining to others about how my edits are "vandalism", even though they are just simple edits that I think improve the page! Obviously, I could understand him editing PARTS of the page if he disagrees, but reverting the whole thing is uncalled for imo. He has also implied that I am another user, Musiclover565 (see my discussion page) simply because me and him share similar visions for the article. I would really appreciate being able to edit in peace, without having to fear BanRay reverting them. Thank you. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

92.1.182.171's edits to the Maria Sharapova article are unencyclopedic, full of uncited commentary and opinion, and, most importantly, against consensus. BanRay is not "harrassing" this user, merely enforcing Misplaced Pages policy. Tennis expert (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that the user has followed my advice and took the case here, I will take a minute to explain the situation. Last month User:Musiclover565 started an edit war with User:Tennis expert over the Maria Sharapova article, when he reverted his edits to the page (Tennis expert's edits were initially proposed on the talk page). Musiclover565 was then approached by several established editors, but continued his disruptive behavior and was eventually blocked.

On February 20, User:92.1.182.171, restored Musiclover565's version of the article, reverting a total of 64 edits. The user has also accused me of complaining to other editors, namely User:Milk's Favorite Cookie, who has also left him a warning, but I have never even been in touch with the user, let alone complaining about edits from an anonymous IP.

Oh, It might also be worth mentioning that the whole situation smells funny, to put it mildly, as Musiclover565 was using a very similar IP (92.3.230.33 to sign comments on my talk page a month ago. Both IP addresses are allocated to the same internet provider and the same town.

I was gonna wait until tomorrow to give you a chance to revert your own disruptive edits, but seeing that another editor has already done that, I will now leave you a level 4 warning and I really hope this will be the last time I will have to address this issue. Take care. BanRay 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To add to an earlier complaint (which I don't think got an official admin response), I am now feeling I am being utterly victimised, persecuted and bullied by the user BanRay. He keeps reverting my edits to the Maria Sharapova page, and I just don't think it's fair - my edits are genuinely constructive. He claims I reverted 64 edits, but this is simply untrue - I ONLY edited the Career section, in which edits had only made to the 2008 part - and the only edits there were Fed Cup results which I moved to a different section. Therefore, I reverted no edits, and merely (I believe) improved the Career section. He also keeps claiming I come from the same town as Musiclover565. If this is true (and I highly doubt it is) then it is surely not my fault? Please can this victimising be stopped? Thank you. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The user is talking about this complain against me. BanRay 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment And I would also appreciate it if you stopped lying about constant revisions from my side. So far I have only once reverted your edits, the other revisions were carried out by other members. How many people do you need to tell you you're wrong in order to stop?

I also believe it might be better to merge this section into the original section above. I'm not gonna do that myself, as an involved party though. Thanks. BanRay 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for saying it was you who reverted all my edits, I admit I had not looked at the edit logs properly, and was merely going off the comments you've repeatedly left on my page. Nevertheless, I still feel I am persecuted by you (you issued me a warning because I'd apparently reverted 64 edits, which we've since established is untrue) so therefore, my complaint still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.182.171 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is true though and the diff posted by me in the original section proves that. BanRay 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is now resolved. As it has now been established, BanRay was mistaken in issuing me a warning, as I did not revert 64 edits. I only removed information from 2003-2007, a category that none of the 64 edits he speaks of falls under. Therefore, unless he provides another basis for which my edits are unacceptable (and I'm presuming he won't, because I have asked him several times and he haven't provided one), his warning is therefore voided by default, and my edits are thus allowed. No hard feelings about your mistake. He can feel free to make any edits to my edits if he so wishes!

Thanks. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Established by whom? BanRay 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not been established by any person, it's been established by the edit logs which clearly show that none of the 64 edits affected the 2003-2007 sections (the only parts I edited). Do you dispute this? 92.1.182.171 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I do. But I'll get back to this tomorrow. It's 2 am here and I don't feel like going through the edit log just to prove an obvious fact. BanRay 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: 92.1.182.171 is blocked for three days for trolling, disruption and vandalism. BanRay 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning use of AWB

Is there someplace in particular which I can request a review of a user's actions in utilizing AWB? It's my understanding that AWB is not supposed to be used to make controversial edits, and it's possible that this user may be doing that, but it's not at all clear where to go to make that inquiry -- here or on the AWB discussion page, so I've posted on both. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring or making disputed edits using AWB is in violation of the terms for using it. However, you are going to have to provide some diffs and background information before the admins will be able to look into it. If the user is indeed acting inappropriately you are in the right place because the AWB talk page isn't really meant for this sort of thing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh -- someone on the AWB page said that it was the right place, so I made my case there. I can repeat it here if you think I should, but my purpose is not to forum shop. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but even there you haven't provided specific diffs showing misuse. We don't need talk page discussions, other than as proof that you've remonstrated with the other editor; on a very busy incident board, we need to be able to directly visit the edits you think are wrong in order to assess them. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand - am I making the case there or here?

The diff that percipitated the conflict between User: Colonies Chris and I was this one, but essentially my complaint is about using AWB to make changes that require individual evaluation and shouldn't be subjected to automated or semi-automated deletion. As such, it's not individual diffs which are pertinent, as much as the user's contribution page, which shows hundred of changes under the same edit summary "sp, date & link fixes". Since this was the edit summary for the specific diff above, it's not a leap to assume that they have done the same thing in all those edits, unlink dates using AWB. Since my complaint is about AWB usage, isn't that the data you need?

Since you've asked for this information here, I'll put a note on the user's talk page informing them of this discussion as well, but I do wish it could be made clearer where the discussion should ideally take place. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In response, I'm simply going to re-post here the comment I made on the article's talk page.

I will just add that of all the many articles whose bare years I've unlinked (always in the course of making other edits such as spelling corrections or disambiguations), objections to or reversions of those changes can be numbered on the fingers of one hand - see my own talk page for the almost complete lack of any comments on the subject. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have something of a conceptual question associated with this: Since not everyone can have AWB - you have to apply for it, and (if I'm understanding the process correctly) an admin has to approve the application -- and since the use of AWB gives you abilities not available to the run-of-the-mill editor, shouldn't the AWB user have the onus to show that they haven't been abusing it when questions arise? If the implication made above that I should provide diffs for every abuse is an indication, giving people AWB provides them with extra-normal capabilities which it is then difficult to show abuse of? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser does not give users anything they normaly cannot normally do. All it does is allow for easier repetitive editing. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The capacity to do more repetitve edits than can by done by hand is something that normal (read: non-AWB licensed) users can not do. I think it is undersood that this capacity gives the AWB user greater-than-normal ability, as well as greater-than-normal potential for harm, or else why is there an approval process in place? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

everything done with AWB can be done by hand. Just like vandalproof the issue is speed, not greater-than-normal ability. AWB just makes doing them easier, it does not give extra abilities. β 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly understand that, but my point is that the greater speed enables the user to do significantly more edits, and that means they have a capacity which is significantly greater than a non-AWB user. To me, that means they have a greater-than-normal ability to effect change to Misplaced Pages, for better or for worse. (This is starting to sound like the discussion about rollback, where the argument was that users with rollback were only doing what they could already do with twinkle (?), so what's the big deal? The big deal, of course, is that the can do it faster so they can do it more, which is the case here as well.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made thousands of edits with AWB in the past without a single complaint. If an editor spots an error they usually just correct it. As a "mortal" editor you can't run AWB in bot mode (not without changing the source code anyway) which means that every edit is reviewed before you commit the change. I really don't see the problem with that. If you have a MoS dispute (which seems to be the actual problem) then there is nothing that neither this board nor the AWB talk page can do to help you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Assume for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that I am correct, and that the user has made thousands of inappropriate edits using AWB in a time period when, manually, at most he or she would be able to do hundreds of the same edits. Are you 'seriously telling me that there's nothing' that an administrator can do about that? That once a user is given the right to use AWB there is absolutely no way to review their use of it? That once you've provided a user with this enhanced capacity, that's it, the system washes its hands of the matter? Does that really seem wise? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 09:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why more info was needed. How are they inappropriate? What consensus is he ignoring? If he is changing articles according to the manual of style then he is free to do so with AWB. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

←AWB usage can be revoked quite easily. Get an admin to remove their name from Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved users. Then AWB would block them from using it. The fastest I have ever used AWB was at about 13 edits/minute. An admin can rollback edits from a contributions list faster than that. Also, if you accuse someone of misusing AWB then you should provide evidence of misuse. It's hard to provide evidence that you aren't abusing something but much easier to find the abuse. James086 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, after looking through User:Colonies Chris's edits trying to gather the data you need, it appears to me that I have overreacted. I was lead to assume, from the specific edits made on The Godfather Part 2 and the large number of edits which carried the same general edit summary containing "sp, date & link fixes", that these edits were of the same nature, but in looking through them it seems as if the vast majority were not. It also seems that the date unlinking being done were not wholesale, but were limited in some way, suggesting that they were specifically targeted by some evaluative criteria. I do wish that the user had chosen to explain this to me instead of threatening me with 3RR, but the fault here remains mine.

I'd like to withdraw my complaint, with apologies. I'll post an apology on the user's talk page.

(I do, however, think that lack of oversight of AWB use is a valid concern, even though I turned out to be wrong about this specific instance.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 09:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology posted here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 10:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the editor is removing links to individual years. WP:MOSDATE doesn't require such links. While there is some debate over whether context should be evaluated and whether an automatic bot should do this sort of task, this editor is removing these links very slowly. It's likely the editor is verifying everything in preview. Under current bot policy, that's an assisted script, with the editor is taking full responsibility for each edit, and it doesn't need any other approval beyond the approval to use AWB. Gimmetrow 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuarum

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

Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am deeply saddened that I feel this is the only effective way of retrieving community discussion on Malleus Fatuarum, but this is necessary in my opinion, because of the behaviour conducted. Malleus has been contributing to en.wp for a long time now (over a year I think) and has become an integral part of discussion on the most prevalent project he is a part of, and some of you may also know him from talks on the requests for adminship mainpage. It is however, with this involvement, that I believe has arisen for the need to notice some of MF's most unreasonable behaviour. He has been categorically and somewhat deliberately been causing unrest by abusive and or irrelevant comments whose aim is to cause either disruption or intentional commenting for attention as shown here and here, which is unnerving and increasingly characteristic. This issue seems to have stemmed from this discussion on MF's talk page (which was ultimately a culmination of events, rather than just a comment left unregardingly on his talk page). I am unsure of how these relations actually began, but I believe, this is most probably the rationale (as Malleus Fatuarum knew from a long time ago on my user page that I was a teenager). I don't know what the discussion is going to grow into, and I was as I say reluctant to post this because of some occasions where MF and I have normal comments, that have even shown some admiration for my work. However, recent comments like shown here (unsure to whether or not I should have posted this now due to the response) and here, where he says he is against all administrators because of his failed RFA - this is becoming increasingly distasteful. Rudget. 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would hope this isn't either another sock or a hideous mistake. WP:SSP or WP:RFCU appropriate? And has Malleus Fatuarum been informed? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A sock of who? Rudget. 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Our radar is a little oversensitive with the whole Dereks1x/Archtransit thing (see above), and people are quick to assume that every contentious or incivil or otherwise suspcious edit means that its another one of their socks. For the record, I have worked with Malleus for some time, and I would HIGHLY doubt he's part of that, or any other sockpuppetry mess (though given how weird the AT mess turned out, not as shocked as I used to be). However, given my interactions with him in the past, he's a good editor whose comments are rude and incivil at times, but in general he shows no actions that would raise any suspicions that he should be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. He's a good editor with a short fuse, and I have not seen any real problems from him beyond that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While were on the subject of suspected trolls, I'd like to point the finger of righteous accusation at User:Ronnotel. I've been watching his contributions for some time, and I believe his fatuousness and complete lack of lucidity can only be explained by trolling. Not only is he a raving nutter, but he follows me from page to page. Of chief concern is his bitter sarcasm that render his contributions entirely unreadable. I like to suggest crucification. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you punish him for his dog Latin? It should be 'Malleus Fatuus' ('the hammer of fools').--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Stupid Hammer"? That doesn't work. "Romanes eunt domus", that's what I say, although "Malleus Fatuarum", IIRC, means "the hammer of stupid women". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Women is Feminae, though (insert those nutty lines above the vowels as needed. I have a ninth grade education in Latin). And I believe -arum should be followed by a variant of sum, forming a form of vowel which I can't remember the name, but it should function as an adjective. Justin_(u) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had my own back and forths and related misunderstandings with MF that I think have worked out civilly and I've grown to appreciate his sense of humor humour. I know that he knows he has a certain level of impatience with bureaucracy, pedantry, and the ilk. And that British English has to go. (Has to gou?) And yes, he seems to have developed a certain distaste for adminship in general (although I know he's smart enough not to overcategorize all admins). Ageist? Perhaps. Perhaps not (for all we now, he's 14. Meh?). I hold Rudget in very high esteem and believe this is a good faith, (perhaps exasperated) post, and I also believe that Malleus is utterly invaluable to this project despite the gruffness, Probably just a bit misunderstood though. It's very difficult to read a post and interpret meaning. I don't know what you're hands are saying anymore than you know what mine are saying as we cannot see each other's faces, gestures, tone etc. It's hard to type with tone, even harder to interpret someone else's without injecting or own POV/head tone into what we think they might be saying. The main problem as I see it? Two very fine editors both work in the same WikiProject and have butted heads a few too many times over topics that are near and dear to them, and they have completely different communication styles. I'd hate to see either editor go, or go ballistic. So a simple suggestion would be live and let live. Life's too short. Find common ground. Insert cliche number 4 here. If you live nearby, perhaps even buy each other a cup o' tea? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Rudget is misinterpreting posts such as this? Epbr123 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that Rudget is misinterpreting anything. That post was inappropriate at best, but meh? I'm quite clearly saying that they both have frazzled nerves in regards to each other and should both just walk away. I quite clearly said that I hold Rudget in high esteem and also that both editors are valuable to this project and need to find common ground. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Malleus was informed of this thread by Rudget, and acknowledged the notice. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that a few examples that Rt. has mentioned are just jokes, but there are more instances of incivility. I don't think we need to block or ban right now, but we should definitely watch out for any more incivility. I've heard the term "civility parole"? Would that fit? Justin_(u) 21:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like yet another admin with a thin skin and an overindulgent interpretation of civility requires a large portion of wikidrama to deal with an example of WP:SPADE. Cue another episode of wasted man hours of what is essentially total WP:BOLLOCKS. --WebHamster 21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Me? or Rudget? Justin_(u) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudget. Sorry I had it in my head I was replying to the first post in this section so didn't make it clear. --WebHamster 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Someday someone will have to have a conversation with hammy to find out what exactly his interpretation of civility is, if he ever actually allows that without calling someone a jackass :) Equazcion •✗/C • 06:47, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Some editors (not necessarily any in this 'event') seem to believe it's nothing less than getting down on one's knees in front of them and pondering the great question in life... spit or swallow? --WebHamster 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another productively civil response. Nothing short of inspiring. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:11, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Yet another demonstration that you have no idea what the definition of civil means. Also, according to your edit summary, another example of a demonstrative inability to read. To put perspective on this I'd say that to patently ignore a polite request such as "Please do not modify it" is in fact uncivil behaviour. Now based on logic which would seem to deem you to be a hypocrite. A statement which is not in fact incivility, it's merely stating a fact. Whereas my comment inclusion is based on your dubious precedent, but I'm already accused of incivility anyway so I invoke the right to WP:DGAF.--WebHamster 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a waste of time. If this discussion brings to point the behaviour of Malleus Fatuarum and serves as a past example of a note to look back on, at least this won't have been in vain. Rudget. 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Secure log in

Would someone please add a link to the secure login site to the mediawiki text displayed on the main log-in screen? It is a good option for extra security and should be listed there, I think. I don't know which page to edit. Thatcher 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. east.718 at 19:17, February 20, 2008

Note that last time a link to the secure login site was added to the interface, it was reverted; see MediaWiki talk:Loginsuccess for what happened. --ais523 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to relate to a problem with staying logged-in and advice given on the login-success message, and not to the pre-login screen. We give so many other tips on security on MediaWiki:Loginend that I don;t see why adding the secure sever there would be a problem. Thatcher 14:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well on MediaWiki talk:Loginend there is some discussion that the secure sever is not designed for heavy use. Is this still true a year later? I'm normally a mac person but when I log in from a library PC I get a warning that the login is not secure and my password is being sent in the clear...that's probably not good for a checkuser, so I appreciate a link to the secure server being at the most logical place, where other security advice is given. Thatcher 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with the secure server is if you log in through the secure server, you have to use the secure server. Which is awkward; there are any number of links that aren't translated (even the upload link in the sidebar is only translated via javascript) so if you click on them you're back on the regular server and not logged in. Lots of other sites have a "secure login, normal http usage" system, why not wikipedia? —Random832 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked editor Rastishka/Saintrotter is back using another IP

Have a look. , He's also reverting the templates on his old User:Saintrotter account. Someone should block the IP and protect the Saintrotter user page. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're convinced, mark the user page with a sock template and open a case at WP:SOCK. Report the IP to WP:AIV with an elaboration on the matter so the admins are aware of deceit. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lee Roache article help

Somebody alerted the football project about a vandal doing double redirects. The guy moved Lee Roache to Matthew Barrett (English Footballer) then to Matthew G Barrett. After discussion with the alert editor (User:Kevin McE), I tried to clean up. Matthew G. Barrett seems to have never existed (hoax name). Lee Roache is the correct footy player. I restored this article's text but due to my inexperience (as a new admin) with page moves/redirects/reversals, the article disconnected from the original history (Admins: see here). I'd like a more experienced admin to do it so it is properly cleaned-up/restored and I do not fumble it further. Any help appreciated. Alexf 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Woody! Alexf 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some eyes to Kosovo?

I am tired of composing lengthy arguments on Talk:Kosovo with no reaction on talk, but instead have redlink accounts undo edits within the minute, and this on an article that is actually on arbcom probation. Could some admins watch this {{current}} topic more closely please and clamp down on the revert warriors? dab (𒁳) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems as if no administrators are online, or they have just fell asleep. No response here, vandalizing the Kosovo page continues. --Ml01172 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins are on line, and this has been dealt with. The article has been protected for a week. Reach consensus on the talk page, and respond to Dbachmann's concerns as outlined there. If the protection expires and the conflict continues, blocks will be handed out for edit warring. Good day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably be unprotected like the last two times. 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My friendly non-admin word of advice would be to at least try WP:RFC and mediation - although I'm going to presume this has already been attempted. And the page is semi-protected I see. Are these NPOV reverts or a mixture of this and vandalism? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on it a bit. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling me an idiot

User:PANONIANCalling me an idiot and reinserting an unsourced map when one sourced is already there.Megistias (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Perhaps you could work this out on your or his/her talk page or the article's talkpage? Seems a bit early for an ANI report. What admin intervention are you hoping for? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

His map has no sources and the other one is already there.Megistias (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your claim. Didn't even look into it, to be honest. Did you post anything at the user's talkpage? Did you post anything at the article's talkpage? ANI comes after other attempts to resolve what is clearly a content dispute. I agree the other user shouldn't have called you an idiot, but still, there are easier ways to clear this up and both go about your business building the best encyclopedia in the world. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion in the map page that it has no sources Megistias (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And that was the right thing to do. However, it was only a half hour before posting here. Pleae be more patient. I don't see what admin intervention you are seeking, nor do I see any reason to intervene at this point. Keep editing, perhaps to other articles? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

you are right,i rushed inMegistias (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User willfully violating our image policies

On February 5, User:Alex 8194 was blocked for copyright violations in large part because he refuse to abide by our image use policies. See block log and user's talk page regarding the block. Today, he's at it again. He uploaded Image:ÉDCL.jpg, labelling it as GFDL, even though the image itself shows a copyright tag on it. He also uploaded Image:TAC creator.jpg, similarly claiming it is GFDL, when a casual review of its source shows the image is copyrighted.

It doesn't stop there though.

Earlier today, when I found Image:ÉDCL.jpg I re-tagged the image as fair use, and also tagged it as missing a fair use rationale and informed Alex of the problem . Alex removed the warning tag without fixing the problem. I reverted him and explained on his talk page that this was highly improper and gave him a final warning.

So what does he do? He uploads Image:ÉDCL cast.jpg(duplicate of Image:ÉDCL.jpg) without providing a rationale. I tag this image as missing a fair use rationale, and inform him that he needs to thoroughly read and understand WP:FURG and urge him to stop working with images until he does . Warnings not withstanding, he removes a missing rationale warning tag yet again without fixing the problem .

He's had many opportunities to correct his behavior, and has been previously blocked on these issues. He's been warned repeatedly, told where to go to get more information, and still the behavior persists. I'm formally requesting this user be blocked until such time as he agrees to abide by our image use policies, especially with regards to copyright and fair use guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I support a longer block. The first was for 31 hours, and by behavior it seems that he does not want to change his ways, so I propose an indefinite block. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He has uploaded genuinely free pics (see Image:Lovely Himalayan cat.jpg), so there is a small amount of hope that he can be made to understand the difference. I suspect this may be a younger user not getting what people are telling him. See what his reponse was last time. I suggest a week-long or month-long block to get the message through. If he continues after that, then indefinite block. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll talk to them a bit later and try to educate them about copyrights. east.718 at 02:59, February 21, 2008

User:Walice111

Does anyone else feel that Walice111 (talk · contribs) is treating Misplaced Pages as MySpace or another various free webhost? This user has a userpage that promotes a non-notable wrestling organization started by himself and then he has a ton of wrestling information transcluded on the page. That in itself was questionable, but when I looked at his contributions it was more troubling.

• He has 557 edits
• 61 edits are to the article, project and user talk spaces (other than his own)
• The remaining 496 edits are to his userpage and his talk page.
• His last edit to anything other than his userspace was October 2, 2007.
• Of his 61 edits outside his userspace, 2 of those are a result of an inappropriate pagemove , another is page blanking and incivil behavior .

All of this behavior seems troubling, especially the extensive userpage that I would prefer be deleted as inappropriate. Is this someone who needs to be informed of policy or someone here to cause trouble? — Save_Us † 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I could drop him a line, but I might not be the best bearer of bad news. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears Calton already informed him of this months ago. — Save_Us † 22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more information about this user is that he has been blocked 5 times now. The first time for vandalism, 31 hours. The other 4 times were repeated copyright violations, the first for 48 hours, escalating to a week, then to a month, and then three months. I feel this user is not going to be productive here at all. — Save_Us † 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually his first edit on my talk page seemed like he was asking me to protect the WWE's page due to vandalism or something of the sorts, not sure what it was about. However I have blocked this user several times for violating WP:FU several times after being warned about it (first he deribelately restored several images on his user space after these were removed and the relevant policy was explained to him, then after receiving the first block he began uploading FU images under a false copyright claim and lastly he repeated the same pattern but modifying the images) all that I can say is that this user has a tendency to completely ignore warnings and even good faith policy explanation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing. The day a three-month block expires, he's back with the same behaviour, not a single useful edit to article space, and overall, just not getting the message. He's welcome to appeal, of course, but meanwhile I will blank his user page as an improper use of WMF resources. I won't wheel-war if anyone thinks this is too much, but he shows no sign of reforming. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not relevant to the block above but it should be noted that the three-month one expired on February 12 and he continued to only edit within user space. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I took that into account when imposing the block, and have told him so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Rodhullandemu's block—this user is clearly having a negative effect on the project, and removing their editing privileges is, unfortunately, the only feasible course of action. I'm tagging this as resolved, on the basis that the issue with the individual editor has been handled, and discussion exhausted; whether Save Us, who initially started the thread, would wish to continue the discussion regarding general misuse of Misplaced Pages as a "MySpace imitation", I will leave to him—however, I suspect ANI is not the most suitable medium for such a discussion. AGK (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlossuarez46‎ in a spell of controversial edits

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

I'd like to draw your attention to the recent edits of user Carlossuarez46. He has been mass editing articles about Greek placenames in Northern Greece adding their (disputed) former Slavic names and tagging them as "Macedonian". Starting at 00:01 UTC today and finishing at 02:48 UTC , so in only 2 hours and 47 minutes, he edited dozens of related articles (some more than once), among others:

• Slavic toponyms of places in Pella Prefecture (new)
• Loutrochori, Pella
• Banya
• Bania
• Pella Prefecture (inserted link to pages he himself created or recently modified, multiplying the effort required by other editors to tidy up)
• List of settlements in the Pella prefecture (reverted to Katharevousa name, because this is what his source had in)
• Skydra
• Plevroma
• Zervi
• Kosten
• Kosteno, Greece‎
• Arnissa
• Aridaia
• Slavic toponyms for Greek places‎

And many more which I really don't have time to quote one by one.

As a rule forged with consensus, for cities in Macedonia, all alternative names are not put beside the native name in the first sentence, but later in the article (see Thessaloniki, Florina, Bitola, Skopje). I invite everyone to have a look at the archives of these articles and the revert wars that have occurred for this very issue. In this case, the mere amount of changes makes difficult to maintain the pre-agreed consistency towards all Macedonia articles and it is disruptive. In order for the articles to be sorted out or it probably needs double the time Carlossuarez46 took to make these edits.

May I also note that all this is based on a single source, some book by a known Macedonist, Todor Simovski. This name has been mentioned and challenged in Talk:Slavic toponyms for Greek places but Carlossuarez46 didn't bother even replying to the talk page of this deleted article which himself resurrected and continued to disrupt the remaining articles with data from this very same book.

Although my primary concern is the scale of edits and the lack of prior consultation with his fellow contributors, there is another content issue I personally object to. Simovski uses the word "Macedonian" for the language, while the exact same place name exists in all South Slavic languages, for example Bulgarian. Carlossuarez46 might not understand the difference, Simovski clearly does, and he mentions it this way to promote his agenda.

I have asked Carlossuarez46 to revert more than once , explaining what is the issue and mentioning I will escalate this to AN/I. He came back to me telling me that this is not what the guideline says. When I quoted the guideline , he replied that I'm in denial .

What I'm looking for is a kind of friendly advice or caution for him to refrain from making substantial changes to sensitive articles, without a minimum amount of discussion before. I personally have refrained for changing/putting information I consider important to many articles, for the sole reason of avoiding controversy. Carlossuarez46 might not understand that his edits are controversial, in which case it would be a good idea if he read more Balkan-related articles to accustom himself with the modus operandi.

Having said the above, there are some people who have accused myself as a POV pusher. Although I readily admit I have a bias and that I have had (and still have) quite a few of heated discussions in talk pages, I have persistently refrained from transferring this atmosphere in article space since my primary goal being in Wiki is to contribute to the encyclopaedia. I believe a seasoned editor like Carlossuarez46 should have known better and first at least discuss this issue.--   Avg    21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a history of friendly disagreement with Carlossuarez46, so I'm surprised. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking an admin to do? Sorry, it wasn't clear to me above. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said ealier on my own talkpage, this is simply ridiculous. This is a trivial content disagreement about a set of harmless, perfectly good faith edits on the part of Carlossuarez. Not the slightest reason to call for admin intervention. The only thing that does warrant admin attention is Avg's blatant incivility and lack of AGF in hurling accusations of "vandalism" and disruption at Carlos ) , and his explicit threat of trying to win this dispute through revert-warring "ad nauseam" , a threat that echoes one made earlier in a different debate a couple of days ago . WP:ARBMAC is applicable to such behaviour.

Incidentally, most of Carlos' edits couldn't be characterised as controversial under any perspective. He was creating additional redirects from alternative old placenames to the town articles; in several cases the main articles were already mentioning these names anyway, meaning that the redirects would have been expected by policy in any case. I've seen only two or three cases (but I may have missed some) where he added potentially contentious names to articles afresh, and in all of these he has a strong case that this is perfectly legitimate under the relevant guidelines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your dissection of this. Therefore, I'm calling it resolved with any future conflicts hopefully going to talkpages, and not ANI. there is nothing here that an admin needs to do that can't be accomplished elsewhere. El fin. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. What I wanted is to clarify if such editing patterns are acceptable. Discussions about which names should be used in articles and where the said names should be placed have been going on for quite some time and this issue has proven quite controversial. I just didn't like the apparent disregard of previous consensus from Carlossuarez46 and I wouldn't bring it here if it weren't for the scale of this whole thing. --   Avg    22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any links for the previous consensus as you put it? Right now, I view this as not much more than a content dispute, which belongs in many places, but not here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, WP:PLACES says "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.". Also WP:NCGN 2b: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. --   Avg    22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is of course perfectly uncontroversial that the area in which these places are situated had a sizable Slavic-speaking population up into the 20th century. Whether the policy implies that we'd require separate proof for every single village that it had such a population is a matter where people might legitimately disagree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the controversial issue Future Perfect. Simovski has put all these villages there to pursue his agenda. And yes we should better have proof that all these were indeed villages with a Slavic majority (not even going to the issue if this Slavic majority felt ethnic Macedonian and not Greek or Bulgarian since Carlos made specific edits that the name is "Macedonian" and not "Slavic"). How would our fellow editors from RoM feel if they saw all villages in RoM with their respective Greek name in the lead?--   Avg    23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:NCGN is that the name must have some type of relevance to be added. When were those cities ever under Modern Macedonia rule? Even if you look at Macedonians (ethnic group), there are only 962 Macedonians in Greece, you're goin to tell me they form some sort of majority in those northern Greek cities for the inclusion to be relevant? I mean if we're going to add their modern Macedonian name because some book gives their name in the Macedonian language, then lets find a book that gives their name in Italian, or Russian, or Swahili while we're at it. _{El Greco} 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Spammer sock puppets?

• IsaacJewenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ichabod-Stark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thomaszow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts all have one contribution, to the article Propaganda. After failing to edit-war in an external link which failed WP:EL, the apparent puppet master has moved on to removing other external links to make a WP:POINT. <eleland/talkedits> 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IsaacJewenstein should be blocked for the name alone. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this IP address edit isn't totally obvious. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:195.229.242.154

Somebody please block 195.229.242.154 (talk · contribs) for his racist edits. Corvus cornix_talk 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Phantomia on Oink's Pink Palace

(contribs) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)}} This one it looks like it falls just outside of 3RR, and there's more to it. Phantomia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and very likely IP(s) used by him have been trying to keep a link on the page to what someone else called a 'scam site' -- and this site was also noted as one in the Blog by a former admin of Oink (Paine's blog) -- in adition, the link to said blog keeps getting removed by Phantomia. The history of this whole thing is a bit convoluted, but suffice it to say, it's been consented that the link to the blog should stay, as it's been confirmed that it's indeed run by Paine. Furthurmore, Phantomia seems to be a single-purpose account, and his whole "confirmed by Alan" schitck has no reference whatsoever. I don't want to be accused of 3RR myself, so I'm letting it stand the way it is for the moment, but I hope someone can look into it? As you can see, Phantomia has been quite dilligent in trying to keep it to his version. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided; third-party web-sites linking to spam/illegal web-sites under 4.1.1, 4.1.4, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.12, specifically. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And he did it again, though I already reverted it. Yeesh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AN3#User:Phantomia reported by User:Seicer (Result: ). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a new contender: 217.226.148.165 (talk · contribs). I'm applying for the sites for blacklist inclusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported for blacklist inclusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And blacklisted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this'll be read with the resolved (I took it off because apparently it's not), but 77.90.4.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be Phantomia...I reverted the page all the way back to the 16th -- as it stood now, all the news stuff was taken out and the blocked site still there, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Misplaced Pages videos

Swift attention to these might be merited. Somebody with a rather naive attitude to copyright seems to have created a heap of links to copyright infringements on Youtube and the like, and badged them in a template series called "Misplaced Pages videos". Not the kind of thing we want to be associated with this free content project. --TS 01:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started by deleting the subpages, and then I guess we'll get the template itself. Someone might want to talk to the user in question though. David Fuchs 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Subpages deleted. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Place some messages on the user's talk about WP:EL and surely mention WP:COPYRIGHT, if not already done. Repeated violations can result in a block as it constitutes disruption. That much needs to be made clear. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Firefly

User:Netkinetic has been edit-warring over the hatnote at Firefly, asserting that the show is not notable, that it was a failure, and that he has no obligation to establish a consensus to modify that longstanding hatnote directing readers to Firefly (television series). I asked him repeatedly to take it to the talk page and follow WP:BRD - so much as starting the discussion myself. I was met with assertions about my apparently non-neutral POV because this show is allegedly my favorite (it's not, and that doesn't matter), and he insisted that I'm not allowed to leave him warnings because I'm not an administrator. Could someone please step in and ask him to stop edit warring, replace the deleted part of the hatnote, and leave a note on Talk:Firefly asking contributors to discuss these changes and wait for consensus before changing the hatnote (or edit-warring over it)? He's dancing around the 3RR, but hasn't technically violated it (a point he asserts quite strongly in his defense), but he's clearly violating the spirit of both WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Cheeser1 has misrepesented facts. Never was he notified that he was "not allowed to leave" warnings on my talk page. His message there and here of 3RR is trying to retrofit a warning where it isn't merited. Additionally, there has been a message left on Firefly disputing this additional link listed without any rationale provided. There are several articles on fireflies, what precisely is the justification for a link on the main Firefly page and the disambiguation page? He's never offered any rationale. What are we left to conclude, given his adherence to leaving a reference when WP:N objectively shows that this is undeserved and not a single poster aside from Cheeser1 has issued a protest? Netkinetic 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:N does not govern hatnotes. Furthermore, WP:BRD is the issue at hand, not whether or not the hatnote should be there. You've been edit warring, and only after I started the discussion and dropped you a 3RR warning that you dismissed out of hand did you start replying. I'm more than happy to discuss the content issue at Talk:Firefly, as I requested from the start, but restoring the status quo version of the article (per WP:BRD) and stemming your edit-warring/revert-spree should be the only things up for discussion here. Do you have any reason to explain why you were not adhering to consensus policy? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why hatnotes are not governed by WP:N, in your expert opinion? That is the issue that seems to be skirted in this discussion. The argument of 3RR is a hallow one without merit. Please reference the "consensus" that agreed to have a hatnote directing attention to a non-notable article from the main Firefly rather than from the disambiguation page, which is standard Misplaced Pages policy? I'd be curious why this deserves special exemption?Netkinetic 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Because no mention of hatnote use in regards to notability can be found at either hatnote or Disambiguation. If such a valid claim was asserted, it would have been backed up with valid discussions where consensus was achieved that hatnote use must fall under notability standards, but there has been none as of yet.

A talk page on an article is not an appropriate venue to hold those discussions, either. The burden to provide this proof falls under the initiator, Netkinetic, and he has so far failed to provide adequate citations. While there has been no 3RR vios., I find it disturbing that Netkinetic finds that warnings from non-administrators are worthless, per his comment; no such assertion can be found at WP:VANDAL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that Netkinetic's user of {{otheruses}} is the most appropriate hatnote use. From WP:Disambiguation:

"When there are several articles associated with the same ambiguous term, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. If there is a disambiguation page for the topic and its name consists of the generic topic name with " (disambiguation)" added to it, use the {{Otheruses}} template."

— ERcheck (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the issue at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Few ¢...

Reading through WP:HAT and DAB, it seems that there is a bit of gray, especially with multiple hats. It is pretty clear though that a hat for an existing "(disambiguous)" page is, or should be, preferable to adding hats for presumed 2nd or 3rd (or more) choices. The hat is supposed to simplify things at the top of the page, not create clutter.

As far as notability... common sense would be that if there isn't a dab page and there are other articles with the same or a similar title, hat dabs need to be present. That really isn't the case here though.

Digging through the edit history and the talk a few things become clear:

1. There was a proposal to demote the bug in favor of the show. Consensus out of those debates was that the bug is the common usage.
2. The 2nd hat has been brought up and not really hashed out.
3. The 2nd hat has a history of being added and removed with the article being stable (in respect to the hat) fair spans of time in both states.

The back and forth in the edit summaries is brisk, and does strain civility in points. And it does have the hallmarks of edit warring, 3RR or no.

And as Seicer points out, the brush off Netkinetic gave a warning from another editor on his talk page is troubling. More so since Net places like warnings through VandalProof on both IP talks and editor talks.

Net's got a valid point re Firefly, but this has spun beyond that. - J Greb (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that I have repeatedly asserted my willingness to discuss the issue and any points Netkinetic might have. My concern is his conduct, not the changes he wishes to make to the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah J Greb. You had no interest in this subject previously. Curious that at this point you interject a note that this is "troubling". The issue at hand is clear cut wherein this page is concerned, that is the bottom line.Netkinetic 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Netkinetic, this is an ANI report regarding your inappropriate behavior. The troubling nature of that behavior is exactly where uninvolved people are supposed to interject. Feel free to scroll up and read about this noticeboard. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate? Such as ignoring standard polices and guidelines, for instance WP:NPOV, WP:N, etc. If there is an "edit warring", check the history that shows your repeated reverts over the past three days. Does that not violate the spirit of "3RR". My response on my talk page notwithstanding (and that is in large part non-negotiable as long as it is not inflammatory, my response was not) wherein is there anything directed towards you aside from your curious adherence to inclusion of a trivial entry as being noteworthy, when this flies in the face of Misplaced Pages protocol? It was my inpression that since November 2007, when you were blocked for 3RR, you would have the decorum to consider other points of view. Conversation was handled in the subject lines in the preliminary stage, followed by on the talk page. That is standard, look around, you'll see that common throughout Misplaced Pages. Now that we have had "consensus" of the appropriate kind solidifying procedure on these pages, the matter has concluded. Regards.Netkinetic 05:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Netkinetic, please keep in mind that the ANI is a noticeboard for uninvolved, third-parties (administrators mostly) to evaluate a situation and figure out what's going on regarding users' conduct. It is not the place to settle the content/style dispute at hand, nor is it a place for you, an involved non-administrator, to evaluate the situation and users' conduct. I would ask that you step aside and let people respond to this, instead of using the ANI as another place to duplicate this dispute or declare yourself victor. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find Netkinetic's attitude troubling. That I also find him right per the solution to the issue at hand is of no consequence to his actions, being right rarely justifies being a jerk about being right, or about doing the right thing. The matter is not urgent, and could've been discussed peaceably on the article talk. Netkinetic asserts that Cheeser's all wrong, but a look at cheeser's links shows Netkinetic couldv'e handled this better. Since Netkinetic won't accept Cheeser's warnings on his page, and blanks them while disregarding them, I'd say the given warning doesn't fall under the standard 'if they blanked it they saw it', as he stated that he disregards its' validity. I'd suggest an Admin warning, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a lack of tact, I was simply struck with the utter hypocrosy of Cheeser1 posting that bogus "3RR" warning (when 3RR never occured) on my talk page, while casting a blind eye on his own persistent reverts. I find troubling that an editor would exercise his preference for a particular subject (Firefly the USA TV show) by inserting a link that flies in the face of Misplaced Pages guidelines already renumerated above. If there is a question as to a lack of POV on Cheeser1's part influencing his edits on Firefly, please review the talk page above his and my discussion, and you'll see his active interest in the subject. That said, an admin warning seems to be overkill for this low level of conflict. We have a myraid of WP:IAR and WP:B editors out there with far less tact. The content is what we need to be concerned with here. Regards. Netkinetic 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an ANI report regarding your conduct. The content dispute is not in question. I will also state as a matter of fact that I was not the one who inserted the original hatnote link to Firefly (TV series) that Netkinetic removed, and that there is a substantial number of opinions on this matter that consider it a grey area, since this case is not explicitly covered by any hatnote guideline. As another matter of fact, I will point out (as the admins her ought to know) that a 3RR warning comes before the 3RR is violated. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, the more you speak, the worse you can make yourself look. Netkinetic, no, I think in light of your skirting the 'irritating wikilawyering' line, the warning's just about right. ThuranX (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, considering your experience with (according to some admins) "Repeated incivility after warning", "deceptive edit summaries", and "Deliberate admitted continuation of uncivil behaviour having been warned"...maybe you have some experience in this area after all. Well we all learn as we go I guess. Regards.Netkinetic 05:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent ←)

Yes, it is very cut and dried, and the Net's comments here keep adding to it: he's got a valid content edit that is getting buried by his conduct, to which he's adding blatant incivility for baiting and berating others not involved in the article in question for commenting on his actions (the reason ANI and like pages exist) and posting what reads as a veiled personal attack on one of those comments (ThuranX above).

- J Greb (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• A hatnote linking to the dab page is fine. The dab page lists the TV show, which is fine. Why pick the TV show out of the dozens of things in the dab page? That is completely arbitrary. I have reverted to the dab link, on the grounds that this is what dab pages are for. If there are one or two uses, list them in a hatnote, if there are many, as there are here, then the dab page is the right place. That said, it's a content dispute and does not need to be here. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  If you'd read the complaint, the issue is with edit-warring and incivility (see J Greb's comment right above yours). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, your edit warring is indeed problematic, and your argumentation has tended towards the ad-hominem. I take it that the above is an acknowledgement of this and a commitment to do better, so this thread can probably be closed. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamesonr

has issues. Jamesonr (talk · contribs). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? —Travis 04:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be because of the following: @ Sandbox, @ AFD for Chanyut Chokjanphen, and @ userpage. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

{Yes, edit conflict) Appears to be very unhappy about the deletion of a soapboxy article (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chanyut Chokjanphen). He then put up "articles" with the same attacks as at This version of his user page, since blanked. Seems to have stopped for now. Don't know if anyone things "reason" is a reasonable course of action at this point. Didn't want to go to bed and put leave an unwatched pot simmering. Cheers and goodnight. Dlohcierekim 04:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a little petulant over the proposed deletion. I'm going to watch this while you sleep Dlohcierekim. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I see. I guess I was too tired to even look at his edits last night. Never mind. —Travis 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Herget‎ and my talk page

I marked Paul Herget‎ for CSD, but a number of different - and new - users have been both removing the CSD tag and adding comments on my talk page. Adds to my talk page: . I've been removing them, but I could use a hand in dealing with that page. — HelloAnnyong 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Two more additions: . — HelloAnnyong 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article's in the bit bucket, editors are in the bing. east.718 at 05:05, February 21, 2008

Thanks muchly. — HelloAnnyong 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This page and its creation is pure trolling and vandalism, just look at the sources quoted as being used for its creation: " Every piece of evidence in this page is either true or has been prophesied by Nostradamus. We feel that this is a worthy page, as Nostradamus' writings are generally taken seriously." no more is needed to justify its deletion, that is without mentioning that the guy isn't real. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do think the person is real, considering that some of the posts were by an account titled pherget. Just thought I should add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMG007007 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also indef blocked a few more involved users, including the original creator of the page (the only one with unrelated edits, mainly vandal fighting), User:Dnvrfantj. Fram (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sbkbg‎ COI

User talk:Sbkbg‎ Has now been given two final warnings about removing tags from articles. He keeps removing the notability tag and other tags from WFAL,, . It has pointed out to him over and over again that he has not established notability and since he is DJ working for the station he should not be removing tags himself , . I've really reached the end of my patience with this issue. Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

he has now taken the very mature action of issuing me a vandalism warning. Ridernyc (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already contacted an admin about this user User talk:Ridernyc and am awaiting a reply from the admin. I have had numerous talks to try and get him to stop. he continues to vandalize a page a wrote a few sentences for, by abusing tags. --Sbkbg (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ridernyc is not abusing. He is working in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Because of your WP:COI with an article that is currently a candidate for WP:AFD, your removal of the tags are in bad faith. Bear in mind that issuing ill-conceived or vindicative vandal warnings is also terrible wikietiquette. My recommendation to you would be to allow for the AfD to run its course and concentrate on proving your article is worthy of being noticed. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 09:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may want to familiarize yourself with what what vandalism is and is not. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 09:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:119.11.76.128

User:119.11.76.128 has consistently reverted my attempts to eliminate vandalism from the article, Shakers. Grsz11 (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't require a full ANI posting. He's had four edits that were pretty much like this. In the future, use vandalism templates to warn the user, then report to WP:AIV for quick action. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. WP:AIV after a full set of warnings should do the trick in the future, okay? — Scientizzle 06:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption across some articles

Please have a look at LTTE and Maoist Relations, Indian Maoism, Indian Maoists and their related AfDs. User:LankanTiger, User:Thileepanmathivanan and User:99.238.6.68 blankets afds (, , ), AfD tags have been removed (, , ) and removes of afd closing tag () and deletes AfD comments (). Also, anecdotically see this comment , claiming that there is discrimination by 'sikh extremists'. --Soman (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User seems to just be contributing and statements were clear that user provided refferences on a new article. --ThambeEeE (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. Indra10 (talk · contribs) just blanked this section and is solicitating votes per the above diff. The AfD tags are also still being removed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sonam is not allowing others to Contribute. User:Soman is disrupting important information that was requested by Politicians and others to create. All refferences with pages have been provided. User:Sonam seems to be incooperative by nominating important articles and related articles which must be made. User fails to understand recent activties and Joint Operations which have been taken place recently. --99.238.6.68 (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sonam is disrupting important information that was requested by Politicians and others to create. Excuse me? Are openly admitting that these were created in response to solicitiation by politicians? Can we say WP:NPOV and WP:COI. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i would also like to contribute to this resolution. User:Soman is not providing Recent Information which has taken place recently. Those pages created were cerated on recent activities that have been taken place i can also provide many Refferences as well. User shuld also allow others to create pages and contribute. --TigersRus (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern of similar edits by several user accounts across several article (not just LTTE/Maoism related), which would suggest that there might be sock-puppeting in the afd process. --Soman (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I would like to know what politicians are solicitating the creation of POV forks on enwiki. That seems rather disturbing to me. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Parallel process now underway on AfD on Sabitha Kumari. --Soman (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Could there be a sock-puppet check-up on Indra10 (talk · contribs), ThambeEeE (talk · contribs), Maobad (talk · contribs), 99.238.6.68 (talk · contribs), LankanTiger (talk · contribs), TigersRus (talk · contribs), Thileepanmathivanan (talk · contribs) and Kumarans10 (talk · contribs)? --Soman (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The way they type "Refferences" is a clear giveaway. See this debate and the deletion debates. That is too distinct to be a coincidence. Add the disruption and disturbing creation of solicitated POV material and there should be enough evidence here for a block. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Except not all of these people appear to be the same person, or at least not obviously. Indra, ThambeEeE, LankanTiger, and TigersRus may be the same person, but a checkuser or some other smoking gun would be nice. For all we know this misspelling of "references" is common in India. Additionally, none of the above four have persisted in removing the AfD tags, so they are no longer disruptive, at least so far. Maobad seems to be editing on a completely different tack, and is the only person I see who has erased anything from a deletion discussion. And Kumarans may have created the Indian Maoists article, but he/she hasn't participated in the deletion discussions and doesn't appear to be at all disruptive. Soman, if you want a RFCU, I would suggest you file that request on the noticeboard. Natalie (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the anon IP claims to be the creator () of the article that User:Kumarans10 created. The behaviour of blanketting AfD discussion is not unique for User:Maobad, see (, , ). --Soman (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed here. Soman, feel free to edit it if I missed anything. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right Soman - LankanTiger is editing similarly to Maobad. So there are essentially three groups here: Indra, THambeEeE, Thileepanmathivanan, and TigersRus, who stopped removing the AfD tags, who were removing AfD tags but have since stopped; Maobad and LankanTiger, who were blanking AfD discussions, and Kumarans and the anonymous user. Whether or not Kumarans and the anon are the same person, I didn't see any blanking by them, so I guess I'm not sure why they're being thrown together with these other folks. Natalie (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie look at the AfD here. The IP edits the same way as Thileepanmathivanan. If you look deeper and notice the timestamps you'll see that the accounts are editing in succession. He logs out, then back in only he sometimes forgets and thus the IP turns up. Since the IP appears to be static or at least the same for a significant amount of time I hope checkuser will be fairly conclusive, regardless of whether we are right or wrong. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, I and I won't claim I'm not suspicious, but RFCU will hopefully sort this out. Natalie (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case is now completed. There's a rather large farm to be dealt with if anyone is so inclined - Alison 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All blocked indef; did not tag them as sockpuppets as I do not know who the master account is. -Jéské 03:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly User:HairyMan101 too. He created an account and six minutes later went to comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sabitha Kumari, and he moves/edits User:Thileepanmathivanan's and User:ThambeEeE's comments as if he owned them . cab (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And probably Raninder (talk · contribs) too; creates an account and immediately heads to the same old places . cab (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Akhamenehpour

unsourced POV dispute / disruptive edit warring since 2008-02-01 on Piedmont, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Piedmont High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User interprets all content warnings as a personal attack and has so far ignored/deleted all warnings or call for discussion. Likely ipsock has threatened to puppet disrupt these articles. Article RFP has been denied, user has received multiple 3rr warnings, and one block. – Zedla (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In unrelated developments, he has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, his talk page has been protected, the articles in question have been semi-protected, and all is well in the world. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPN anyone?

If anyone is interested, an objective opinion would be useful at WP:BLPN#Mike Lupica. Summary: my two edits removed a criticism section that was larger than the entire rest of the article combined (check the article sizes before and after). A POV-pushing IP disagrees. Input is much appreciated. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment. The criticism section did seem too long. SlimVirgin 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If anyone would care to add Mike Lupica to their watchlists, that would be great too. The over-the-top Lupica hating seems to slowly creep back in over time. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Block Check

I gave User:Smsarmad and User:Aursani each 24 hour 3RR blocks for edit warring on the Benazir Bhutto article. They had both been warned appropriately but still continued. Were these blocks appropriate? Scarian 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good blocks - both were in violation of the rule, and Smsarmad is going to get detwinkled for complete misuse of the tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And rollback removed because he used that as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kenny Sia

Kennysia (talk · contribs), who claims to be Kenny Sia, has been removing assertions critical to him in the article. He claims that there is no conflict of interest as the assertions were not supported (which is true), but I still believe that there is a conflict of interest. I'd like opinions on this, however. --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with Sia; I would have removed that sentence - (with reference to BLP and original research if challenged.) Yes, he may have a conflict of interest in editing the article, but that shouldn't prevent him removing obvious crap. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of a potential WP:COI, any unsourced material maybe removed on sight, especially in WP:BLP and if the info is potentially controversial. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_rollback#User:AusRef

Without involving a huge debate one way or the other on the particular case, could a fourth admin review the above request that has been oustanding most of today, and either grant or not grant so it can be archived. Whatever the merits, it seems silly to have the request hanging around for hours with no action, and unfair to the requestor. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Took a look, was going to grant it, but John Reaves had already done it hours ago. I don't see what the big deal was. Neıl ☎ 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

In the past I have always trusted that user, however after todays events I see no way other than to report this. I spend the whole day writing the Danubian Sich, the article is still not finished, and one of the points correctly pointed out was to refrence the text. However just because the pilot version still has none Is that a reason for a full revert by an administrator. Essentially a whole days of work down the toilet.

Yet after my following of the WP:1RR I am being told to read the fucking edit summary. I am sorry but this guy is an administrator! How!? is this behaivour allowed? If a non-admin goes like that destroying pages of work by an editor he will be frowned if not banned. And after such an edit summary... but an administrator telling me, an experienced wikipedian to essentially fuck off is something that I can't just let it pass. --Kuban Cossack 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Mikkalai just self reverted back to Kuban kazak's version and is clearly interested in awaiting your references. You might want to use {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} in the future to communicate clearer that the article is in an in-between state, and still under work. Mikkalai's edit summaries were incivil, but since he has fixed his own problem, I say we call this a "no-harm-no-foul" situation, and move on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be noted that Mikkalai's incivility and tone on Talk:Danubian_Sich#Full_revert and the summaries are not acceptable. I don't know whats up his wikibutt, but he needs to tone it down immediately. Lawrence § t/e 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack's edit summary is no better and probably worse. If they're working it out there's no need to point fingers. WilyD 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? History. "rvt plain vandalism" in response to "respectfully reverted. Kazak, you have been quite long here to know CITE YUR SOURCES!!!!!" is somehow worse how? The admin Mikkalai is patently in the wrong here, when combined with his high-handed and inappropriate tone on the talk page. Let's not defend a fuck up. Lawrence § t/e 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Content-wise, it's far closer to name-calling, and it's the departure from civility. WilyD 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And taken in whole, if an admin swoops in, reverts your work, swears at you in the summary, and then takes an obnoxious and inappropriate tone on the talk page with an implication you can be "blocked", which is worse? People will certainly lash out if attacked randomly, and a one-off calling an edit "vandalism" is certainly not that bad. The admin was in the wrong here. There's no other way to shake it. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, Mikkalai didn't swear "at" him and only responded to rudeness with rudeness. No denying that Mikkalai was wrong - but Kuban Kazak was too, which is what I said in the first place. WilyD 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The point as I keep saying is that none of this excuses or gives Mikkalai license to use his admin tools, nor to threaten or imply their use. Lawrence § t/e 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Next thing and you are going to demand to stop beating my wife. Learn to read and comprenend what other people write then come and teach others. `'Míkka>t 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame he can't self revert his attitude. --Kbdank71 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, the edit summary isn't telling you to fuck off. It's emphasizing in a crude way the importance of the edit summary. So far as I'm aware, although maybe frowned upon, such a statement doesn't violate community standards - certainly it came up in my RfA that "fuck" shows up in my edit summaries on occasion (usually in the context of "fuck up") and people didn't object much. I will say that your work isn't lost - it's still in the history. Consider using User:Kuban kazak/sandbox to work on the page until it's ready for the show. I'm not sure how helpful it is, but there it is. WilyD 16:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This kind of deletionism is becoming a running annoyance. I've had several article starts WP:PROD-ed and other obnoxious tags applied by people who were too impatient to wait a few hours for me to finish getting the article in. the {{inuse}} tag is helpful but people do forget to put it in, for instance because they are interrupted and have to save material before they are ready to do so. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The problem isn't that, it's Mikkalai's attitude and tone. Did you see him on Talk:Danubian_Sich#Full_revert? Totally unacceptable, and he needs to agree to tone it down. I think everyone is sick of high-handed editors getting free passes. Lawrence § t/e 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC also) I would respectfully disagree - "Oops I fucked up" is alot different than "read the fucking edit summary," which is direct profanity specifically at someone that he's twice-reverted. I came here only to post this, for the record (since I happened to recall it coming up), but I have to say, it's not just the use of the word "fuck" but the way he directed it, in hostility, at another user. Perhaps not his intent, but that's a fairly obvious and reasonable way to take it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict X 8). IMO, both of you jumped to conflict and incivility, and neither excuses the other. He shouldn't have cursed, but nor should you have said he went mad, etc. This is a very simple incident that could be handled with a little tact, communication, and assumption of good faith. A better way for you is to politely explain in the article talk page or his page that you are in process of editing it and will add sources. If someone prods or speedies a new article I'm creating I'll just revert them, add an "inuse" tag, and leave a note that I hear them and will make sure it's a proper article by the time I finish. I see no indication that Mikkalai's being an administrator has anything to do with this issue. He did not use his administrative privileges or threaten you with administrative action. If nothing happens in the next few minutes, this matter is probably resolved. Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, in part. this comment by Mikkalai could be seen as a threat to block Kuban kazak for not using sources. A block would be incorrect in any event, and an abuse of administrative privileges if done by an administrator who is a party to the underlying content dispute, so the threat too seems abusive. And in a later comment he continues cursing. So yes, the attitude is wrong. But you goaded him into it, so I don't really think you have much cause to complain. Wikidemo (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly did Kazak "goad" Mikkalai into flipping out in a disrespectful attack, disallowed threat to block, and nasty tone? By writing an article? Lawrence § t/e 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By restoring all of the material with the edit summary calling Mikkalai "pure vandalism" Wikidemo (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is what is considered goading, then Mikkalai has far too short of a fuse to be an administrator. The point is that Mikkalai's actions and threat of admin action has zero basis in policy, zero justification in policy, and are not acceptable. Combined with his bad attitude and high-handed tone, he needs to tone it down for his own good. Lawrence § t/e 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

?????? What's wrong with you people? Cool down and read the "RTFM" article. Of course I am not a smooth piece of cake, but I suggest you to think a little bit of this sequence of events.

• (cur) (last) 20:23, February 21, 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) (3,753 bytes) (read the fucking edit summary.) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:21, February 21, 2008 Kuban kazak (Talk | contribs | block) (13,177 bytes) (Undid revision 193057863 by Mikkalai (talk)rvt plain vandalism) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:20, February 21, 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) (3,753 bytes) (respectfully reverted. Kazak, you have been quite long here to know CITE YUR SOURCES!!!!!) (undo)

If Cuban Cossack and you all think that my calling my own edit summary "fucking" is an itnolerable offense towards Cuban Cossack that it must be discussed in AN/I, then y'all need a larger pill than me. `'Míkka>t 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that you have here, and in the past, taken a dismissive and high-handed tone to your peers. You need to turn that down yesterday, for the sake of your career here and longevity on this site. Rudeness is not acceptable. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai also implied that Kazak could be blocked for this on the article talk page, FYI. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, warning someone that edit warring can result in blocks is not inappropriate. WilyD 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you take the small pill then, Mikkalai. You're right about it needing sources but calm will get people to do what you want a lot surer than cursing. Plus, when you flash the administrator's broom, a user who is already testy can get worse. I know people don't like it when I compare admins to cops, but the cop who wins the most conflicts is the one who knows how to use his voice, not his gun. Kazak is an easy one; there are users who are a lot more trouble than that. Wikidemo (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. When Mikkalai as an involved editor initiates the edit warring then clearly it is inappropriate. Mikkalai has no right to use or threaten the use of his tools here in this circumstance. Why is Mikkalai as the initiator of this problem entirely being backed up? Lawrence § t/e 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Other than making everyone just feel bad, what is the point of this. Someone cursed. Boo hoo. Now let it go. The involved parties have moved on, why can't we?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary of "fuck" or whatever is trivial. I'm concerned that Mikkalai is threatened admin action (blocking) when he is not allowed, and when he is involved to boot. His ongoing admitted nasty tone is just another factor that is a problem, but I am asking for the community to properly to tell him to mind himself. His disregard for the way of things is upsetting. Mikkalai should acknowledge he made an error, and concede he is not to use tools here. Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, I have now added some references, and will add further more. I usually draft my articles off-wiki due to my satellite connection sometimes breaking up. In any case my real shock, was that before todays event, I always considered Mikkalai to be a close ally. That's where the real damage is. --Kuban Cossack 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, Mikkalai never said she would block Kuban Kazak, only that they could be blocked for edit warring - any admin can fill out a 3RR report on someone they're in a conflict with, and policy says its just as appropriate as the greenest IP doing it. WilyD 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, myself: there was no edit warring mentioned in the warning; references were. This is clearly inappropriate admin conduct. We do not block people because they are two hours late providing a reference. As for fuck, I have no problem with it's use. I use it all the fucking time: for emphasis, interjection, or a joke. But don't use it toward someone. Obviously. Marskell (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is subject to interpretation. If an admin came in and initiated an edit war with me on an article, and then started talking about the possibility of my getting blocked, I would be very concerned--especially combined with the unneeded vulgarity and very hostile language and tone. Admins ARE held to a higher standard, and Mikkalai needs to be aware that his choice of words will cause disruption if he does things like this. I've been seeing people roll about Misplaced Pages using high-handed tones like his, and some of them admins: this needs to stop. It is completely disruptive and aggravating to users, and causes pointless ill-will, just so that someone can get the satisfaction of typing out a message in a gloating or superior tone. Mikkalai was wrong, full stop, for 1) initiating a short edit war; 2) implying blockings are possibly forthcoming for the other party's response; 3) not acting civil; 4) carrying about in a haughty tone that is only going to incite people to "flip out" in response. Mikkalai is not entitled to defense here, and should simply apologize and say he'll tone down his tone. Lawrence § t/e 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that, you know, you don't threaten to block people you are in a dispute with. That seems to have forgotten. Grandmasterka 17:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the situation makes your remedies seem more reasonable, but the facts remain that Mikkalai did not initiate an edit war, and yes, Mikkalai is entitled to be defended from this mudslinging. Two experienced editors were incivil to each other, but seemed to have moved past it (and neither were really all that incivil). The rest of your accusations are just false, and dragging Mikkalai's name through the mud for shits & giggles is simply not appropriate. WilyD 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"dragging Mikkalai's name through the mud" — Mikkalai is well-known (not say infamous) to be perfectly capable of getting that job done all on his own. User:Dorftroffel 17:59, February 21, 2008

It's a quiet open joke that on any borderline matter on ANI that an admin gets the benefit of the doubt over a non-admin. However, in this case, the matter wasn't exactly borderline, and the fact that the admin has their name draged through the mud but the other party hasn't is a comical farce. Mikka messed up today; Kazak did not. How is this even up for debate? We need to get over ourselves and begin to weed out haughty nonsense. Lawrence § t/e 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been on wikipedia for quite a long time myself, and I have had all sorts of filth thrown at me. Anyone can slip up, and fair enough I can accept that. Personally its not offense that I feel after what has happened, but instead my disappointment from someone who in past I had very high trust in. Of all the people to dish out something like that to have Mikka, someone who has always had my respect for, and even a role model... to pull such a stunt off, out of the blue... It goes without saying. Warnings and incivility is something that I have had to put with long enough, and if comes to I can easily forgive...Trust is something that is damaged beyond repair. --Kuban Cossack 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not editing wikipedia to gain someone's trust, respect, love, or barnstars. I have been seeing quite a few people having huge fun in wikilawyering instead of writing articles. It feels so good, banging other people on their heads, isn't it? Especially when they give you a minimal reason. Since people are not robots, wikiHeadBangers will always have an opportunity. And I am not ever going to talk to them. `'Míkka>t 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand when an admin slips up, the line forms up to punch him, but you also have to bear in mind, that they are human and human patience is limited. That is quite understandable in the case of Kuban Kazak. He already posted it at Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements even before Mikki came along. Who would post an unfinished article,as he claims, on the notice board? In my view, Mikki was right, because the indications were such, that he was never coming to finish it. The choice of words could have been different, but it is time some users take responsibility for their actions and don't put blame on others. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So someone who has long been able to register any minor comment as a Personal attack now condones the use of profanity. Incidentally people put stubs on new-article announcement boards. What, does that mean that a new article created from scratch can now be deleted? --Kuban Cossack 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's what this is all about, right? The choice of words. In my opinion the underlying issue is just plain trivial. But I do think that everyone should try not to use bad language (except for occasional, obvious humor), and administrators all the more so when they would reasonably be perceived as acting in an administrative role. We can't really codify that because we don't want censorship, but as a community norm I think it's fair to ask people to be polite.Wikidemo (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is fair. And a proper solution would be to say: "hey, I felt offended by your remark", rather than throwing a whole tantrum. In this particular case IFAIU Cossack was offended by my revert. I restored the text myself after an exchange in the article talk page. I was even going to apologize. But once a wikilawyer aggressively jumped in the whole idea of apology just went with a smoke. `'Míkka>t 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Politeness is not just fair, it's policy. Note: --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mikka is a grumpy old bastard. In other news, bears shit in the woods and the Vatican confirms that the pope is Catholic. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• So? --Kbdank71 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, that's funny, and tongue and cheek. People being bastards is not acceptable. You. Me. Mikka. I can be cross, but I go out of my way to not let it bleed through in my writing here as much as possible. It's time to weed out people who act like asses to their peers, or their behavior. Lawrence § t/e 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And I say it's time to weed asses censors who run around policing other people for every single word. Cossack has a right to demand an apology, you do not. By the way, since you say you "go out of my way to not let it bleed through", I demand you to strike the word "asses" from your post, then I will strike out it from mine. `'Míkka>t 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done. The point Mikka is that sounding calm and non-inflammatory, ESPECIALLY if you're an admin, is very important. Contrary to Guy's tone above, acting like a bastard or sounding like one really isn't acceptable, especially if coming from any position of perceived authority. Would you be willing to try to moderate your tone going forward? Lawrence § t/e 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut. And no I will not stop beating my wife. `'Míkka>t 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is just a wildly inappropriate response. Lawrence § t/e 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Harrass Mikkalai long enough and he makes rude comments - I'm not sure you should find that surprising. WilyD 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Retract or refactor this at once. I have done no harassing of any sort. You are out of line. Lawrence § t/e 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, no. My comments accurate reflect reality, whereas yours simply don't. WilyD 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then I consider a false accusation of harassment to be a personal attack, and consider yourself warned. Provide evidence or this is a violation against me. Lawrence § t/e 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fortunately, I haven't made any such false claim - but feel free to make baseless accusations about my behaviour. I shan't object. WilyD 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• You accused me of harassing Mikkalai. Where is the evidence of my harassing him? I asked him to tone down the language on the article talk page after seeing this thread, and that's my entire involvement here beyond this section of ANI. How is that harassment? Are admins not to be challenged by non-admins for their behavior? I have made no false assertations, while you may be trying to poison the well here. I want to AGF that this is not the case. Lawrence § t/e 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you guys cut this out? This isn't helping anything. John Reaves 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Okie dokie, would Lawrence and WilyD both kindly leave the room please? Both clearly off topic as none of your last several posts have mentioned the subject at hand. Both leaving now would be best for both good editors. Please go. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not make Misplaced Pages into the kind of culture where saying the wrong thing will get your throat cut. This is a collaborative project. --Elkman 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Would Mikkalai agree that we do not block people for not immediately adding references? That his or her block suggestion was unwarranted? The use of fuck should be apologized for, sure, but as for what's pertinent to AN/I, I think we could just wind this down if Mikkalai agrees there was no need to suggest blocking in this situation. Marskell (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Writing an article without providing good references may be bad editing style, and it may result in substandard or incorrect content, but it's hardly a blockable offense. --Elkman 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai block review

• Mikkalai (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Mikka just posted to Lawrence: "Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut."

My stomach turned. I have blocked for twelve hours. If someone knows this editor, I'd suggest contacting to see if there isn't some personal matter that is upsetting them. I have absolutely no ill-intent and am completely uninvolved. But this is absolutely not acceptable commentary. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree based on that comment. I've never had any kind of innuendo or threat like that leveraged at me before. On User_talk:Mikkalai he's now demanding an unblock and that Marskell be deadminned. Lawrence § t/e 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, he needs a break. I have had nothing to do with this but perhaps 12 hours will cool him down. That was wildly inappropriate. RxS (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not endorsing the block (or unblock) but blocking historically has proven to do exactly the opposite of "cooling someone down", so much so, that it even says not to do it in the blocking policy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. He'd been responding extremely negatively to any commentary here, including saying I'd get my throat cut (!). Is this block to stop him from saying something even worse that will get him a longer block or desysopped? Lawrence § t/e 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this the block should not be for a cool down period. It should be clear that the block is prevent language, that when used, tends to create a hostile environment and makes it more difficult for the community to function. Ronnotel (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know this guy, that can say something to him?

"Solemn pledge of muteness

Since wikipedia is full of sickos happy to jump at conclusions, and since the adminship is infested with trigger-happy cowboys, I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever."

This isn't helping. Lawrence § t/e 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a sound block, I doubt he'll come storming out of it with more comments like that. John Reaves 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm concerned for him. I posted a message to his talk page . Moments later, he erased it leaving a comment "P.S. And no I will never stop beating my wife." Everybody has bad days, but this level of anger isn't like Mikka. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a good block, in my opinion - what part of blocking policy justifies this block? It wasn't a physical threat, in my reading, and I think that while his edit summary wasn't sooper-civil (it contained a swear!!) it also isn't necessarily justification for an AN/I thread. Avruch 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand mute on the overarching issues of this thread, but I do note that threats of violence do qualify as personal attacks per WP:NPA, and violations of WP:NPA are blockable. I concur that the block probably won't be a net positive, but the alternatives of a warning or ignoring the comment altogther are, in my mind, even less palatable. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it was an ill-advised comment, among other ill advised comments, and he's clearly a bit worked up at the moment... But I don't think the "throat cut" comment qualifies as personal attack or physical threat, more like a tit for tat about language and what people get offended by. Avruch 19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The block is for preventative reasons I believe, as he seems to be having a go at anyone who tries to have a go at him, and his comment "Since wikipedia is full of sickos happy to jump at conclusions, and since the adminship is infested with trigger-happy cowboys, I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever." seems to be a classic case of projection at the moment. Admins are not immune to being blocked I hope, or there'd be a clear caste system on wiki. Everyone says this is out of character. As I said of myself once in the one instance I was warned for disparaging another editor, and I believe is the case for Mikkalai if what you say bout this being surprising from him is true, he will soon be saying that "normal service has been resumed." :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The block is appropriate to prevent Mikka further poisoning the atmosphere and throwing any further toys out of his pram. Playful characterisations of "oh, he's a grumpy old bastard so it's okay" are ludicrous and unhelpful. Neıl ☎ 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Hammersoft’s point, I’m a little concerned for Mikkalai too. As I tried to suggest above and on his talk, this person may need to someone to talk to right now. That was my immediate impression. It’s just a twelve hour block, precisely because it’s preventative. If he or she was willing to post a sentence as reprehensible as the one I repeated above, what would the next comment have looked like? For Mikka’s own sake, it’s better that Mikka isn’t posting right now.

So no Avruch, I cannot agree with you. That the editor is an administrator has nothing to do with whether the post is acceptable. One doesn’t have to say “I will kill you” to be making physical threats; this was obviously an unacceptable reference to physical assault. The block may not be a net positive (that will depend on Mikka’s overall state of mind) but as UltraExactZZ says, simply letting something like this go is even worse. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I didn't really mean to imply that he should be immune from a block as an administrator - I just don't see a reference to a physical assault as the same thing as a physical threat or personal attack. It was just a dumb comment, and it by itself isn't enough to warrant a block in my opinion (which is the minority here, it seems!). Avruch 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As an administrator he should be held to the same standards as general editors. If he makes a personal attack. He gets warned. If it continues, he gets warned again. This page is wholly appropriate for discussing the behavior of another administrator, especially in this case from what I have observed. However, the block was a relatively poor idea for the reasons already stated. Cool down blocks are a no no. An admin should know that. Finally, I do believe after the release it will continue or escalate. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And so you just keep warning him ad infinitum, and that solves the problem? Of course a cool-down period is warranted, maybe even longer than 12 hours. A new editor would be blocked indef in a heartbeat for a comment like that. Seriously. Grandmasterka 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty cynical. I've never seen a new user blocked immediately for making such a comment - It would be construed as a personal attack and taken from there. And who said anything about incessantly warning. I'm saying the admin should have been warned as normal and THEN blocked under policy. I also disagree that this form of block was "preventive" I think we're splitting hairs here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all condoning this behavior. I believe such vitriol coming from an admin is sickening to say the least, but there are channels. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this again several hours later I'd say you're probably right. :-| Grandmasterka 23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the received wisdom on "cool down blocks," and broadly agree—but this wasn't, precisely, a cool down block. It was preventative, as stated above, and also done because some comments are egregious enough that you simply have to block, fellow administrator or no. My comment before this one should serve as a sufficient reasoning. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes, "A new editor would be blocked indef in a heartbeat for a comment like that." Marskell (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is disgusting behavior, for an administrator no less. Per his solemn pledge of muteness to the community, which is completely unhelpful to those who wish to get a response for an administrators actions (and yes, has been deemed so by ArbCom), and his comment that was cited above "Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut." Mikka knows to tone down his incivility; there almost isn't a week that goes by here recently that a thread about his rampent incivility doesn't show up. I would advise the next step be to arbitration if anyone would like to take the bold step of reviewing the many cases brought here. — Save_Us † 20:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like a 'Solemn pledge of soapboxing' to me... HalfShadow (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should probably go ahead and pull his bit. It reflects very poorly on the project to have admins running around, acting like this. Friday (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a "cool down" block. A cool down block is usually in the range 1 to 3 hours, applied to regular editors and pass mostly without comment. One may protest them, but usually by the time anything can be done (wikitime can be glacial), well. . . the block is over, so see, no reason to be upset anymore. Why this would be ineffective is anyone's guess. R. Baley (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling Mikkalai mad was certainly as bad as anything Mikkalai did if not worse (its been refactored out of the header by some calmer individual), and I think Wily is right on this one. How come we tolerate the behaviour of some people (ie the original complainer) and not of others especially when it is an experienced contributor like Mikkalai, if this thread is bringing wikipedia into disrepute we shouldn't be blaming Mikkalai. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazak has been around since 2005, Mikkalai since 2003. Both have been blocked before but this entire situation was caused by Mikkalai's arrogant tone, initiated edit warring, implication that Kazak would be blocked on the article talk page for writing an article without immediately sourcing, and for implying I could get my throat cut. Lawrence § t/e 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

None of those things should amount to a blockable offense, IMHO. If you were to attack a knife wielding person in a country with no laws or police, you could get your throat cut. Is that a personal attack? Avruch 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think that Lawrence Cohen needs to move on. Anybody agree? This was a content dispute between two users (neither of which was LC), and everything has now been completely derailed and blown out of proportion. I looked at your contribs list LC. Just today, you've made posts regarding pictures of Muhammad, Mantanamoreland, Cumulous Clouds, waterboarding, and now Mikkalai. I didn't look at your posts, just the list. It seems you have things to say wherever controversial and wikidrama rears its face. At some point, a common denominator shows up. You seem to be drawn like a fly to a bugzapper to controversy, always seeming to have this urgency about your posts which, frankly, are filled with OMGs and "I'm so offended." In this case, nobody said they cutting your throat. Mikkalai should not be blocked. Move on, LC. For the wikilove, take the wikibreak that your userpage says you are in the middle of right now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it speaks volumes that a thread titled "Mikkalai gone mad" can generate so much response when other threads are left virtually unanswered for long periods of time (relatively speaking of course). To be entirely honest, how many of you came here for the drama rather than a quick resolution to what was initially a minor issue? EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you going out of your way to make such comments about a contributor instead of the content of his contributions, and to assume that he's some sort of wikidramaqueen? He's not the only one who thinks the "cut your throat" comment was out of line, and there is obviously more to this issue than LC filling Misplaced Pages with "OMGs." I'm astonished that people insisit that Mikalai's behavior is being overscrutinized when he's constantly having conflicts (perhaps often small) with users regarding his bad attitude (which seems to go oft dismissed because he's an otherwise productive contributor). If anything, the shoe is totally on the other foot here. I'm astonished that one could claim "How come we tolerate the behaviour of some people (ie the original complainer) and not of others especially when it is an experienced contributor like Mikkalai." The "original complainer" was confronted with an admin reverting a revert and swearing at him in edit summaries. Mikkalai's conduct (regardless of anyone else's conduct) is subject to just as much scrutiny as anyone else, and given that it's being dismissed with " an experienced contributor" (unlike the other guy), your "it's so unfair to Mikkalai" seems totally backwards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re EconomicsGuy above, I came here completely accidentally (looking for another thread I'd posted on AN/I.) The block was disinterested, in the broad sense that I had no dog in the initial fight or awareness of the initial details. I've unpacked my block rationale above, and stand by it.

But guys, I'm a little confused. I've hung around this discussion because I did block another admin, realized it might be important, and wanted to respond before going to sleep. But there's a lot of comments above that are defending the indefensible. ("He didn't actually threaten to cut your throat, he merely talked about throat cutting.") As I type this, Mikka has the following post as a "PS" on his talk page: "And no I will never stop beating my wife."

I mean, what the hell is going on with this editor? (There's possibly some ironic sensibility in the comments on wife beating that I'm not getting.) Really, is anyone talking to him? Obviously, he doesn't like me right now because I blocked him, but there was no punitive desire on my part. But it seems like Mikka is a little mad right now (not insane, just very angry) and we should find out why. This doesn't make me think blocking for twelve hours was wrong—we need a block, until we have a calm channel to talk to him. Marskell (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

His reference to "beating his wife", to me, is a clear reference to the Fallacy of many questions argument posted above, and has nothing to do with actually "beating your wife". In fact, type this: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and see where it redirects for an explanation. He was making a logical conclusion basically that no matter what he answered, he wouldbe be condemned by the answer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The "I won't stop beating my wife" thing is a reference to the loaded "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, frequently used hereabouts to demonstrate when someone is making an argument that begs the question. Obviously he's perturbed, I just don't know that blocking him was the right step. It doesn't look like he's lost his mind or anything. (In other news, I think Mikka might be female. Sorry on the pronounage). Avruch 22:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, I've seen "When did you stop beating your wife?" used as a rhetorical device. The larger question remains, though: is anyone talking to Mikka? Marskell (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So Mikka has a temper. What's new? Yes, I support warning him; all users need to be civil. I am not sure the block was warranted, and I am sure Mikka is not the only party who is at fault. He does not loose his temper unless provoked, and quite obviously some users have handled this with a sledgehammer and bad faith assumptions. Cool down, and learn from it. I am certainly not suggesting that even prolific editors like Mikka should be treated differently; but I am certainly suggesting some people should be more careful and good-faithed when dealing with others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy by scheming cult (the Ameri-centric Libertarian Unitarian Universalists Front (ALUUF)) to turn us all insane

I don’t know how they’re doing it; possibly high frequency mind control waves sent thru the intertubes, or something in the water, or maybe ADM's proprietary genetically modified brain-chemical-altering nanobots (my own personal suspicion); but there’s a scheme afoot to turn all normal, law-abiding Wikipedians stark raving insane. As proof, I offer this entire thread. Please, until further notice, keep all your children indoors, do not stand near the windows, and do not post anything more to this thread. --barneca (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I'm not sure what that whole cult thing is supposed to mean. What the hell do Unitarians have to do with anything? Justin_(u) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, J-stan just said "hell" to me! I demand immediate de-sysoping (for him, I mean, not for me)! oh no, they got to me too... --barneca (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Front will never succeed. After all, their own motto is 'ALUUF and Alone', right? HalfShadow (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I closed this thread about 4 hours ago, as I saw this coming, it was being used to poke and prod an editor when the situation that had brought about the thread was resolved. And yet, the principals thought it best to unclose it, if only to continue to poke the bear with the stick. And this is what we get. Does it excuse Mikklai for his incivility? No, but this did NOT have to go this way. If the thread were left closed, there would have been no blocks, and none of this pointless backbiting and bullshit. I am ashamed of this entire thread, and next time, let people work their own shit out. There is no need to antagonize others in this way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a "principal" but I've moved the block review section outside of your close tags. I don't think the block review part of the discussion is necessarily resolved, although I would agree that the initial section was not constructive and should've been closed before it got inflamed to the point where someone handed out a block. Avruch 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing saga of Michael Willis

I laid the following on requests for a third opinion: MCVerstappen (talk · contribs) and others have been making disruptive edits to Michael Willis. Please see for the discussion Talk:Michael Willis. They are unhappy that the article about a political scientist by the same name was deleted after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Willis, where the outcome was "delete and salt". (the current version about the American was created after the title was unsalted to make room for the current article.)_ Michael Willis (Political Scientist) I deleted because it was recreated as the same as the deleted article and because my pleas for verifiable sources and notability have gone unheeded and and unanswered. I and others have attempted to engage in constructive dialogue. Most recently, MCVerstappen has moved the talk page and continues to make unconstructive edits to the article and accuse others of vandalism for reverting his edits. I'm at a loss has to how to resolve the matter. If someone could shed the light of reason, I would appreciate it. HelloAnnyong felt is vandalism. and vandal warned MCVerstappen. Ernienotsowise (talk · contribs) then appeared, made this remark, which I reverted as vandalism. He made this edit. And I blocked him till I got this posted, but will unblock. Would appreciate y'all's help and insight. Dlohcierekim 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no diplomatic solution, but I commend Mike for his great patience in this matter. Given the lack of constructive input from either user cited, on any topic, plus the lengthy list of deletes applied to the alleged political scientist, then blocking seems appropriate. We might also semi-protect the article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking seems appropriate to me as well, since they seem to be refusing to read the points you've made, dlohcierekim. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if these two new accounts are the same person, but that's probably irrelevant at this point. Natalie (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected Michael Willis, and salted the alternate article names. That should do for the time being , hopefully. Black Kite 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

MCVerstappen (talk · contribs) actually move both the article and talk page to a nonsense title (I reverted the move, and CSDed the resulting redirect). That move (not the first move that this user has done to this page) was itself pretty blatant vandalism, and not far short (IMHO) of warranting summary blocking without further warning to prevent further vandalism 87.80.55.193 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a test4 final warning, and not sure if a block is warranted at this moment. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Did not want to come across as an elitist admin bastard. Frankly, it was time for me to take a walk and let others deal with it. My hope was that MCVerstappen et al would see reason and contribute constructively. So far, as per norm, no response to our concerns. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex-wife or random troll editor --you decide

I arrived at the Andrea Bocelli article as a result of some previous vandalism/disruption. Now there is an editor, Enrica Bocelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims to be his ex-wife and insists on adding info about the singer's underwear. A little help please. 2 diffs . Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this user in accordance with WP:USERNAME; odds are that this is a random troll and that this is the last we'll hear of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think you pasted the wrong link into your first diff. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SI, and oops that first one was from earlier. . .I've added the correct one. R. Baley (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Related account creation

User:GHOST-G56 has just created a number of similar accounts, immediately after creating their own account; innocent experimentation, or a prelude for mischief? -- The Anome (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask them on their talk page? John Reaves 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Just be mindful about politeness and civility - don't be accusatory. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a returning vandal - look at User:B0t-myth, one of the accounts created. This anti-Scientology vandal struck earlier under a number of sockpuppet accounts, including User:B0t-Zer0, User:B0t-seph3roth, User:B0t-eXtreme, User:Jarda1221 and a few others. I've blocked them all before they start vandalising again. Hut 8.5 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also User:B0t-Anonymous, User:B0t-Ghost, User:B0t-M4ster and User:B0t-phant0m. Hut 8.5 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You might also want to look at this quacking here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been transcluded onto the RfA page yet, but everybody ought to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/EPIC MASTER. Corvus cornix_talk 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:EPIC MASTER. Please feel free to unblock if I am wrong. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block. I believe old untranscluded RfAs can be deleted under CSD G6 (though there's no way in hell someone with a history of abusive sockpuppetry is going to pass RfA). Hut 8.5 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce (talk · contribs) Longterm civility issues & ownership issues

having encountered redspruce on the 2nd or 3rd article now, and a quick glance at some of his previous talk comments on previous articles he's showing a willing disregard to debate civilly and this is creating a hostile editing environment on these articles. Examples from Talk:Joseph_McCarthy include:

• Since your contributions to discussion inevitably consist of uninformed wingnut drivel, I object.
• Speaking of senseless waste, was there some point to those 200 words?
• And makes a rather disparaging remark in the McCarthy archives On second thought, I guess I won't be back later today. Trying keep this article neutral in the face of two McCarthy apologists is becoming too much of a time and energy sink for me. Barring the arrival of reinforcements on the side of truth and rationality, I'm going to have to drop out for the time being. So whadeva; it was a decent article for a while. Bye

From Talk:McCarthyism:

• Jtpaladin, even if that infantile fantasy was true, it wouldn't matter as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned
• not for you to indulge in incoherent ramblings

Most recently on the Film noir talk page he's made the following comment:

• You may wish to read anyone can edit, or better still, WP:Don't be a tiresome, priggish, tendentious little snot.
• P O I N T L E S S. There is no consensus here. Period. You can either: 1) Wait for a consensus to develop, 2) Go ahead and make your pro-priggishness edit and see how the resultant edit-conflict goes, 3) Try to take this to some higher level of conflict resolution, 4) Go find some article to be priggish at.

After I commented that threatening resistance without any kind of consensus (or even majority, or even guidelines on your side) reaked of WP:OWN issues (he's twice indicated there will be resistance or edit conflicts if the changes he doesn't agree with are made), especially since he has reverted these changes in the past and claimed a majority and consensus which clearly isn't there.. Numerous editors have reminded him about civility during this time, and here he demonstrates a clear understanding of it Talk:McCarthyism#Personal_attacks but it appears it just doesn't apply to him. We all end up in disputes on wikipedia. Its rare to find an article with heavy traffic that doesn't have at least one or two on its talk page, but if you can't conduct yourself appropriately during disputes this is a problem, regardless of what else you've done for the project. Nothing excuses insulting other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, you're using diffs stretching back to 2006 to build your case? Please tell us where the current problems lie. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. Here are some recent incivil comments:

• 17:36, 21 February 2008
• 12:10, 21 February 2008

But I'm not going to do the legwork here. I went through several days worth of posts and can't find anything that is going to jump out and cause me to lose sleep at night. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the Joe McCarthy talk page and nothing stands out as being particulalry bad. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So referring to someone's contributions as uninformed wingnut drivel is okay with you?--Crossmr (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that depend on whether the actual contributions were uninformed wingnut drivel or not? Please note I am neither disagreeing with the description nor agreeing with it merely pointing out that civility is subjective and depends on whether the statement is a statement of fact or whether it is rhetoric designed to insult. --WebHamster 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. WP:CIVIL requires that we also try to avoid appearing uncivil as well as actually trying not to be uncivil. So regardless of whether or not this users contributions were uninformed wingnut drivel, calling attention to that in that manner is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. falling back on insults when you have nothing further to contribute to move the debate along is very clearly that. As well the policy contains the text Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. Whether or not he truly feels the editors contributions are that, describing them in such a disparaging manner is uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Appearing" to be civil, in my view, is actually worse than being uncivil as it is basically lying about what you really feel and is actually indulging in passive-aggressiveness. Lying to a person is not a civil act. It also prevents honest discourse. Editors here frequently confuse 'civility' with 'political correctness'. A true act of civility is to be honest with the person you are conversing with. Obviously you don't call them a name purely to insult, but if the person is being a twat/pillock/idiot/stupid, then it's perfectly civil to let them know that. The trick is to remain on the right side of the line that separates honesty from rubbing their nose in it. It is my humble view that the mantra "you're being uncivil" is used too frequently and incorrectly and is used as a shield to ward off disagreement. It's become a perfect weapon against true honesty. Being nicey-nicey has its limits and sometimes the situation occurs when it is no longer appropriate. --WebHamster 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No its not perfectly civil. No one is forcing you to engage in that debate. You can walk away anytime if you can't continue the debate without resorting to insults. There is no reason to be discussing the other editor in any debate. As WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA both are quite clear on, keep your comments to the content in the article, not to the other editors. The community has been quite clear on that point on wikipedia for a long time. Its always appropriate on wikipedia to avoid insulting other editors. If you want to discuss the merits of CIVIL you might want to do so on its talk page, but last I checked its still binding policy on wikipedia and this editors continued behaviour is at odds with it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's subjective, and you did see where I wrote "Obviously you don't call them a name purely to insult" didn't you? When is an insult an insult? Anything can be perceived to be an insult so the recipient's opinion shouldn't be taken as absolute. If the 'utterer' is not intending to be insulting and is just being factual then it is indeed civil. Intention is what makes an insult an insult. In this instance "uninformed wingnut drivel" is quite obviously intended to be an insult and is therefore uncivil. Whereas if someone does something plainly stupid and the response to it is "don't be stupid", then that is a factual statement. Its intention is to inform, not to insult therefore it remains civil. It's simply a case of WP:SPADE. Now if the alternate response had been something like "don't be fucking stupid" or "don't be a retard" then that is obviously uncivil because it is meant to be insulting. Although WP:CIVIL is policy it also relies heavily on interpretation. It's this interpretation that is being abused by editors to get their own way. It's quite possible to be civil whilst telling someone an unpleasant truth. This project could be improved by occasional candour. Sometimes it takes the shocking truth to bring someone to their senses, something that many editors are overdue for. Nicey-nicey is just another way of putting a lid on a pressure cooker. When it comes to humans it's the equivalent of making a left-handed person write with their right hand. It's alien, it's unnatural and eventually it's the cause of the problem, not the answer. --WebHamster 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in the examples I've provided I don't see anything other than these statements being used to insult, especially in the last case where he knew I found it offensive as I immediately pointed him to NPA.--Crossmr (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the threshold of 'being offended' becomes increasingly lower every day. Why anyone would take offence when a stranger passes comment is beyond me. Are skins so thin round here that a further portion of wikidrama has to be dolled out? Perhaps "sticks and stones may break my bones..." should be in WP:CIVIL too? Nothing you've said has persuaded me that civility isn't just another popular way of gaming the system. Are editors so insecure that they have to 'run to mummy' at the slightest little insult? Personally I think you should save the drama for when someone calls you a cunt, all this seems rather OTT for "wingnut". Priorities and perspective should be used in large portions I reckon. --WebHamster 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not your job to decide when someone else is offended. The very reason CIVIL and NPA exists is to prevent the creation of a hostile editing environment which is what this user is creating. If users are offended by disparaging remarks which are unnecessary to the debate at hand, that's all the requirement that needs to exist for there to be a violation of civil. This user creates a hostile environment to try and drive out some editors who disagree with him, especially when he can't seem to carry the debate further. In this case the hostility and disparaging remarks were coupled with thinly veiled threats of edit warring if anyone carried out an edit he disagreed with. This is plain and simple disruptive editing. As I said though, if you want to discuss the merits of civil and npa, you may wish to do so on their respective talk pages to seek consensus for your interpretation. Personally I don't think anyone who can't keep the discussion to the content and needs to include disparaging remarks to make their point doesn't belong here. You don't build a community and foster communication and growth by digging at each other.--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided the two comments from Film Noir already, including links to them.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided those examples because they're still sitting on current talk pages from the few articles I've been exposed to him in. I haven't dug through his contrib history to nitpick every edit he has made. I provided them going back to 2006 as well to demonstrate that is a long term issue, not something recent or isolated. I also provided links to demonstrate he's well aware of the policy and if he's not going to change after this long, he's probably not going to change given any further time. The current problem lies directly in Most recently on the Film noir talk page he's made the following comment but this is a far reaching and long-term problem which requires more attention than a simple "behave" as he's been told that multiple times in the past.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages driving us insane

Glad I'm not the only one to notice that sometimes some of us seem to snap for no apparent reason. Fortunately, I live in Florida next to a lovely park. When all else fails, I can always go and talk to the squirrels. Dlohcierekim 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So do I; the difference is they talk back to me, I give them the 4 warning templates, then block 'em indef. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, insanity is there beforehand, WP just gives us an outlet. Perhaps squirrels (vis-a-vis nuts!) wasn't the best choice of animal <g> --WebHamster 23:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah, but the ducks just run away. Dlohcierekim 23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamsters are cousins of the squirrel. Must block indef... —Animum (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So that's why my nuts are so important to me! ;) --WebHamster 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a policy of not feeding the squirrels. Oops, too late. :) Baseball Bugs 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't feed Florida's squirrels since one of them betrayed me after giving her a Dorito piece, that bastard... What are we talking about again? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I like to read WP:NAM and then take a wikibreak for three days to pet my white cat. :-) Bearian (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah crap in a shoebox. I wanna be where you guys are. As clearly seen above, I've been carried away by the crazy train. Someone rescue me, maybe an {{editor rescue}} tag needs to be developed similar to the inclusionsists' favorite "article rescue" tag? I don't know WTF is wrong with me, maybe its because I'm insanely jealous of your weather Dloh. The high temp where I live? Today, it was 8. Fahrenheit. Tomorrow? 12. I haven't seen an "above freezing" day for 3 months. Crap in a shoebox, I need to get outdoors soon. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

8? Ha! Try below zero for several days in a row. Natalie (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:TStolper1W

This user has edited only hydrino theory. Stolper has a conflict-of-interest with respect to the article and has been blocked before for disruptive editing. He has been warned many times that he should no longer edit the page (see User talk:TStolper1W). I recommend a long-term block, since Stolper is unrepentant and continues his disruptive editing. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A better venue for this would be WP:AN/COI. Ronnotel (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a case to look into this. Ronnotel (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:India101

"Newbie" India101 (talk · contribs) is creating tons of User pages labeling the users as socks of User:Hkelkar, and changing existing User pages to say that they're socks of Hkelkar. Corvus cornix_talk 00:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you left them a note yet? That might be the first step in correcting this new users mislead actions. Tiptoety 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre, the account hasn't edited in about 14 months and just starts up again with this. Regardless of WP:AGF, which I find hard to accept, it may be a compromised account and needs blocking as a preventive measure until this gets sorted out, although the tagging seems to have stopped for now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See also User talk:Lostanos for a similar and possibly related pattern. Risker (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What I noticed is that the original sock Eagerbeaver434 (talk · contribs) redirects to Hkelkar (talk · contribs), so they are related. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

His edits are correct at least. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In view of this, and I trust GeorgeWilliamHerbert's judgement on this, I'll block this indef and let it fall out later. For now, the issue is prevention of damage to WP. We can't have accounts like this running amok. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked as a preventive measure, I will unblock (or shorten the block) if nessesary as soon as we can sort this out. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From my CU, and the edits of other things on this IP address and the edits of this account in 2006, it is certainly Hkelkar's banned adversary BhaiSaab (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Block log. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 making false accusations of spamming

Seems Zsero stalking my contribs and upset about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu. He's aparently gone on a rampage deleting warnings and comments on associated user and IP talk pages involved in the case. , including blanking project talk page data. The vandalism was reverted in each instance, however he did it again . If Twice wasnt enough, he went for three times --Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Accounts under attack
Ashleylmack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stephena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
134.68.173.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis "Information Technology Services " department
134.68.172.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis "Information Technology Services " department
Klpalmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone was on a rampage today, but it wasn't I. Hu12 seems to have got the idea that five perfectly innocent editors were guilty of spamming, and not only blanket reverted all of their contributions without reviewing them for appropriateness, but posted a long accusation of spamming to their talk pages. I have personally reviewed the contribution histories of all five editors (three accounts and two IPs), and found every single edit to have been well-thought out and appropriate, the very opposite of spam. I have checked every link, and without exception they are to valid pages that are appropriate to the articles from which they were linked.

I considered Hu12's posts on their talk pages to be defamation and bordering on a Personal Attack, and so replaced them with an explanation of why the editor was falsely accused. At least one of these accounts has been recently active, and I wouldn't want that user to visit her talk page and see herself accused like that. I believe Hu12 ought to visit each of those talk pages and post an apology. Instead, s/he has reposted the attack. I've already asked Hu12 on their talk page to stop this, and now I find that they've escalated it to here. Please stop, now.

I should add that I have no connection whatsoever to IUPUI, which I had never heard of before today. I've only been to Indiana once. I don't know anybody called Ashley L Mack or K L Palmer, and while I do have a good friend called Steve A (don't know whether he's a Steven or a Stephen), I'm not aware of any connection he might have to Indiana either. And I certainly don't know those IP addresses! -- Zsero (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Several accounts and IP's from Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis were making all link contributions to Misplaced Pages to a specific sub domain link, indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu. There are in all likely hood thousands of IP's all over any university campusus, and is not a big deal. This was not a horrible link, however the WP:COI became aparrent when looking into it further, that these IP's and accounts were infact from the Universities "Information Technology Services " department. A clear case of WP:COI, and the conflicted accounts/IP additions were reverted.

Spamming Misplaced Pages (commercial or otherwise) is prohibited on wikipedia (unless I'm wrong about that). In this case, It was not that the additions were just comming from a university WP:SPA account, it was the fact that these particular additions were origionating from the Universities "Information Technology Services " department.

• Note the time on each corresponding IP/account.

Template:MultiCol

Accounts/IP

→134.68.172.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "University Information Technology Services "

12:11, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

12:08, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

12:05, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

→Stephena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

11:55, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

11:51, 19 September 2006 (?External links)

| class="col-break " |

Accounts/IP

→Ashleylmack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

16:30, 21 February 2008 (?Geography)

16:17, 21 February 2008 (?External links)

16:14, 21 February 2008

→134.68.173.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "University Information Technology Services "

16:09, 21 February 2008 (?External links)

16:08, 21 February 2008 (?External links)

Template:EndMultiCol

Clearly connected as illustrated above. In all likely hood this was an overzelous webmaster, and was reported to project spam.--Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of those edits are 18 months old! In any case, there is nothing inappropriate about someone who works in a university library adding links to its archives where appropriate. Hu12 seems to have a very idiosyncratic definition of spam. In any case, I'm over an hour late for an appointment and I can't stick around for this discussion so it'll have to go on without me. I'll be back, but don't expect any further response from me for the next few hours. -- Zsero (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The age is particularly concerning. There are over 850 links to this university linking various subdomains, how many more were added in this manner..and for how long. While I assume the overwhelming majority were added good faith, incidents like this does raise some questions. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. In all likely its an overzelous webmaster and clearly connected. --Hu12 (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a university library archive, with lots of interesting stuff – there should be lots of links to various sites within it. It would be surprising if there weren't. How many links are there to the Library of Congress, or the National Archives? The point is that every single link added by the five accounts you've accused was appropriate, and therefore the very opposite of spam.

You are wrong about the definition of spam. Spam is not defined by anyone's intentions, but by its content. Spam is by definition inappropriate content; anything that is a genuine improvement to the encyclopaedia can by definition not be spam, no matter who added it or why. Not that you have any right to assume bad motives, or overzealousness, whatever that might mean. -- Zsero (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:boomgaylove

A new editor, boomgaylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been engaging in sockpuppetry, incivility, edit warring, and personal attacks across a small range of articles.

Background Boomgaylove came to my attention when he/she nominated a clearly notable article, Your Black Muslim Bakery, for deletion with a somewhat bizarre sounding reason.. The article was speedily kept the next day as a snowball case via nonadministrative closure.

Sensing something odd going on I looked into the user's recent edits and saw he/she had nominated J Stalin, an article about an Oakland rapper for speedy deletion, claiming incorrectly that it was unsourced (in fact, it had two sources but they were unlinked and mentioned inline rather than citations). For good measure he/she deleted a mention of the rapper from Cypress Village, Oakland, California, claiming the rapper was not notable.. He/she had also re-started an old edit war on the Point Isabel Regional Shoreline article by restoring a mention (that seems to have been deleted by consensus back in October) that it wast the place where Laci Peterson's body washed ashore..

History of sock, incivility, vandalism, edit wars. A quick look at boomgaylove's talk page revealed a series of warnings, plus one block, for vandalism, personal attacks, and disruptive editing. His/her edits had caused at least one article to be protected for edit warring. The editor had also used an anonymous IP address to get around WP:3RR to revert a disambiguation page, The hizzle (disambiguation) eight times to insert a bizarre, dubious negative reference to Hillary Clinton. On the IP talk page the editor admitted to sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, saying that he/she "didn't do it all myself. other people use this computer and i aked them to edit for me." (sic).

When I examined this, an editor had given the user a third-level warning for vandalism. I wasn't convinced (the supposed "vandalism" was adding a pronunciation key to an article), so I left a note on the user's talk page that I thought they were just engaging in "enthusiastic but occasionally odd editing", a conclusion that I now think greatly underestimated the problem with this editor. However, to reverse what I believed was a series of bizarre and unconstructive edits I did add a "keep" vote for the Black Muslim bakery, restored the sourced information to the Cypress Village article and removed the mention of the body to the Point Isabel article per , I pitched in by adding a source citation to that article.

My involvement. Things went from bizarre to worse after I tried to help, as boomgaylove began to edit war on all of the articles.

To support his proposed deletion of J Stalin for being unsourced, he blanked the article, or parts of it (including removing citations) at least eleven times so far while the article has been up for AfD: He is also nominating the article about one of the magazines used as a reference for the article..

He has removed the J Stalin mention and source from the Cypress village at least four more times, for a total of five in 2+ days:

He has been adding a bunch of bogus tags to the J Stalin article and possibly others:

• added an "unreferenced" tag to support the AfD claim, even though the article had five references at the time
• added a "notability" tag even though the article was at AfD,
• added a "protect" tag to the article even though it was not protected.
• In a new tactic, he is adding "fact"-type citation tags to material that is already sourced, occasionally after deleting the sources, either in bad faith to wikigame or because he does not understand WP:V (here and elsewhere, he repeatedly argues that newspapers are not good sources, "small time news" (e.g. the Jerusalem Post, Marketwatch, etc) should not be used as sources, etc.).

Personal attacks. In addition to his pattern of attacks on other people, he's attacked me a number of times in the process of edit warring: "poor critical thinking and logic skills", accusing me of "harassment" and "vandalism" , "vandalism" and "libelous".

In once instance he decided to edit war with me on the AfD page for J Stalin, insisting on interjecting an "objection" into the middle of my comment so to split it in two, claiming that by moving his comment to after mine I was engaging in "vandalism." .

Also, he is accusing me of "harassing" or having a "vendetta" about him. I will state here for the record that as a 1+ year editor with many thousands of mainspace edits and a lot of participation on policy pages, I've had my disagreements with people but I am not keeping any grudges. My only involvement and concern here is to deal with a pattern of disruptive editing. If he stops I have no issue with him.

Recommendation. I believe we need to begin ratcheting up an escalating series of blocks until he stops. He was already blocked for a day, only a few days ago, for this kind of behavior. Out of the block he started up again immediately and has continued all of the things he got blocked for. He has been completely resistant to warnings - I gave him four, and several other editors have recently given him at least seven in the past week or so. If this is long it's because this editor has been doing a lot of disruptive editing. These are only the articles I've been watching him on. He seems to be engaged in edit wars and other misbehavior in other articles such as Matt Sanchez. He is wasting a lot of productive time of a lot of people. If nobody stops him, he shows every sign that he will continue indefinitely. His last disruptive edits have been within the first few minutes. I think we ought to do a block of intermediate length for now to stop and prevent ongoing disruption, and watch him closely from there. Wikidemo (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Shows no sign of taking policy, consensus or constructive encyclopedia-building on board, despite all the warnings. All in all, just too much disruption to be tolerable, and arguably blockable on username alone, and that's without the sockpuppetry. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment of this user but disagree with the assessment of the username. What's blockable about it? Certainly know of worse on WP right now. The user may be gay. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He may well be, but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion, that's why I said "arguably". For all I know, the name could imply that he's anti-gay but in any event, that's the least of the issues here. Apologies if I seemed to make too much of it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was a celebration of gayness, which is just fine. The "indefinite" part of the block surprised me but I respect that. As his main nemesis for the past few days I didn't want to be too ambitious in my request. Anyway, he's now asking to be unblocked but the request ducks all these issues. I hope that nobody considers unblocking him summarily but that if he really shows someday that he will behave and become a productive editor, he's as entitled as anyone else. He is showing no sign at all of acknowledging any behavior problem or changing his ways, just denying he did anything wrong. Note that in this edit he reacts to the ostensible "advice" to "choose his battles" by saying that he is "Machiavellian" in that way. I don't think "indefinite" has to mean forever, but before he's unblocked he really has to show a sign that he won't edit war, behave uncivilly, or attempt to subvert the rules and game the system. I'm concerned that he's quickly glommed on to facile arguments in his very short time here, at first just warring, but soon adopting the language and policy citations of the people trying to reign him in...within a few days he was citing BLP, verifiability, notability, etc., for his edits. He seems to be slapdash, but with more practice gaming the system he might get better at it and become a much bigger nuisance. The admitted sockpuppetry isn't a good sign either. We should be on the lookout. Wikidemo (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, as was pointed out in his unblock request decline on his talk page, he should be community banned and I'll go further to say it should be for the admitted sockpuppetry alone - especially in light of the recent User:Archtransit fiasco. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Club le Shark

The article was created with a semi-protect by a non-admin. How did that happen?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)