Misplaced Pages

Ryan ends his complaint by a request for comment (what has occurred here is an informal RfC). There have been many comments, and 2 sources documenting the reasons why a ban should be made. GHcool's evidence is ancient history, a few diffs from two years to eight months ago, and so wholly irrelevant to a complaint about PR's recent behaviour. His whole effort to get at PR is an abuse of appropriate evidence and proper process. Jayjg's evidence consists of innuendos about SPA accounts and sockpuppetry, blather (WP:SOAP per tu quoque) over Bogdanor and Kastner which is neither here nor there, since Jayjg, as shown, misread PR's remark; plus two elements of evidence of violation of BLP recently. All we have then, is two putative instances of violating BLP to secure checkmate, a permanent community ban. What do they consist in? Ayaan Hirsi Ali's public record is compared, on a talk page, to Shahak's, to illustrate by analogy bias in that I/P article. Mitchell Bard is contested as a proper source, correctly, since the remark quoted from him is obvious nonsense not fit for a serious encyclopedia article: and it is on a talk page. So what's the problem? So far we have these two bits, and the points made by PR would never form the basis for an ANI complaint had anyone else made them. Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A Review of the evidence. What evidence?

1.Ryan calls for a community ban. His complaint is that mentoring Palestine Remembered has failed to stop PR from push(ing) his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles.

This is startling. The majority of editors who underwrite a permanent ban will not be offended, I think, if I remark that they ‘push their pro-Israeli POVs’. No one on the other side regards User:Jayjg as anyone other than an edit-warrior with a powerful pro-Israeli POV. That is attested in every edit I have seen from him over the past two years. In the rules, as far as I understand them, there is nothing wrong with pushing a POV, most I/P articles are compromises (messy) made by parties with opposed POVs, which each side pushes. To deny this is to deny the obvious. Therefore, Ryan’s complaint, expressed thus, suggests a misapprehension about how I/P articles are written.

(b) He's well known to edit war to get his point across. This is vague. Does it refer to past reputation or to present behaviour? If the latter, then this must be documented. Anything to do with PR's past behaviour is wholly immaterial to the ban requested, which must logically relate to recent behaviour.

(c) He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action. G-Dett replied to this in the following terms, and no one has challenged their veracity:-

'what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a rogue admin made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place.’

Since no one has challenged G-dett's recall of the instance, Ryan's remark self-cancels, and can be thrown out of court. In fact if anything it testifies more to the behaviour of the 'rogue administrator' who happens here to be the chief prosecutor for the case now under consideration against PR.

(d) he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. This repeats (b) and is unsubstantiated by recent evidence. Ryan’s point is also that numerous editors have failed to get PR to toe the ‘right path’. Perhaps true, but numerous editors who appear to enjoy hauling PR under administrative sanctions, have no idea of what the ‘right path’ is, since they are happy POV pushers themselves.

2.Ryan calls for comments. One comment was that Ryan’s own complaint comes after Jayjg had worked Ryan’s page to raise, for the umpteenth time, apparent problems with PR’s return to editing. I haven't checked it, but then again, no one has protested the veracity of the assertion. Ryan himself did not produce evidence for his claims, but, subsequently, when Jayjg made his own case, Ryan underwrote Jayjg’s suit, as containing more or less the gravamen of his own charges. Thus functionally, Ryan’s complaint is a proxy complaint authored by Jayjg.

Administrator Blueboy96, Horologium, Administrator Coren, JzG (Guy), JoshuaZ Canadian Monkey all immediately supported a site or topic ban, though no evidence has been forthcoming. They trusted Ryan’s description, or recalled PR’s archival record. Durova is commendably neutral.

Presumptive, asks for evidence, as does ChrisO. John Nagle checks 100 recent edits and can’t see the problem. LamaLoLeshLa asks why at this particular point is PR’s past beinfg raked over? Where is the new evidence for this old complaint?

Only with GHcool is an attempt at supplying evidence made. The evidence is:

(a)Ghcool’s opinion that PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful.
This emerges as the only reason GHcool has to press for PR's ban, personal dislike.

(b) He has been guilty of calling Zionists proud of their murderous racism

The link takes us to December 2006 where in reply to Robert E.Rubin’s attempt to discredit the fact that Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors, PR replied:

'There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghcool thus distorts the record. PR had it in for Zionist politicians (one presumes Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon <BLP vio removed>, not Zionists(potentially all patriotic Israelis). The remark was in any case duly punished with a 24-hour ban, which was fair enough, though it should have been longer for the solecism in PR's remark. This is again evidence from 1 and a half years ago.

(c) spreading Zionist conspiracy theories
The link refers to a comment made 8 months ago, to Jaakobou:

'I trust you'll not present yourself as having any understanding of the developing situation. The Saudi inititative is a two-state proposal that leaves Israel intact within the Green Line borders, but it does have to abide by International law (as mostly written or re-written by the US in the aftermath of 1945). And the Saudi proposal has more support amongst Palestinians than does the undefined 'two-state solution' they were offered in that poll. It might be time to start writing this article to WP:policy and reliable sources. PR 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth this completely acceptable statement has to do with the crime of spreading ‘Zionist conspiracy theories’ is unclear. This is a howler, and no one picks it up.

(d) comparing Zionists with Nazis,

Again, the link goes through a time-capsule back to December 2006, and in reply to an editor who asks ‘why no mention of terrorist attacks on Jews’, Palestine remembered wrote:

You could probably write a number of very good articles on oppression aimed at Jews. Unfortunately, most of your allies will either be Zionists (who are provably a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945) or anti-Zionists (who are appalled that the Holocaust is used as justification for the crimes of Israel). I'm not sure how you'll get round that one - you could start by expressing your outrage at Zionists who, whatever crimes are alleged against Israel, immediately blame the Jews. They fail to recognise that the Jews have suffered quite enough from false allegations in the last 2000 years. PalestineRemembered 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This again is malicious misrepresentation, since there is no equation of Zionists with Nazis. However you wish to construe what PR is saying, note that PR writes 'Zionists who..' not 'Zionists, who...' This now becomes a pattern with Ghcool’s evidence. None of these diffs support the dramatic tabloid titles he supplies them with in glossing their ostensible content.

(e) comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers,

(e.i)Note 11.Takes us to an innocuous exchange of views that are far more nuanced that what Ghcool would have us believe. It dates to September 2007

Ghcool is satisfied with the state of the ‘causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus’. PR replies.

'I think it's terrible, gravely distorting what historians say about this business. We seem to have quotations in there from "historians" even less credible than David Irvine. We have historians who believe one thing quoted as if they believed the opposite - and editors claiming that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. PalestineRemembered 18:29, 9 September 2007

I.e. David Irving is not a credible historian, since he is a denier. Neither is Schechtman, since he, in a different vein, denies obvious facts (and creates malicious untruths passed off as historiography)

There are two David Irvings. One was the highly regarded historian of the German military praised by all academic specialists in the 1960s, the other is the Holocaust-denier. PR is referring to a number of Israeli historians of the early postwar period who were responsible for creating a completely false mythical account of the reasons for the exodus, a myth exposed as early as 1961 but which was repeated right down to the 1980s, and which found honourable mention in the aforesaid article.

(e.ii) This refers to an exchange on Jan 14 eight months ago. PR writes:-

Yet again, we agree. But I worry the ArbCom don't know what appalling souces get rammed into I-P conflict articles. We quote Joseph Schechtman in that article saying "Until ... May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." I'm confident (and User:GHcool has never denied) that that clip, alone, is worse than anything ever seen from David Irving. While illiterates stalk our articles, the I-P conflict articles, and the conduct surrounding them, will disgrace us. This is a problem we can fix - but only when the ArbCom protects scholars like User:Tiamut. And also User:Nishidani, recently hounded from the project when his patience and good-nature was trashed. PR 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the lather, PalestineRemembered again considers Schechtman worse than David Irving. Both deny or affirm absurd things. Pr quotes a notorious piece of propagandistic nonsense by Schechtman, with no basis in the historical record. No one there confuted this. What Schechtman wrote was crap, and Ghcool is only offended at the comparison with David Irving. So?

(e.iii) Again Ghcool takes us down the time tunnel, January 2008. He complains of this remark on the talk page of ‘Jewish Lobby’:-

I'm somewhat handicapped discussing hate-sources because I avoid them like the plague. But I'd be surprised if David Duke is as bad (either on grounds of hate or grounds of "gross historical fabrication") than two sources we seem to use a lot, Joseph Schechtman and Shmuel Katz. The former is even quoted in a WP article with this astonishing nastiness: Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. (From his book The Arab Refugee Problem) Prove to me that David Duke have ever come out with anything so outlandish. PR 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, PR, though guilty of hyperbole (actually Katz and Schechtman can, with extreme care, be harvested for information, as I once noted, though one must keep in mind their partisanship for terrorism) is expressing contempt for Irving and Duke, but saying to pro-Israeli editors, if you can’t stand lies against your community by holocaust-deniers, why push rubbish by Schechtman and Katz (both associated historically with an organization, the Irgun, that used terroristic methods to achieve statehood) that fabricates vicious untruths about Arabs comparable to the vicious untruths fabricated by Holocaust deniers against Jews. This is the rhetorical strategy. It may be fervid, ineptly put, but the technique is normal in persuasion by analogy.

(f) committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. -GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think this needs comment. Most of the newspaper sources from mainstream press that, for some, form a staple of I/P information, don’t stand a moment’s scrutiny for logical coherence. If logical fallacies were the basis for including or excluding editors, wiki would lose 95% of its regular contributers, from the most brilliant to the average editor. The information on PR provided by Ghcool therefore is void of substance, full of thin historical reminiscence of past behaviour that, in context (don’t read the bolded green patch in the link: read the whole flow and all comments for each diff) has not been exceptional on I/P articles in the past. Strongly worded, opinionated, but to the point, and often rationally argued or sourced reliably.

Then, LamaLoLeshla notes that his tabloid headings are not backed up by the diffs. Horologium tries to be helpful, but his indications in no way clarify Ghcool’s bad diffs. Since Ghcool’s charges are ancient history, Coppertwig twigs us to a copper in the wings, as Ryan did, by telling us to at Jayjg’s forthcoming evidence based on PR’s recent editing.

I in turn make a point about the vagueness of these charges, all old history, no evidence. Jaakobou, also notes that the diffs are insufficient. Both PR and I have had a past record of conflict with him, and his remark at this point is to be thoroughly commended. He is judging this case on the merits of evidence, reading what is said closely, and making his own call. Our differences are enormous, but here is an editor who, though he has a very convinced pro-Israeli point-of-view, is measuring the evidence, against the claims, by his own lights. PhilKnight agrees with Jaakobou's call, but suggests a 3 month ban, nothing as drastic as that originally proposed.

(3)As the case for a community ban wobbles towards a crash, Jayjg finally shows his hand.

(3.a)Palestine remembered is a self-confessed SPA, a propagandist and soapboxer. Like Ghcool Jayjg has a perfect memory and can testify that PR has never made, even once, an edit that is not propaganda.

(3.b)A technicality allows Jayjg to raise a specious impression that PR is guilty of sockpuppetry. It is nothing more than that, a play on words, used for the subliminal effect 'sockpuppetry' has on administrators. Wink,wink, nudge,nudge

(3.c)Here we finally have contemporary evidence from the last week. WP:BLP violation against "the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali". Jay jigs up the following tremendously damning smoking gun from PR's recent edit.

'Shahak did less to Judaism (in far more measured terms) than the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali do to Islam. Compare the two for reliability - Hirsi Ali is known to have lied (she's admitted it publicly) about what Islam did to her life, re-inventing great portions of it even including her name and date of birth. (That was in order to leave the perfectly safe Germany and settle in Holland). She's either chucked up or mysteriously distanced herself from the plum think-tank job she landed in Washington .... safer back in Eurabia than Washington? Whereas Shahak is more respectable in every way, surviving Belsen (1943 aged 10), going to Palestine, serving in an elite regiment of the IDF. He went on to become a professor of chemistry at Hebrew University. I think it's only in 1967 he came to question his faith. Nishidani proves again (above) that Shahak's criticisms of his religion (while hard hitting) bear no resemblance to those of Hirsi Ali, they're veritable models of reason in comparison. Now compare the two for the tone of our treatment - we quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali enthusiastically (as do all sorts of blatant Islamophobes and racists) seemingly delighted to have her say of Islam "Violence is inherent in Islam, it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder". In Shahak's case, we ignore the points he has to make, pour scorn on his testimony, and quote his critics saying "world's most conspicuous Jewish antisemite... Like the Nazis before him". Then we further defame Shahak because his words were picked up by racists - even though we know it's completely irrelevant. Moshe Sharrat, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel is also extensively quoted by the antisemitic - so? It's almost as if we're writing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. PR 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the enormous crime by wiki criteria in this first piece of evidence for PR’s horribly recalcitrant propagandistic editing? Jayjg, read the whole Shahak page and archives, has it in for Shahak. Shahak was a Popperian liberal, a Holocaust survivor and secular critic of the ultra-orthodox threat to the development of Israel as a modern democracy. You cannot even begin to understand his critique unless you are familiar with Popper's 2 volume masterpiece, 'The Open Society and its Enemies' and Hadas's theories about Platonic influence via Hellenism on certain currents of rabbinical thinking. He wrote several books on the oddities of rabbinical halakhic and doctrinal traditions. Because he translated and divulgated extensive swathes of opinion from rabbinical sources that will strike most secular minds as bizarre, in a state where Judaic religious identity is still not disentangled from Israeli Jewish identity, Shahak came in for a huge amount of flak. Jayjg has supported cramming the page with poor sources that smear, insinuate and slander the man. Many, myself included, have given up and allowed the mess to stand as a monument to the kind of editing Jayjg rides shotguhn over, while he jumps at people like PR for not respecting Wiki ideals, and retailing 'propaganda'.

PR simply said that proIsraeli I/P editors are enamoured of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says of Islam, yet hate what Shahak says of Orthodox rabbinical thought. Both often say the same thing, that these respective religions shackle human liberty with the queerest of mystical theories. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is hailed as a heroic figure because her enemy is Islam. Shahak is despised as a Jewish antisemite because his enemy was a mode of rabbinical doctrine and thinking he thought tyrannical and totalitarian. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is known to have lied (PR says) and this does not alter the esteem in which she is held. Shahak is said by his bitter enemies to have lied, and this is showcased on his page. The point PR makes is the point made with Irving. I.e., pro-Israeli editors get on their high horses when Israel or Judaism is attacked, in this case by a Jewish critic, and allow the page to carry a large amount of preposterous insinuations from unreliable sources, whereas figures like Hirsi Ayaan Ali critical of Islam (Israel’s putative enemy) are left untouched, when not hailed for their critical boldness in taking on religious obscurantists. To entertain both positions is hypocritical, the duplicity of double standards is disturbing among editors of I/P articles, because one set of criteria is used with regard to Israel, another set used with regard to Israel’s putative enemies or antagonists, even when the situations in both cases are strikingly analogous. PR is thus vigorously deploring nationalist bias in I/P articles. Jayjg thinks this, apparently, deplorable, as deplorable as a man like Shahak, whom the Council of Foreign relations in Washington thought highly enough to consult with regularly over the 1990s. This is, finally, an analogy, of considerable merit, made on a talk page to illustrate what is wrong with Jayjg's editing, and not a violation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's biography.

(3.d)'a BLP violation against Mitchell Bard'

Again as before the following comment occurs on a Talk Page (Arab Citizens of Israel). The contested remark is:-

Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His "Myths and Facts" contains such gems as MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace." He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. PR 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well? Bard is not a reliable source. The remark he is cited as making is a nonsense, since every Israeli government (bar Netanyahu’s perhaps) has, in its negotiations, allowed that there is a problem with settlements, and every world body consulted thinks so too, since they are not on land legally belonging to the state of Israel. With comments like that, one can only reply: ‘Non c’è trippa per gatti’. PR’s remark is innocuous, and a correct call to boot. It is not a BLP violation of Mitchell Bard to say, on a talk page where his irrelevant views are pushed, that he is a ‘serious propagandist’ who denies what Israeli negotiators admit to be the truth, i.e. that settlements are the central issue of contention, and an obstacle to be overcome, in peacetalks. Talk pages are full of such comment, whenever bad sources from second raters in the commentariat are being pushed in.

(3.e)'some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor'

(3.e.i) refers to a long discussion agreeing with another poster, on technical questions of branding people ‘deniers’ of genocide. It concludes:-

Lastly, there are other examples which must look perilously close to denial - it's difficult to imagine that the claims made in this republished 1962 leaflet (?) are taken very seriously by anyone who know anything of this case. PR 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(3.e.ii)Interacting with Relata refero on his talk page, PR mentions Paul Bogdanor:-

Hi Relata - I came across this from Paul Bogdanor's web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussed here. From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checked The 200 lies of Chomsky, much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again. PR 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what’s the ruckus about this, where's the huge violation of wiki policies involved here. A note on Paul Bopgdanor asking for a second opinion. Bogdanor is a hack writer, without any competence on Kastner, or anything else to do with I/P articles (in Jayjg’s own severe standards on WP:RS) and PR asked for advice to confirm her own reasonable impressions. Those who track and sort out who’s saying what to whom on I/P articles have clipped this out as damning evidence, of what? That PR, like a large part of the serious commentariat, thinks anything Bogdanor has to say can be safely ignored without drastic loss of wisdom?

Jayjg protests at PR saying 'Everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated. He thinks, evidently that some people do not agree that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis. But Everybody does agree, however, that Kastner collaborated with Nazis, since he did. And to say he didn’t would be to controvert a huge mass of contemporary documentation. It is not a claim, it is a matter of fact. In the second part of PR's remark to which Jayjg takes exception, we read:

almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens.

What Jayjg ignores, crucially, is that almost. Ignoring that almost wilfully then allows him to make a Mountain out of a non-existent molehill, a fuss about the ostensible exception to PR's generalization. i.e. Anna Porter’s 'Kazstner's Train: The True Story of Rezsö Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust', which argues that Kastner was a hero. So? PR said almost, not everyone. Almost, Jayjg, in English usage here, means, contextually, almost everyone (except Anna Porter, for example). I won’t go into the Kastner case, and the large literature on that episode, as, I think, Relata refero redmarks, that it is a very complex case (the tradition behind sacrificing a large community to save a few however has been studied, not least by Israel Shahak, a taboo he and Raul Hilberg worried over all their lives, and for which many have never forgiven them for having voiced their malaise publicly) but I would suggest that Jayjg instead of whipping up froth and foam out of PR’s truism, meditate on the interview his link directs us to where Anna Porter is quoted as saying:

'He's the only Jewish Holocaust survivor who saved lives. There isn't anybody else really.'

I.e. Porter who shouts her ignorance in this remark, is also saying that of the 2 to 4 million Jews who survived the Holocaust, no one, except Kastner, lifted a finger to save a fellow Jew. And you have the brashness to assert, after reading this extraordinary generalization, that PR makes remarks characterized by tendentious nonsense?

(3.f)Jayjg concludes his shabby brief with the following ex cathedra judgement:'Tendentious nonsense . . characterizes the editor behind PalestineRemembered it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To use that language on the strength/weakness of the ostensible evidence, rigged up out of a few lame diffs, against another wikipedian is probably a violation of WP:CIVIL. All I can see here is an attempt to finish unsettled old scores, a vendetta, personal dislike, and factitious material jerryrigged to waste another editor, whose faults, acknowledged by many, are venial, and certainly not conspicuous, in the record placed before us here. Nothing adduced here warrants such comments on PR's recent behaviour as both GHcool and Jayjg have attempted to document it. This is, therefore, a farce.

But, in fine, Jayjg, examining this travesty of evidence, one can only sigh with a slight infraction of metrical proprieties, with Horace (Serm. Lib,I, 1, 69-70), in parsing the intemperate language and characterisations of congenitially poor editing you have brandished here against PR: Quid derides? Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But these topics are politically very sensitive and there are equally valid but completely different opinions in the reliable sources. Compare PR's behavior to your own behavior some time ago on the Global Warming page. In that case the reliable sources (i.e. the peer reviewed sources and not the unreliable blogs) are very clear, yet we have to put up with editors who refuse to recognize the basic facts. See here for a recent RFC on such a problematic editor. Count Iblis (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

gee, thanks. not only do i get a whole new editor casting aspersions on me, it's on a whole new topic to boot. thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to your Armada? :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, your insertion of irrelevancies and non sequitirs here, in order to throw aspersions at me, seems a bit uncivil and not completely appropriate here. We are trying to discuss specific topics here. (By the way, if your armada reference was meant to be humorous, I can take some wry humor here as well as anyone here, but it did not appear that way, and seemed like an unfriendly act. I don't mind some off-topic conversation, but it seemed like some sudden negative material unrelated to the topic at hand. if you are trying to strike a light note, I feel you should try to do so differently.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

I'd like to bring us back to the criteria for a community-wide or topic-ban. What are indeed the criteria? Cheating, and edit-warring, PR says. I'd have to agree with him/her that I don't see evidence to that effect. So, please, as someone who's only been here for a few months, could someone explain to me, with an emphasis on recent concerns, first, what the specific charges are here which merit permanent banning, and second, offer support. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy mother of pearl, that was long Nishidani. I'll try to be much briefer:

1. I actually do know a fair bit about Kastner and the allegations raised regarding him, having written most of the Malchiel Gruenwald article and contributed significantly to the Rudolf Vrba article. No, not "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated". Kastner negotiated with the Nazis, trying to make a deal to trade Allied goods for Jewish lives. Whether or not this negotiation ever had a chance of succeeding is a matter for debate amongst historians, and there are some writers who think that Kastner knew they had no chance, and was only in it for himself - Vrba and Gruenwald primary among them. However, that is certainly not the consensus among historians, far from it. Yehuda Bauer certainly does not agree, nor does Martin Gilbert. But if Nishidani thinks that "almost everyone" thinks that Kastner was a collaborator who betrayed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and that Porter's award-winning book is bunk, let him produce the many reliable historians who say so. And no, despite your citing Adolf Eichmann as a reliable source on Kastner, I nevertheless do not consider him to be one.
2. Aayan Hirsi Ali, Mitchell Bard, and Paul Bogdanor are all living people, and Misplaced Pages discussion regarding them is covered by the WP:BLP policy, regardless of your personal opinions regarding them.
3. PalestineRemembered claimed that his account was a "legitimate" SPA, used to edit I-P articles. Since he is now using the account to edit other articles, it is no longer a legitimate SPA, but instead, merely a second account, which in Misplaced Pages terminology, is called a "sockpuppet". It no longer possess the alleged "legitimacy" it once claimed.

Finally, regarding your claim that "Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest", in the past month I have written these two articles: Temple Sinai (Oakland, California), East Midwood Jewish Center, brought the following article I created to GA status: Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, created three Did You Know articles, including Congregation Beth Israel (New Orleans, Louisiana) and Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania), completely re-written and tripled the size of Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem to save it from deletion, written Congregation Beth Israel (Gadsden, Alabama), Temple Beth Israel (Niagara Falls, New York), Congregation Beth Israel (Honesdale, Pennsylvania), Temple Beth Israel (Bergen County, New Jersey), and 34 stubs. Your powers of observation do not appear to be very good. Jayjg 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, In regards to point 3, could you possibly point out where the evidence is that:

1. PR uses multiple accounts; and
2. simply having multiple accounts is considered sock-puppetry? My reading of WP:SOCK's lead suggests otherwise.

It seems a pretty big leap to go from "What used to be an SPA is now editing other areas of Misplaced Pages" to "The user is deceptively abusing sock-puppet accounts". Even if PR did have another account, I would see no problem, as long as never the twain shall meet.

-- Mark Chovain 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I had always believed from his statement that he was an SPA editing only I-P related articles that he was declaring PalestineRemembered to be a secondary account, as per Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, reason #1. I see now that it was an assumption on my part. Perhaps he can clarify. Jayjg 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh... he said he is (or was) a "single-purpose account", which is what we call people who show up only to promote their band, categorize railroads by state, or block bad usernames. It says nothing about having another account. --NE2 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just stated that I now see it was merely an assumption on my part, based on my quite possibly erroneous inference that he was using the account for Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, reason #1. Jayjg 05:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Short-version. Judging by the evidence so far, to file for a community ban on ANI without evidence that stands up to scrutiny looks like barratry to me.

Long-version. Reply to Jayjg I'll answer in Hysteron-proteron sequence, for convenience.

'(My) powers of observation do not appear to be very good'

Perhaps. What I do have is a fair competence in construing sentences in a few languages to determine what they mean, and how, in a sequence of discursive exchanges, the logical content of the respective sentences flows. You make the same mistake above as you did with PR's comment on Kastner. I said, addressing you, 'every edit of yours I have observed over two years' . You now list many edits you have made which I haven't observed, in order to disprove a generalisation made strictly in terms of my own experience. Since I don't track you, but merely note what you do on pages I edit, I restrict myself to that. So, as is, unfortunately, normal in low-key banter, there is little trace of logical coherence between what I stated, which remains true, and what you argue in a specious reply, which addresses something I never said. The hypothetical statement, which by your misprision, you attribute to me and then rebut, takes the form, 'Every edit you have made on Misplaced Pages, Jayjg, looks like a defence of a national/ethnic interest'. Since I never said this, your reply, while interesting, does not answer to what I said.

I know a lot of people here hunt each other, check each other's logs, email around, etc. I don't. I make my calls strictly (if naturally subjectively) on the evidence of what I see. Permit me to add. That you enrich wiki with many contributions on Jewish topics is something you can justifiably be proud of. That your edits on anything regarding Palestinians overwhelmingly strike many others as bordering on a pretextual (i.e.wikilawyering) censoriousness that seriously damages the highest aim of this collaborative endeavour, (encyclopedicity) may equally yield a sense of self-satisfaction. It would be ungenerous to deny the justifiable pride with which you document your contributions to the Jewish side of wikipedia. It would be dishonest to hide one's feeling that the satisfactions of impoverishing otherwise good work on Palestinians are to be deplored. To illustrate (hmm.tracking me?), since Fiamma Nirenstein makes films for Italian TV, and endlessly dominates talkshows here on Palestinian terrorism (is it a violation of BLP to say here that she never allows anyone to get a word in edgewise?), that edit I made months ago on her page, indicating that she lives in Gilo, on the West Bank, is pertinent. It simply allows the reader who may check, to know that Nirenstein happens to be, herself, a 'settler' on Palestinian territory. I see last night you have eliminated it, I can imagine with, let me be ironical, a mow of triumphant schadenfreude?. Nirenstein will thank you. People who know nothing of her background will now check wiki and not know that when she speaks of settlers, she has a conflict of interest. Good job.

Kastner. Collaborate? Cooperate? In the first edition of his masterpiece, Raul Hilberg uses the words interchangeably. Later, he preferred 'cooperate', because, I presume 'cooperate' lacks certain wartime nuances associated with 'collaborate'. Substantively, however, c'est la même différence.

Your remarks on PR's sparse comments re Kastner make up (since they gather in Paul Bogdanor etc.) almost half of your comments, which were supposed to supply serious evidence. They are (a)immaterial to any brief on PR's putative violations of WP rules, except if one wishes to raise a comber's lather over WP:SOAP. (b) You are contesting the veracity of a generalization made by PR on a talk page. That's within your rights, but on the relevant talk page. At least half of those editing pages I am familiar with do not seem to have any background knowledge of the subject, but simply take off from reading preexisting links on the page. That's why one needs extensive comments on Talk pages, such as, in this case, PR provided, esp. with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

You will differ with PR on Kastner, as, in major key, Raul Hilberg differed with Yehuda Bauer on these issues. To make a challengeable, historically questionable, generalization (were this the case, which is arguable) on a talk page does not constitute a violation of wiki rules. (Sir Martin, an extraordinary historian, is a generalist on this, and not pertinent, by the way). You did make a major error in construing almost everyone as everyone, and in generalizing from a statement that syntactically allowed for the very exception you then adduced to rebut PR, you committed a serious oversight of construal and logic, which sunk your subsequent argument about Paul Bogdanor and Anna Porter. You now say, standing corrected, that even almost everyone is not true. Even were that so, nothing is altered. PR was entitled to make that judgement on a talk page.

Therefore, though it is absolutely immaterial to the question under review, and should never have been raised in the first place, I'll respond to your remarks on Kastner. The point is indeterminable, since it depends on a subjective value judgement, how third parties view the decision of one Jew to save himself, his family and 1600 other Jews, in exchange for collaborating/cooperating with Nazis (because deemed inevitable) 450,000 other Jews to die unwittingly. A variation on Sophie's Choice. Jews who descended from those he and the Judenrat saved, will thank him. Non-descendents of the 450,000 Jews (Jewish Communists and the poor were often the first to be sacrificed) are not around to express their aborted feelings. More than 1 in 40 or 50 would probably have survived had the Judenräte dropped their age-old 'Am Yisrael chai' outlook, and told everyone, rich and poor, affines and strangers in the Jewish communities alike, to scram, shoot back, refuse to make, let alone wear the yellow star, since they were to be murdered, instead of conning them about new prospects for emigration in the East. Kastner's choice bartered several thousand for half a million. Some think one should refuse to play god, if asked to do so by the scum under Satan's hegemony in a topsy-turvy world where hell rules paradise. Kastner's choice is understandable, to some, perhaps. But there is nothing heroic in it, as it appears Porter's book argues. Faced with this dilemma, Adam Czerniaków blew out his brains. I wish he had not wasted the shot, and asked for a final interview with, and killed, Hans Frank instead. The result would have been the same, but had the likes of Kastner shot at the Eichmanns of this world, they would have set an heroic example for their communities, instead of deceiving the overwhelming majority to march in lockstep towards that 'elsewhere' the Kastners they trusted knew to be Auschwitz. It has been often argued by eruditely reasonable men that, as a consequence, in Israel, extreme overcompensation for that fatal error of compliance under conditions of Holocaust is what has shattered every prospect for a wholly uninvolved people, the Palestinians, in their struggle for statehood (yes, WP:SOAP).

As for Bard and Bogdanor, this is an encyclopedia that aspires to quality. Neither of them even nudges the midget's calypso bar for intelligent analysis of I/P issues. If PR saw efforts to use them on general articles, (s)he did well to protest, on Talk, at the use of factitious, blindly partisan sources. You are, rather exquisitely, hoist by your own petard here: since elsewhere you refuse to allow any citation from any academic, even of world-wide repute, on a topic he hasn't appropriate doctoral qualifications for, you cannot hold PR hostage over BLP for applying exactly the same criterion (which you yourself insist on) when PR notes someone pushing Bogdanor or Bard. You roast PR for dismissing quarter-baked minds in a tiresome commentariat on some pages, and, with what looks like a theatrical volte-fa(r)ce for bemused onlookers like myself, exclude first-rate minds (David Shulman, Ian Lustick to cite just two examples) on others. You are culpable here of pushing WP:BLP to defend bad sources (on a talk page discussion), that favour Israel, while availing yourself of WP:RS, in the strictest imaginable definition, to keep eminently good sources from being harvested for other (Palestinian) articles. One should not, as here, use the wiki rulebook as a convenience tool, to be cherry-picked for strategic advantages, according to what you yourself want to see, or not see, on a page. PR's analogy of Shahak's disgraceful treatment, which you support, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was a very intelligent piece of talk commentary, ìlluminating for the way it brought out the scandalous partisan nature of ethnic-interest editing on I/P pages. People should not have the rulebook thrown at them when they make intelligent remarks. Wiki is not a democracy, but it ain't Aldous Huxley's morocratic dystopia, with the intelligent comfortably enisled off the soma-doped mainland, either (so far). Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of evidence too long, but did read

Too long, but did read. The argument that PR has done nothing - at least nothing mentioned by his "opponents" - worthy of a ban is pretty persuasive. The problem is that everyone involved has a strong opinion, and it may be hard to avoid having one after reading enough to contribute to the topic area.

As he was mentioned above, I read about Rudolf Kastner. It's an interesting story, and I can honestly say that I cannot judge him, at least based on what's presented in the article. Whether it's wrong to sacrifice many to save some is a very complicated moral question. But I also found that the article concentrates too much on that moral question and other unanswerable questions and not enough on what he actually did (or what people say he did), and that hurts its quality. For instance, the "assassination" section contains this weaselly sentence: "But the idea that the killing was a government cover-up has been described as "absolute nonsense" because the head of the intelligence service was a close personal friend of Kastner."

What's really needed is a committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation to get involved, and possibly arbitrarily make decisions to improve the quality of the articles. Unfortunately, we don't have something like that, and I really have no suggestions. --NE2 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NE2's notion of a "committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation" is a good idea on its face, but it won't work in this situation. There are literally two mutually exclusive bodies of "truth" regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with its own library of "reliable sources," etc. Any effort at getting to the bottom of things will inevitably convince the subscribers to one or the other perspective that the party making an objective assessment of the facts has become compromised, whether it has or hasn't. Tegwarrior (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered comments Thankyou for the careful attention you've paid to the evidence and details of this case, the project would benefit hugely if others were doing the same.

Regarding "a Committee", unfortunately, WP is currently structured on no interference with "content disputes". However, all is not lost, because each of the discussions above demonstrates that editors care passionately about "cheating" (even if there is wild disagreement over what it covers and the word itself is very much frowned upon). The project has proved that it can (sometimes) deal with at least one form of cheating, abusive sock-puppetry (unfortunately, its record is less than perfect even there).

My opinion is that the project needs to take cheating much more seriously - the problem is so serious that even declaring one's own integrity (as here) is the very must unpopular thing one can do. It leads straight to calls for total muzzling (as here) even from those who are not personally implicated in this lying and cheating and covering-up. Well, I say there is no element of cheating in that example - a call for the most severe sanctions possible on an editor clearly being witch-hunted would turn the stomach of at least some people. PR 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PR. We are not here to argue for our respective integrity, however embattled in talk skirmishes. We are here (I was here) specifically to improve articles. I/P articles are, notoriously, among the hardest to edit. Precisely for this reason, to edit fruitfully, one must simply decide, whatever the nonsense one may observe on the opposed side (from whichever perspective) to plug away stoically, master one's natural sensitivities, and look to the articles' wellbeing. I have done my best to show that, in this instance, there is no substance to the evidence supporting calls for a community ban. But I have not mentioned that I have considerable regard for Ryan, and for several other editors and admins in here who, though they straddle the frontier, do appear to feel that when someone has his or her fourth mentor throw in the towel with exasperation, that person should pause to reflect instead of sitting down to watch the outcome of a spectacle and feeling vindicated, and then rushing to evoke words like 'lying' 'cheating', 'cover-up' 'muzzling' etc. I think at this point that, while I, for one, regard you as wholly cleared (others will disagree) of the charge made, I think you have not reflected sufficiently on the aims of wikipedia, an encyclopedia which requires editors to sacrifice their time in order to write articles, and avoid like the plague abetting the inevitable poisoning of the well caused by insinuation.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Avraham's comments to PR As regards your characterizations of my initial comments as "total muzzling," please remain intellectually honest and take into account both my re-description of what i believe would be appropriate, as well as my in-depth discussion with Nishdani. What is both slightly humorous, as well as sad, is that for the past year, I may have been one of your most vocal defenders from the non-Palestinian camp. You are obviously intelligent and well-read; it makes it all the more so disappointing when you seem to "skirt" the line of civility, or in this case, almost, but not quite, misrepresent my current opinions on the matter through selective quotation. Perhaps you did not notice my changing my stance; understood. But when making "charged" statments, be it about users or about issues, the onus is on the statement maker to ensure that the statements remain accurate. The old saw of "extreme statements need extreme sources" applies everywhere, not just places like the JewsagainstZionism sourcing issues.

PR, you are usually not guilty of gross trolling or open name-calling. However, for better or for worse, you have exhibited an editing style and behavior that has rubbed many people the wrong way; has exhausted the patience or ability of a number of mentors, and has you in the community spotlight on a regular basis. As I have told you in the past, were you to channel your energy, efforts, and ability away from ideologically-charged editing and into more neutral editing, you would be a very valuable editor. But now, your efforts are wasted in the constant frictional battles that arise, and your editing style does not beget you many supporters outside of your ideological camp. I continue to maintain that a break from P/I articles for, let's say six months, wherein you focus your abilities elsewhere, and then a return to these articles, under guidance, where you can show how you work with all other editors to reach acceptable compromises and consensus, will stand ALL of us in good stead for the long term. Trying to apply your ability to craft intelligent phraseology to minimize ideologically charged issues as opposed to trying to find the most extreme cases to magnify the issues would be my suggestion. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Misplaced Pages rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements

Ignorance of Misplaced Pages rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, includig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the User:Biruitorul... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Misplaced Pages rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Misplaced Pages, when users like User:Biruitorul under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Misplaced Pages rules while editing most articles related to Moldova, expressing uncovered racism while saying that Moldavian nation, language, country, history, etc. do not exist and it is all Romanian anyaway, including basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this namely following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin.

How technically possiby could I hve been blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Misplaced Pages really turning into a POV supported absurdity? Above you will find the detailed diffs.

Just to clarify, the tone used is different (sometimes), but the diffamatory and slandering accusations, their posting all over where it is completely irrelevant, moving removing, deleting pages as I am writing them - all of this brings to the exactly the same result. I think it is totally probable that User:Bonaparte and User:Biruitorul are one and the same person (Biruotorul means "Winner" in Moldavian language).--Moldopodo 19:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you make your point in under half a page, I am not reading all of that. Chillum 18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. If possible, summarise it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same issue discussed here: ? Chillum 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me put is simply. People pointing out your behavior is not slanderous, diffamatory, or even defamatory. It is a common reaction. Chillum 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• First of all thank you for finding a way to put it nicely in a hat. Secondly, yes, please, you have to read all of this as it namely explains you why the described statements and actions violate Misplaced Pages policies and qualify as slander and defamation. Blindly stating People pointing out your behavior is not slanderous, diffamatory, or even defamatory. It is a common reaction - has not much value, because there is not one diff proving what you say, and to the contrary, tons of diffs provided by me stating exactly the contrary.--Moldopodo 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ask Mikka, he can spot a Bonaparte sock at fifty paces. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact there are much more of other points in my notice, sockpupetting suspicion being only one of them.--Moldopodo 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Moldopodo perhaps somebody will come to a different conclusion than me. Chillum 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One can only come to a conclusion after checking the evidence, and evidence I have presented abundantly. When someone says first "I am not reading this", but then, nevertheless, draws the conclusion "it's a common reaction" (slander, defamation, violation of Misplaced Pages policies and procedures - is this a common reaction?) - how much weigth to you give to words of such a person?--Moldopodo 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that some time passed between those posts. I did read through the passages you quoted, and all I saw was criticism directed at your behavior. Chillum 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reading this all through. "Criticism" - is certainly a strange conclusion in my mind, in light of the evidences and diffs I have presented. May be you could indicate me one diff where this "criticism" is expressed? I guess we read different definitions of what criticism and what lies, slander and defamation are.--Moldopodo 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, perhaps somebody will come to a different conclusion than me. Chillum 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully. I wish you were there with your judgement when I was blocked for calling obvious repetitive disruptive edits as wicked. I am sure you would have qualified it as criticism, wouldn't you?--Moldopodo 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I asked the last time Moldopodo filed one of these frivolous reports linking me with Bonaparte and accusing me of all manner of crimes: where's the beef? -- Biruitorul 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The answers are all in the diffs I have provided - which all show how you openly lie about yor actions, how you started moving and removing pages, edit warring, spreading slanderous statements and defamation in my regard. It's all there. Just click on "show more" up above.--Moldopodo 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. Speaking of the diffs you hold so sacred: this and this aren't very helpful to your cause, and neither is the above remark accusing me of being an "open liar", "slanderer" and "defamer". Especially considering that you're on your last warning, you really shouldn't be making these sorts of distortions, assumptions of bad faith and quasi-legal threats. Biruitorul 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:House1090

House1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just asked about being allowed back. Relevant reading is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive119#Silly_people and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001. If he is allowed back it should be only after he agrees not to creat any more socks, especially attempts to frame other users and an apology to Redspork02. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to letting back. A few days ago he said through another sock he wasn't the sockmaster Alison had checkusered him as. He's probably only 9 or 10. He's not ready to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this time. Amerique 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What've you got against 9 year olds? 86.29.138.203 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against 9 year olds. I said that I thought he was that young because, except when he was actively socking to attempt to frame Redspork02, he generally doesn't seem to have a handle on what he's doing here. (Like below, he didn't seem to think we would know he was lying because of the checkuser.) If there are 9 year olds editing that aren't causing the problems House1090 accounts generally do, just with copyright plagiarism, more power to them. House litters the encyclopedia with horribly bad English when he is not plagiarizing, moves regional and national article namespaces to idiosyncratic spellings, and makes false accusations of vandalism against people who edit his preferred versions. However old he is, he is not ready now. Amerique 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

People please I am not 9 or 10 and Amerique I said that because I still wanted to edit and you dont let me. If you guys give me another chance then you will see If I do something bad again you can warn me and the reblock me and I will give. Please give me one more chance, I promise I wont let you dowm User:House1090 71.110.223.8 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support unbanning this user. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced either, and do we really need nine-year-olds editing Misplaced Pages to this extent? There were countless copyright violations, abusive sockpuppetry, and some pretty lame unblock requests. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify to people reading this thread after the fact, I think I speak for the Misplaced Pages community as a whole when I say we have nothing against nine-year-olds themselves, but editing a project like this generally requires a decent level of maturity and responsibility that most younger children don't yet have. Many of our vandals are school kids goofing off in class. On the other side, certain users have displayed great responsibility and have been given positions of trust at a much younger age than the average. Since Misplaced Pages is both a free-content and highly visible site, issues such as copyright and even lesser matters such as vandalism can have a wide and powerful impact, and users are expected to handle themselves with maturity.

That said, if you're not that young, more's to you, but unless you demonstrate the responsibility we expect of all of our users to follow our policies, then you're not going to be unblocked. I don't feel certain you understand why you were blocked, and that's critical to giving you the second chance you desire. Hersfold non-admin 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Age has nothing to do with maturity. There are plenty of college students I don't think are mature enough to use this site properly. Any sockpuppeter needs to agree not to create socks in order to return. If he doesn't understand what he needs to do, regardless of age, there's no reason to let him back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am not 9 or 10 and I do not want to make any more sock's thats why I asked CambridgeBayWeather to give me another chance is in that a sign of maturity, please give me one more chance, User:House1090 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am here to apoligze to every one I did not mean to become a sock puppet master, but I wanted to edit. I just want one more chance please unblock me as ] I did not want this to happen, please let me back. I will no loger frame users or create any more sock puppets, please User:House1090 (I will make a special one to User:Redspork02)71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How about instead of spamming my talk page here, you log in and post on the not protected User:House1090 asking to be unblocked? This changing IP address to talk with you is part of the problem, so just go there and ask like someone more mature than this. Keep on using IP addresses to get around being blocked (even if to request no longer being blocked) and no one will unblock you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now a official templated unblock request at User talk:House1090. I'll leave it someone else to consider but I'll put my view this way. When you are in trouble for evading your block, evading your block, by using changing IP addresses, to request a lift of the block isn't going to be particularly effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. To clarify above, my statement previously was to the effect that age has nothing to do with maturity. 9/10-year olds can be very mature for their age, and as stated, older users can act like children. I believe this case is the latter, with the blatant block evasion and forum shopping. I definitely don't think this user fully understands why they were blocked, and can't be trusted to edit this site responsibly. Hersfold 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I probably shouldn't have said he was probably 9 or 10. His real age has nothing to do with it. My apologies to anyone of that age editing capably who might have been offended. Amerique 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

zomg age bias!11 --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? cant I have another chance I have apologized to everyone I am truly sorry. If I wanted to continue being a sockpuppeter, I would of just created another one but I want to start new as User:House1090, I beg to give me one more chance please! User:House1090 71.110.203.151 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you ask for one more chance here last year? I see, what, 38 socks after that listed here and here, many of which were disruptive. It seems you had a sock active just a few days ago. I don't think you understand our guidelines and policies; perhaps sitting out a bit to mature would help. Kuru 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with leaving House blocked after cleaning up messes left by him for eight months. His apologies are quickly followed up by the same kinds of edits by sockpuppets. He falsely accused User:Haha169 and I of edit warring and vandalism as recently as last week. Misplaced Pages is not the right place for House at this time. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard

How many of you watchlist or otherwise monitor WP:CCN? It doesn't seem particularly active....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know it existed. We have too many damn noticeboards again...John Reaves 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny... that's what I said, as I gently trolled the noticeboard's creator. But now, rather hypocritically, I decided to post to said noticeboard and noticed it hasn't been active for more than a week and that the last query posted to that forum was completely ignored (or at least not responded to on the board itself).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it either, but I'm not surprised. It seems even some WikiProjects have their own noticeboards these days... - auburnpilot talk 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When the student is ready, the master will appear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Going on Wikibreak; somebody want to take over my watchlist?

Well, okay, not the whole thing, but there are a few places where I flatter myself to believe that my absence may cause some difficulties, and if another admin or two would keep an eye on them for the rest of the month, it would help me sleep easier:

• Mountain Pointe High School - for reasons I don't understand, somebody keeps making this edit to the article. I was assuming good faith until they fabricated a source, and now I'm blocking on sight (and tagging as sockpuppets of User:Keeweeman-ape). Article's currently semi-protected until August 10.
• Ctrl+Alt+Del - there's debate going on here about what to include in the "criticism" section. I'm staying out of it, because I lack even the vaguest understanding of the subject matter, but periodically somebody will add in a vicious BLP violation about the comic's creator. Article is currently semi-protected until August 25.
• Shivraj Patil - an IP has recently been inserting BLP violations here (on the premis that they're cited, which they are, but they're cited to opinion pieces and presenting these opinions as fact is obviously not okay).
• Marc Ravalomanana - somebody keeps inseting information suggesting that the subject is over-eager to close Madagascar's ports (at least, I think that's the insinuation - it's not quite clear).
• Rick Reilly - this person seems to have a lot of enemies for a sportswriter, with the enemies in question occupying themselves by inserting imagined "controversies" into the article.
• Tinnitus - people keep making uncited additions to the list of sufferers, and also occasionally insert quackish theories about its causes.

I'd really appreciate the help on this. Otherwise, see you all in September, when you can fill me in on the latest developments in the Cla-FM-SV arb case (assuming that the latest developments at that point don't still date to early July). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Developments in the Cla-FM-SV case" - bahahaha. You really are well named :) I've watchlisted all the articles you listed; give me a poke when you get back, and have a great break. Neıl ☄ 09:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! can we do that? I can sure use some help on a few watched articles of my won. Can you help me too please? Please keep an eye on Valley of Peace initiative and also Titanic alternative theories. Appreciate your help, ok? thanks. by the way, the first article is 99% stable; I just don't know if anyone else is watching it right now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we can't! I've watchlisted your two, too, Steve. My watchlist has now doubled in size from yesterday, and stands at a muscular 14 pages. Neıl ☄ 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Help Please

I've been reverting vandalism for the IP 125.175.214.29, and finally posted him/her on the Admin intervention page. Unfortunatly, I don't think anyone is doing blocks currently, so I'm asking for someone to check him out...and possibly block the IP.

L337*P4wn 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, the IP is actually using very detailed edit summaries, and when they tried to discuss it with you on your talk page, you removed their message with "rvv". If you disagree with their removal of trivia sections that have been tagged for more than 9 months, then discuss it with them. If they refuse to discuss it, then we have a problem. But right now, you're just blindly reverting everything they do. --barneca (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. So the IP actually only has one count of vandalism. Not four. Thank you for telling me of my mistake.

L337*P4wn 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm really pretty sure that one "vandalism" was just a mistake; in one instance they blanked a large portion of the page, and when ClueBot reverted them, the second time they just removed the trivia section. --barneca (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I feel horrible now! I've just reverted helpful edits. L337*P4wn 11:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Today's Featured Article

Just wanted to let you guys know that I semi-protected TFA for one hour. Feel free to unprotect if you think my actions were unjustified. If not, can someone remove the template when the protection expires? Thanks, J.delanoy_adds 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

...and reinstating move-protection would probably not be a bad idea either. J.delanoy_adds 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that TFA should always be semi-protected, so obviously I approve :-) Tan ǀ 39 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, if you protect TFA, don't set an expiration time. First, it doesn't give the vandals a specific time target to wait for; second, you can't accidently lose move protection. I've unprotected, as time was almost up. --barneca (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just re-protected it, as he/they came back. Anyone can unprotect whenever they think it wise. --barneca (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Arjun MBT thread

The Arjun MBT thread has been vandalized by multiple users. The Quality B article has been compromised.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? Links to articles and diffs are always useful. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a content dispute taking place at Arjun MBT, which is a tank being built for the Indian army. Admin Jauerback has joined in the discussion at Talk:Arjun MBT. I'm marking this resolved, since the edits are not vandalism. If editors can't reach agreement on the Talk page, they should follow the steps of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

Are these contributions considered spam? I'm leaning towards, "yes." 216.163.255.1 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thinking it's spam, per se, but it's certainly disruptive and not terribly useful. Warning user again. lifebaka++ 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Jauerback added {{uw-spam3}}, which was what I was going to do. I'll keep an eye on the user, though. lifebaka++ 17:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this thread from this user's talk page. What a pain. All the edits should be reverted. I'll keep an eye out, too. Jauerback/_dude. 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted all of the "references" as it was all link spam. Various other accounts were involved in the spamming:

• 75.163.239.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.163.236.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Conrad.pramboeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Using the link search, I got all of them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

Thought I might put out there that there is a backlog at WP:UAA. Bstone (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Goin' to work on it. lifebaka++ 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a kinda' lame backlog. Only three names were there. And none of them terribly serious, either. Anyway, done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In time, that kind of backlog will become your best friend :) Keegan 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

template:ImageUpload

What is up with {{ImageUpload}}—it seems to be linked from a lot of pages and seems to have a recursive loop, but no history to revert to? G.A.S 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It included itself twice. Besides that, it was a test page, so I deleted it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's up the links, but probably they can be removed. {{ImageUpload}} is probably a useful thing to have, but all the versions of it (all three, one by me cleaning it up) have been crap thus far. There might've been instructions put in to use it at WP:UPI or something for a while, but it doesn't seem to be usefully used on any of them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the links. It seems to me that this template is used on Commons as well, but is a blank protected page (Protected "Template:ImageUpload": Used by MediaWiki:UploadForm.js ). It might be that this page is used for the same purpose here; in which case it might be a good idea to recreate here as a blank protected page; as it is transcluded onto the image namespace pages that are recreated here for use on the main page. G.A.S 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Avenger

More eyes would probably be useful at this festival of sockpuppetry; the votestacking, off-wiki canvassing and accusations are already starting to fly and it's been live less than 24 hours. – iridescent 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but this is also at ANI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The following was moved from ANI:

CANVASSing

Hi. There seems to be a bit of an off-wiki canvassing situation at this AfD. See here. (The top comment on the journal, as well as containing a direct link to the AfD, says, "The Southern Avenger article in wikipedia is being disputed for deletion for questions of notability. Please vote for no deletion.") I wouldn't be surprised, given the amount of SPA participation, if canvassing had taken place elsewhere, too. I tagged the AfD {{notaballot}} and marked the {{spa}} contributors (but assumed good faith on those who just seem to have quite suddenly stumbled upon this AfD after a period of inactivity.) Is there something else that should be done? Or could be? This is a new one on me! --Moonriddengirl 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried to post a reply on the blog, to discourage people from !voting because of that, but it was caught by a spam filter on the comments. No idea what's with that. Still, with luck it'll go up and SPAs will curb, though I wouldn't count on it. Maybe just pointing them at WP:ATA would help, so they at least make valid arguments. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

everything above this post, and below the previous "small" post, was moved over from ANI Keeper ǀ 76 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008

We're 4 months out from these elections, and the wiki pages have been unprotected to facilitate discussion etc. - I think it'd be great if everyone with time, energy, and particularly experience, could take a look, and help organise stuff well in advance.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I wonder why an arbcom-sanctioned and previously banned former sockpuppeteer is taking it upon himself to make up the election pages? Guy (Help!) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not helpful. Enigma 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity (disambiguation) and Fraternity

I have read Misplaced Pages:MOSDAB, and I understand that a disambiguation page should be only links, and any general subject content should be in an article on that name alone. I've tried to put that in effect, and I've been 3RR'd by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. The page "Fraternity" was a mix, a brief general background, and then a slew of redirect links. There already was a "Fraternity (disambiguation)" page which goes back to 2006, but which was made into a redirect page to "Fraternity". I moved the disambiguation links to this page, (which is where they belong bu Misplaced Pages policy), and left the general content on the "fraternity" page. This set User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back into a fury of revert edits. I am only trying to follow policy here, and do so in a way that solves ongoing issues. This other editor is being a little difficult. Comments? Help? Intervention? Anything?129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Things are very under control. We are (or at least I am) in the midst of a calm discussion on Talk:Fraternity; feel free to join in. You may also feel free to block me for violating 3RR (It's past my bedtime anyway)--but a quick examination of the anon IP's well-meaning cut-and-paste moves will reveal why repeated reversion was necessary. Just no templates on my talk page, please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Both editors seem to have gone past 3RR. Since the dispute is heading toward settlement, I suggest that no sanctions be imposed. The Fat Man is willing to accept the IP's solution if the correct procedure for article splitting is followed. I'm marking this as resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?

Even though the official name of this financial institution is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters, the article has been renamed ABN Amro. Past and present subsidiaries are also being affected by this editing such as LaSalle Bank. Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this move and the related naming question have been and are still being discussed at the article's talk page. If consensus emerges between interested editors to move it back, that can be done, but right now I don't see what else here is to investigate or what other administrative assistance is required. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are resolved by using the article talk page to gain consensus, not by trying to get admins to force a consensus to your preferred option. Minkythecat (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus there for the move in the first place, just people waving a disputed section of the MoS as if it trumps all. The company name is ABM AMRO according to the kamer van koophandel, but what a company calls itself and what the government calls it and what the regulator calls it are as nothing to the mighty MoS and its "no capitals" rule. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 11:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absurd. I moved it back. ABN AMRO is a customer of mine, and Redvers is spot on: they self-identify as ABN AMRO and it's not for us to tell them they are wrong. A redirect is fine fomr the uncapitalised version, of course. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure what is 'absurd' about it, but as a former ABN AMRO employee I can safely say that it's all capitalized. However, the North American regions of the bank are in fact ABN AMRO NA. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gidonb changed it back to "ABN Amro." I suggest that all administrators who agree with me that the company is officially ABN AMRO change it back and possibly lock the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I request that the article will be protected. We have just completed the longest possible procedure for name change and come to a clear community decision based on WP:MOSTM and WP:UCN. Steelbeard is of course welcome to differ in opinion, but should adhere to our policies just like everyone else. The discussion should be held at the talk page, not in the article or even here. For a name change the same procedure should be followed as the one just completed, if not a more rigorous one. Until then our peer decision, based on our policies, should be respected, whether we happen to like it or not. gidonb (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I discovered the changes when they were also made later to related articles such as Bank of America and LaSalle Bank. That's why I raised my objections later. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Our peer decision is binding across the board. It was done according to the best our best of procudures. It is a pitty that you wish to push your opinion through by force and edit wars. My request from the admins is that the decision will be restored and the article will be protected. gidonb (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if there was no peer decision judging from the discussion in Talk:ABN AMRO as there is no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a consensus according to our policies. But if you believe there was no consensus, you could appeal against the decision of the closing admin. Please restore his/her decision until your appeal is heard, because what you are now doing is bullying Misplaced Pages through editwars. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the "consensus" was done behind our back and by the time I found out about it, it was too late. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly impressed that JzG has moved it back to his prefered version and locked it in place, but in the grand scheme of things, due to the magic of redirects, it isn't a critical issue. Why not reopen the discussion, and make a final decision then? It does look like the previous discussion was lightly attended, and might benefit from broader input. Any particular reason, Steelbeard1, to assume bad faith and consider this "behind your back", when it took place on the talk page of the article in question? Any particular reason, JzG, that it was critical to change it again first, and then lock it, rather than just lock it in the wrong version? --barneca (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, I entered the fray after changes were made to the Bank of America and LaSalle Bank articles which I closely monitor as I am a customer. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that already. Doesn't really answer my question, though. --barneca (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward, really: I have emails from the company's employees, the email footer is capitalised ABN AMRO. The company's website is also consistently (from what parts of it I've seen) capitalised ABN AMRO. If John Smith comes here and says that actually it's John Smyth we don't tell him he is wrong because the BBC spell it Smith, we put it right and then perhaps put a note in that it's sometimes spelled Smith. Here I think we have a piece of overzealous application of MOS, looking at sources followed on from the assertion that MOS says not to capitalise. Well, MOS is a general guideline but in the end we should (and always do, where I've seen) go with how the subject self-identifies. We don't go through the article on John Wayne changing all references to Wayne to Morrison, and we certainly don't change the many films to say they starred Marion Morrison. If the bank self-identifies in all-caps, and there has been no evidence presented that it does not, then that is surely how we should primarily identify it. The alleged "consensus" looks to me to be a brief discussion between a few users with a like POV, none of them on the face of it much active on banks or the Netherlands business communtiy in general. Anyway, I took my usual simplistic view, I went to http://www.abnamro.com/ and looked how they spell it there, and since that agreed with what I've seen on communications from the firm, that should be the default unless we have a really good reason to do otherwise. By which I mean a better reason than some generalised house style guideline. I thought that was pretty reaosable myself, but maybe not, who knows. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand; I agree it should be ABN AMRO. If the talk page of that article ever rises back up above it's current level of discourse, I may comment there to that point. My problem is, we usually don't revert good faith editors we disagree with, and then lock the article. That's basically saying to the other editor, "I win, because mine's bigger than yours." There are several people on that talk page who (incorrectly, IMHO) think it should be ABN Amro. They have their reasons. FWIW, there actually was something of a consensus to make the move; it wasn't done sneakily, behind someone's back. If the wrong decision was made, argue that consensus can change, reopen the discussion. If you win, great. If you lose, take it like a man and move on. But by changing it then locking it, you've probably just done your small part to ensure that User:gidonb, and the rest of the people that honestly disagree with you, think that admins can do whatever they want on an article, and everyone else's job is to sit there and take it. --barneca (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Guy is being Guy again. Why bother to reach consensus when you can bring out the big 'ol tools and clobber the opposition into senselessness. Also, Guy volunteered that ABN AMRO/Amro is his customer but fobbed off the invitation for him to disqualify himself due to WP:COI as 'absurd'. What is absurd about disengaging when you have a direct financial interest in a topic? Poorly played. Ronnotel (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep it classy; "Guy being Guy" deosn't help. The COI thing is a bit of a red herring; I seriously doubt Guy has some kind of bizarre financial interest in keeping it spelled AMRO. --barneca (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly something of a stretch, claiming WP:COI on the name because the company is a customer of my employer! In any case, WP:BRD - they boldly moved it, I reverted, the problem really started when they simply moved it back again. There really is no sense in leaving something in a state we know for a fact to be wrong just for the sake of form, especially when form here demands that the change be reverted, but the uncapitalisers refused to accept that. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me state unequivocally that I do not suspect Guy of taking cash payments for his defense of ABN AMRO's corporate logo (I wish it were that easy). If I left anyone with such a notion then I apologize profusely. However, having a close association with a subject, such as customer/vendor, in my mind is usually a good reason to steer clear. Ronnotel (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, replying to Guy) They didn't boldly move it; they moved it after discussion. And nowhere in BRD do I see "use your admin tools to lock it at your prefered title". If User:gidonb had found an admin that agreed with his position first, would you have been happy if they locked the article at Amro? This is a content dispute; like all content disputes, it's a serious pain in the ass. Editors have to deal with content disputes every day. I don't enjoy them, and it's one of the reasons I don't contribute content much at all. But I'm pretty sure if we do want to wade into a content dispute we're not supposed to use our admin tools to get our way in one, even if we're sure we're right. But I'm making the same point for the third time now, I'm evidently not getting through, so I'll go find another windmill to tilt. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is nugatory and based on stylistic not factual points. And I have absolutely no tangible connection to ABN AMRO, other than the fact that as a mail admin I sometimes have to diagnose mail issues between us and them. It's not in any way a conflict, it's really rather silly to paint it as such. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens with this (and I believe Guy has this one right based on his websearching and the company's self-labelling), the article needs to be updated to be consistent throughout. Either the title (and every subsequent mention of the title in the article) needs to be ABN AMRO or it needs to be ABN Amro. Not both. Keeper ǀ 76 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I think the issue comes from the fact that Amsterdam and Rotterdam merged to form "Amro" (intercapping not much in fashion then, maybe), and some have continued to use that capitalisation. Amro is right for that (historical) bank, but the present bank styles itself ABN AMRO. Or rather Fortis-RBS-Santander :-) So we need to be careful about the exact context. Oh, another example where MOS conflicts with the self-identificaiton: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. And I think that one is fatuous, but I still go with it per self-identification. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I of course am watching this with great interest, as it's not just a matter of the redirect vs. article question, it's also a matter of how the articles referrring to the firm capitalise the firm name. Some of you may know that my favourite corporate organization wishes that it be referred to in all capitals, but some blockheads insist that it be known as Lego instead. OK, they're not really blockheads, I just wanted to work that bad pun in... However, I do have to wonder why this is here, it seems a content dispute. Well, except for the edit warring and protection and stuff. Oh, bonus points for using "nugatory" in a sentence! :) ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Ceiling Cat

I think so, thanks :-) I was so busy looking for a pet gorilla that I didn't read the block carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A user, Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Can someone delete her user-subpages that she created? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr.... am I missing something here. Apparently this is a legit sock of User:Raul654 Pedro :  Chat  11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be unblocked. He spammed only people he knows on IRC (e.g. Cream) or people he's associated with on-wiki (Sandy). Sceptre 11:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Sceptre (note, Sandy does not do IRC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The account was blocked in 2006, but it's missing it's unblock log. Given that Raul has used it since, the account is certainly unblocked. From what I remember, Raul usurped it before the time block logs moved, so this is the block log from the old account holder. When the account was usurped, the new account name will have been automatically unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that it doesn't show up in the block log though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that account is treating this site like MySpace (WP:NOT#MYSPACE), I don't see many actual article contributions to the enyclopedia. If it is a legit sock, it should be used constructively. I don't see anything constructive about that account. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a silly account, it's not hurting anyone, and it's rather amusing. Let's just leave Raul654 to whatever cat-related-humor he likes, eh? Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We usually do block such accounts which behave in this way. I hope this account is not going to be treated differently just because it is operated by Raul. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we? It seems accounts like Gurch (talk · contribs)/Gurchzilla (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs)/Bishzilla (talk · contribs) have been here quite some time. - auburnpilot talk 14:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll rephrase, we usually block such accounts when they aren't operated by popular or influential editors. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. - auburnpilot talk 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)We usually block such accounts when they're created by editors who don't show any sign of wanting to contribute to the project. Generally, we grant more leeway to people who have voluntarily given hundreds or thousands of largely thankless free hours to working on the encyclopedia. If 99% of what Raul654 does here is constructive work to mantain and build this project, I'm not going to begrudge him the 1% of the time he spends on somewhat silly things that don't cause anyone any harm.

It's right there in the userpage policy:

The Misplaced Pages community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption.

Until such time as the account's activities become genuinely disruptive, there's no need to block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If Raul had put the cat jokes on his own userpage would we even be having this conversation? Yes we don't akkow peopel to use Misplaced Pages as Myspace but we do allow editors a bit of fun if it does no harm. And Raul is an editor is he not? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I personally don't care what Raul does with his Cat account. It doesn't seem particularly disruptive or harmful to me, and I'd just as soon close this thread and move on. It's a running joke, which I believe started on Talk:Main Page (at least that's where I first saw it).- auburnpilot talk 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen loads of accounts with similar edit histories blocked before. I'm not saying it should be blocked, but rather that double standards don't contribute to a positive atmosphere. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I only remember seeing editors with similar edit histories getting blocked (I might be wrong though, but I'd be disappointed if we did that). I really can't care less if editors create a secondary account for a joke, as long as it's not breaking any rule. Maybe someone could raise his concerns to Raul on the use of this sock, if they feel the need. (I can't believe I'm wasting my coffee break talking about this :)) -- lucasbfr 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There's not a double standard. Editors who primarily work to build the encyclopedia (like Raul654) are allowed to use (very small amounts of) project resources to have a little bit of harmless fun. People who come here to use us as a free webhost or MySpace substitute without any apparent intent to contribute to the encyclopedia are offered the choice to contribute or leave.

This is no different from the way things work in the offline world. If you're in the office and you take a fifteen minute coffee break in the afternoon to chat with the guy in the next cubicle before you go back to work, it's no problem. If you spend all day every day playing solitaire, drinking coffee, and wandering about the office having conversations, you're going to be asked to pack up your stuff and leave. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at first, I didn't even realise it was Raul, I just seen that account make an edit to a userpage that's on my watchlist with the edit description "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ"; which made me think an obvious troll (not saying it is a troll, but that's what it seemed like to me at first). Then checking the contributions, it seemed to me that it was created numerous subpages for no reason. The accounts that AubornPilot pointed out earlier, Gurch (talk · contribs)/Gurchzilla (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs)/Bishzilla (talk · contribs), actually all seem constructive, so there is no problem there, they are there to help with the encyclopedia, I don't see constructive with Ceiling Cat. Also someone called it a "silly account" - if any other account was caught doing that, a block indef would probably be coming their way. D.M.N. (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have accumulated a list of all the people that care, but unfortunately it was deleted as WP:CSD#A3... Guy (Help!) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Slow day at the office Guy? DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not especially. Why? Guy (Help!) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's jolly decent that you can edit Misplaced Pages at work. More employers should support voluntary work by their staff. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Want some vinegar for that chip? Or is your naturally acidic personality sufficient? Guy (Help!) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least I don't falsify deletion debates when closing them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough of that please.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban of the cat. He's been...watching me. Friday (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sakes, what is Wiki coming to when I don't even realize Raul's cat left me a message, because someone else reverted the message, and I have to find out about it on WP:AN? What's next, do I have to step back through all the diffs on my talk page to find out when friends have left me fun messages? I can't believe someone blocked Raul's cat: is Bish next? We need to add a big cluestick to admin school, including some basic Wiki history. I think I feel a sock account coming on; I'm starting to feel left out without an animal account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No one has blocked it. Read the thread above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Wait. Why wasn't my talk vandalized? This account is clearly biased and needs to be blocked. /end joke. Synergy 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Maggot here, seriously, this Cat is too biased. At the very least, it needs to have a session with Therapist Cat... Lucifer (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ApprovedI concur with the diagnosis. Synergy 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we mark this thread closed? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I come across an edit by Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) on my watchlist directed at several people's talkpages with "spam-like messages" with an edit summary "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ". I then checked it's block-log. Without even realising what the date said, it said the account had been blocked indefinitely, hence why I came here to request all the subpages deletion. It didn't even occur to me it was Raul's "cat" until someone mentioned it in this thread. D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We understand that :-) You did the right thing, but there is nothing more to do now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarified in the blog log .--chaser - t 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Treat him like anyone else and block the account. Accounts that don't exist to improve the encyclopedia and merely indulge in foolishness should be blocked, and the user should be warned on his or her main account to refrain from such behavior in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My sockpuppet account has done a little here and there to improve the Encyclopedia, but admittedly not much. On the other hand, it has certainly not disrupted the encyclopedia. But if we're looking to ban accounts, I suggest we start with people who have actively hurt the encyclopedia by driving away good users, or harassing admins based on a limited or nonexistent understanding of the facts surrounding their actions. In fact, I have one or two people in mind. Raul654 (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Your suggestion is intriguing, Raul! Would you like to present a proposal? Everyking (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Lets put an end to it. Synergy 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I am touched by this blossoming Everaul654 friendship! El_C 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<- While I'm sure Raul's done more than enough to be allowed some indulgence, let's be at least a little serious here for a second. What's a new user meant to think, and indeed do, when she sees Raul's MOAR KATS efforts on the Main_Talk page? You've many friends in the project and therefore many, many talk pages on which to share the 4chan humour that will not cause confusion. Could you perhaps limit your self expression to just those situations which don't have the huge potential to confuse the newbies, Raul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.166.245 (talk • contribs)

lol -Pilotguy contact tower 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf - stalking and harassing

(note:readded as not answered as of 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

(note:readded by User:JRG without my prior knowledge but still needs to be addressed. Cbsite (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has a history of stalking, harassing and disruptive editing. He has followed me around to several articles, reverting, deleting and leaving messages on my talk page. In particular, I point to the edit histories of Chris Barnes (actor) and the fact that the user then went on to nominate the article for deletion, presumably because I has worked on it extensively, and deleted the actor's name as a notable in the article about his hometown.

He received a warning about his abuse of Twinkle, which he used to revert edits I'd made as "vandalism."

He received a complaint on his talk page today from two other editors.

I admit I lost my cool after a while and left an uncomplimentary message on his talk page, for which I was unfairly banned for two weeks. I don't think it's right that someone like this is allowed to prowl around here the way he does without any kind of rebuke from the community and that an administrator would know what was going on and penalize one of his targets instead. Cbsite (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One article does not a stalker make. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the user has a strong sense about the use of non-free images - he doesn't think they should be used at all. He nominates for deletion at his own whim, reverts as "vandalism" edits that offer a rationale for the image's presence and harasses just about anyone who tries to go up against him. Here's a sample of his "submit or die" editing from July 15 and 16: ,,,,,..

And read his comments as he tries to get the article deleted: he's got an ax to grind, and he's not about making constructive contributions. Cbsite (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The misuse of Twinkle should result in him not being allowed to use it. Corvus cornix_talk 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any Twinkle abuse after the warning, so we could jyst WP:AGF and assume he learned from the warning... Kusma (talk)

OK, this has been here for three days and this is the best you can do? This guy continues to get a free pass? The Teflon Deletionist? Cbsite (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an ongoing problem that requires urgent admin intervention, given also that Damiens.rf hasn't edited for two days. Kusma (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He's not an admin so nominating does what harm exactly? an admin needs to agree to delete after all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Most people here are probably considering the source, too. You have a history of disruptive editing and personal attacks. Tan ǀ 39 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to you. Cbsite (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your block log is quite telling. You should drop this and move on. Kevin (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI

I was not satisfied with the way I presented my part of the story. Here again for the record, I am giving a full picture of the story. The content was not added by me, I just defended its inclusion. Here is the first time it appeared (case 1 and case2). Following is the content in dispute.

"A copy of the book was found in the home of the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist shooter Jim David Adkisson.ref1 and ref2."

The content cites two references one, a original "affidavit in support of search warrant" submitted by investigator Steven Still. You could find the title of the books in his handwriting in the last page.

Reference 2 is a newspaper Knoxnews (a reliable source) which picked up the story and reported the same.

Let me point out some facts and you can make your own judgement. The title of the books are Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. This is the killer in his own words "During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years."

I have to be fair to point out that it is not yet established whether the killer has ever read these books and the responsibility of the books in his actions. Because of that, all that was included in the article (like mentioned above) was that those books were found in his home.

Additionally, an important instance which convinced me to support inclusion was when an annonymous IP address in the talk page pointed similar circumstances in wikipedia articles such as The Turner Diaries and The Catcher in the Rye. Now having presented the full picture, I am not going to insist on the inclusion but i thought I make sure that issues are not misunderstood. Docku 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am involved in editing of Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. The user CENSEI is removing a well sourced edit referenced to this article. I reverted the edit explaining that WP:BLP can not be invoked for article on books. He reverted them again and the edit summary he provided was "I can and I have". Please have a look at these links for reference.1 2. Thanks. Docku 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all content which concerns living people; the nature of the article's subject is not relevant. CENSEI was correct to revert your edits and you should not restore them. Even if BLP were not an issue, the edits are problematic with regard to a number of other policies too. CIreland (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you pls cite and explain the policies it has problem with??? Docku 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stating that Book X was found in the house of notorious blaggard Y is doubly problematic. On the one hand, it serves to imply that the book is dubious by association. On the other hand, it also implies that Y is an adherent of the ideas in the book. Both ways round, this is problematic with regard to neutral point of view, original research and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To the extent that it implies something about a living person, WP:BLP is thus also relevant. CIreland (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, I think you'll find it's blackguard. But I agree wholeheartedly. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And so you might find blaggard informative, too. - Dravecky (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• That article qualifies for a template:

This article may contain uninformed wingnut drivel. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Sadly the problem is the book as much as the article... Guy (Help!) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My point in the removal of this is that it does seem to be guilt by association, and the worst part is that its Misplaced Pages editors making the association, not a reliable source. 15:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CENSEI (talk • contribs)

CIreland, you have just summed up my on-going battle. I pointed out that WP:BLP applies, particularly since the book consists of the authors opinions and the author is living. Further, wp:blp points out that guilt by association should be avoided and that a clear demonstration of relevance should exist. This isn't a case of where the murderer quoted the book, it was merely present in his home. There isn't even evidence that he has read it, nor anything in the book that advocates violence as a means of political change in the US. The only thing anyone has claimed as "evidence" is that the title calls it a "war of liberty". Yet none of those same editors would claim the "war on poverty" or the "war on illiteracy" advocate violence. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial vanity spammer

• Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see deleted userpage)
• Ashok rp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekbal anuj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see deleted userpage), this diff and so on)
• Prem chand pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• Prem C. Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• Prem Chand Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), flagged by William Connolley, whose field it is, as fundamentally unverifiable as written.

This individual has now reached the point where his serial vanity spamming is actively counterproductive, obscuring whatever notability may attach to the subjects he uses as coatracks on which to hang his resume and that of his family members. The Banerjee center is, according to Benmjiboi, being "targeted by removal of sourced content", but actually that was William checking the sources and removing bogus ones; this individual has manipulated sources to the point of outright falsification, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot attack

Semi-retired in my case doesn't mean I won't log on and check things once in a while. The user creation log is being bombarded by random character usernames which in turn are creating others. One in particular is adding cleanup notices to random articles at lightning pace. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like they've been clobbered. See you 'round sometimes. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for letting us know. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please be add more "semi" to your "retired" status. We need more good editors. Chillum 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See related IP User talk:82.5.162.85. Maybe someone should run a CU and do a rangeblock... Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm at work and can't get to reverting all the edits by Special:Contributions/82.5.162.85. Can somebody else go through the list? I tackled the bottom few, but have to get back to my RL job. DeFaultRyan (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they are all done now. Gtstricky 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• When will vandals learn that we can undo vandalism easier than they can create it? Chillum 17:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some will never learn. I've seen vandals get blocked, reset their router, create a new account, open ten tabs then vandalise like mad for about a min. I block the account, go to their contributions list, rollback everything, and delete thier userpage. Takes me seconds to do, takes them minutes, It's kind of unfair really. We should give them 10 minutes headstart ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unfair ehh? That sounds like about how it should be. Let them spend minutes for what it takes us seconds to undo. The world has so many childish people, it is only to be expected that we get our fair share. Chillum 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but we could give them a head start to even the odds. To be sporting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam blacklist at Bramson ORT College

I'm trying to put a db-copyvio tag on Bramson ORT College since it's a copyvio from www.stateuniversity.com/universities/NY/Bramson_ORT_College.html, but I keep getting a spam blacklist warning. I've tried removing all links from the page, and even took the http:// off of the front of the URL that it was copied from, but it won't let me save the page. Could some kind admin please delete the page as a copyvio? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the stateuniversity.com link, apparently, since that wouldn't let me report here until I removed the http://, I wonder why it wouldn't let me do that on the article page? Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Spam blacklist. Specifically, on m:Spam blacklist. The discussion can be found ]http://meta.wikimedia.org/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#stateuniversity.com here]. If you definitely need it, please show how provides information that isn't better served by other sites as it's most definitely not a primary source on anything. Sasquatch t|c 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well from what Corvus is saying I don't think he wants to use it as a source, just as a required parameter in {{db-copyvio}}. I've had a quick look at the article, and it looks like at some point in the past it was just a stub and not a copyvio. Is there any reason you couldn't revert to a pre-copyvio state? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted to the pre-copyvio stage, circa 2006. Corvus cornix_talk 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My attempt at reverting to the pre-copyvio version has been reverted by User:Alansohn. I've re-reverted him and left a note on his Talk page to please read this. Corvus cornix_talk 05:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not question that stateuniversity.com is on the spam blacklist. The problem is that the stateuniversity.com link used to justify the WP:COPYVIO claim specifies that the "Summary content courtesy of Misplaced Pages". Stateuniversity.com appears to have copied material from Misplaced Pages, not vice versa, nor does the source used to justify the copyvio match all of the material removed. I will also point out that your latest edit still removes reliably sourced material as well as an infobox. A clearer case of the exact details of the alleged copyvio needs to be made. Per WP:COPYVIO, a revert to a previous version should only be done if "all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement". As this is not the case, only the material that is in violation should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn wants to revert the copyvio again, claiming my justification for the removal of the copyright violation isn't appropriate. I will not revert him again if he reverts me. If he wants to take responsibility for having a copyright violation here, then so be it. Corvus cornix_talk 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify -- and I would appreciate some admin guidance on this issue -- it appears that Stateuniversity.com has copied text from Misplaced Pages. The page in question at stateuniversity.com says flat out that "Summary content courtesy of Misplaced Pages". The fact that there is overlap between the page at stateuniversity.com and the Bramson ORT College article is not evidence of a WP:COPYVIO. As I do not own the article, I cannot take responsibility for what is there, other than to try to add the sources that the article needs. My primary question is does stateuniversity.com constitute evidence of a copyright violation? Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The note is pretty vague as to eaxctly what content is courtesy of wikipedia, all that section, part of it, buts elsewhere or what? But since it provides no link back, adds additional information of it's own (and thus is a derivative) and doesn't give any authorship details it may well be a copyvio itself, and so we shouldn't link to it per WP:EL. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the DRV ongoing suggested some maybe copied from here, I haven't looked closely but this maybe a case of stateuniversity reusing content from here which was a copyvio from elsewhere anyway... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bzuk is WP:OWNing Howard Hughes

User:Bzuk feels that cite templates are useless and because he/she has majority he/she knows what's beset. See here: The user has also been warned with {{uw-delete1}} and {{uw-own}}. Can someone remind him of MoS (cite templates are preferred}} and make him/her aware of WP policies especially WP:OWN. _{El Greco} 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

El Greco began an edit war. He was asked to stop the disruption. My reply is no one is owning the article. Cite templates are neither preferred nor recommended; editing can be done by anyone. Another editor changed all the recent edits to his style, I changed them back to another style and made corrections. This editor continued to template me after I asked him or her to stop. FWiW I posted to his talk page, he templated me. Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Ah no, you edits reverted another users contributions that were bringing the article up to par, that's WP:OWN. _{El Greco} 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the edits made were about citations and references, you reverted everything, errors included. The article is being edited, you treated this as a case of vandalism, using reversion. Edits were corrected not reverted. You revert only when there is vandalism involved and then you treated me like the vandal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

No I didn't treat it as vandalism I treated it as a user trying to institute his/her will on the article page. By undoing good-faith edits by User:Emerson7 Why did you undo his edits? Was he vandalizing? _{El Greco} 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, who is this User to tell enough with warning him of WP:OWN: . If you breach it, you will get warned. Note the previous revert (archive) on User:Bzuk's talk page and ????? Obviously it would be nice to talk on his talk page, but they vanish. _{El Greco} 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

His edits were not reverted, they were corrected. There were simple errors made throughout the entire article in spelling and punctuation. The cites were established throughout the entire article in one style, I followed that style, especially when the new edits introduced ISO dating which was not consistent with the date format being used, and since the template can't easily change to that date format, it had to be rewritten with no changes made to the actual information as I used the exact wording that was used by the earlier editor. There were also errors in the reference section that I also corrected. You simply reverted all the changes not looking at anything that was done. I never change other editor's work arbitrarily but that wasn't they way you operated, you instead immediately reverted, claiming that MoS was being at stake. Then you went after me in templating me as a vandal. FWiW, I left you messages on your talk page, you left me warnings and vandalism templates. Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Oh right. I posted a delete notice and an own notice on your talk page, which you should make yourself familiar with them, which you then fully deleted, for the sake of what, explain that? Another user notifies you by using WP standard warning template and you revert and then act like the boss on that user's talk page, yeah that's being WP:CIVIL alright. Have I reverted your edits on my talk page? User:Emerson7 simply went and changed all the bare refs to cite web/news, etc. as is done in many other articles and even by bots, but what do you do? You claim WP:OWN entirely revert his edits, and not even bother to explain in an inconspicuous edit summary. And then when I undo you edit to change them back you get all defensive and state: "Read the edit history of the article; I am the primary editor, the other editor changed the style of my edits to his preference." If that's not a WP:OWN violation I don't know what is. _{El Greco} 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How long do you think these guys will sit here talking to each other before they notice no one else is joinig in because they can't get a word in edgewise? --barneca (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD, guys. Bold, revert, discuss. Not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, go to ANI, argue on ANI, argue on ANI, argue on ANI... I have set up a section on the talk page just for you: Talk:Howard Hughes#Citation style. If discussion doesn't work out, check out WP:DR. Problem solved, quite Solomon-like I think. --barneca (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to explain the reason for the edit in the edit summary and then sent you a note as you had concerns, your reaction was to template me with vandal tags which is not conducive to discussion. Read the edit history, the edits made introduced some correct changes but also introduced errors in consistency by using ISO dating which is inherent in a cite template. I tried to rewrite the template but it didn't work, and that is why the citations were written out in "scratch" cataloging to preserve the exact wording. No edits were reverted, they were changed, that is the difference. I do not revert edits unless there is a clear case of vandalism. I was about to leave the edits as is but then noted that there were tiny errors throughout the entire passage and changed these, then made it all consistent. I began the revision of this article when it underwent attacks, at that time, due to the numerous editors involved, a style was selected that was established by the WP:AVIATION PROJECT group for consistency. Although Howard Hughes is an international figure with many different interests, the project style that was used was a consistent one. Cite templates are rife with small errors and in correcting the ISO dating, it was not possible to change the date style to meet the standard already in the article, so it was rewritten not reverted. All the information that was presented earlier was retained and put back in the same manner that the cite template would have presented it. You are reading something into this article revision that just isn't there. I am not a vandal, I do not change edits arbitrarily and I do not like being treated like a vandal. FWiW, Sorry for even getting involved in this discourse, it is illogical and idiotic of me to get baited like this. Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

They are not vandal tags. They are warning tags, understand that. If you want vandal tags go here: {{uw-vandalism}}. Well then take up your comments about the cite templates on their talk page. And if you're going to refuse to use a cite template because of bad date formatting, that's a weak reason and/or excuse. I've never seen anyone revert a user's edits for replacing bare refs with cite templates. _{El Greco} 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What you have here is a content/style dispute, with civility and Wikiquette overtones. As far as I can tell, neither of you has asked for any administrator action and I can think of none that would be necessary. WP:AN is not a step in dispute resolution and I would advise both of you to go to WP:DR like barneca suggested. Alternatively, you can keep going along the road you're going until you do need admin action, which will probably end up falling on both of you. (Incidentally, I would advise El Greco to read WP:DTTR, while I also advise Bzuk to realise that WP:DTTR is an essay and not a policy.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Cook

According to Help:Moving a page, if there is an issue with moving an article over a redirect page, then an administrator should be contacted, which is what I'm doing now. Anyway, I'm attempting to move Aaron Cook (baseball) back to its original form of just Aaron Cook (and then add proper disambig tags afterwards), but it appears as if Aaron Cook is simply a redirect page to Aaron Cook (taekwondo athlete), which was part of a move that I previously made. I probably made a mistake, which is why I'm obviously seeking admin help. Thanks. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Cook has been deleted, so you should be good to go. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish to view a deleted article

could someone here enable me to view the deleted article "List of Deus Ex machina examples" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deus_ex_machina_examples_%282nd_nomination%29

--Ted-m (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it--I just restored the article for review >.< --jonny-mt 02:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redeleted it under both CSD G1/A1 and common sense. We don't maintain blank pages in articlespace so non-admins can casually look over the history. If someone wants the content they can have it emailed to them. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A fine idea when they have e-mail enabled--when they don't, it's kind of difficult. Leaving a blank, orphaned page in userspace for a short while seemed like a good compromise, but if you're in a rush, then you're in a rush! --jonny-mt 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange set of sockpuppets

Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Undercovergals, seems to have an obsession with feet, which rings a bell somehow. Anybody know of a sockpuppeteer that fits that profile? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Seasideplace had an obsession with bare feet, but it doesn't quite fit. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, probably who I'm thinking of. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The walrus vandal

They're now using Walrusman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which first vandalized the article back in January and never got a vandalism warning. Corvus cornix_talk 05:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost AfD

Can anyone find the log that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shelley Batts is currently in? I relisted it, then went to comment it out of the old log and add it to the new one - and I can't find it. It shows that it started on July 30, but in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old it's listed under the 29th... and I can't find it in either. Maybe I'm too tired. Tan ǀ 39 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: it is currently #3 on the 29th listing, but of course that may change. It occurred to me that maybe it just didn't get listed in the logs and DumBot dropped the ball... but then why would it be listed on /old at all? Weird... Tan ǀ 39 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it, I'm too tired. See y'all in the morning ;-) Tan ǀ 39 06:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, just do a whatlinkshere search for the AFD and you'll see that it's now at August 6th. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I moved it there after I found it. But you have a good point; use the "what links here" function. Thanks! Tan ǀ 39 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions

I have waited this long to raise this here because I was allowing the due process of the wrongful sockpuppetry accusations and WQA concerning myself to transpire. I have been left disappointed at the end of it (conclusion here) .

Noclador conducted a sockpuppetry investigation on behalf of Wikepidia and I was one of the accused. During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations. This included the completely misrepresentative action of pulling together portions of statements from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything I was actually saying (or the context I was presenting). There selective use of “false/manipulated evidence” to incriminate me from a page that also had information that would contribute to prove my innocence. I have presened all the details at this link. This includes a summary of all the abuses and further links to all relevant pages.

Moreover I was initially not directed to the correct evidence pages nor was I notified of a later, related, ANI compliant. It was categorically shown that I was not a sock (at link & link), yet there was no apology, nor any acknowledgment for the mistake.

It now cannot be disputed that his evidence presented against me was poorly researched. It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador. At the evidence link I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others. Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition (compare this and this this; I have interjected with thisand this ) and claimed it to be non-consensus!! The aim appears to be to target the other editor’s content, but in light of Noclador’s behaviour towards me I see this as a convenient attempt to remove some of my citations. After all, he omits me (the main driver of the subsection, modified from an earlier attempt to include verifiable information) when he lists other editors as having made the consensus contributions.

Furthermore, others involved in the investigation were prepared to overlook the abuses by Noclador and impinge me for making personal attacks (plural). This is a baseless claim because the only thing I said was that Noclador was lying and manipulative (which can be (and has been - at the evidence link) demonstrated to be an understatement). I certainly do not claim perfection on my part, however, this is, quite frankly, a glaring double standard.

I asked for several things during the WQA discussion and as a sign of good faith modified the statement on my talk page to not include mention of the abuses that were carried out by my “accuser”. I received nothing. (See the two links, as mentioned above: here and here) So I see this as another one sided outcome. But I appreciate and respect the efforts of those who tried to mitigated the situation - they have been forthright.

Given that Noclador has been able to flout Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Misplaced Pages ethos when others do not?

Romaioi (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please summarize. Very few people are going to read walls of text like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary: User:Noclador accused user User:Romaioi of being a sock-puppet, in the course of which User:Noclador behaved uncivily towards User:Romaioi. When the sock-puppetry allegations turned out to be untrue, User:Romaioi asked for an apology and User:Noclador refused, when the whole thing could have been stopped in its tracks by a simple apology. The issue went to WP:WQA where it was not resolved. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce#Notes

There seems to be an error in formatting here. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me – am I missing something? – iridescent 14:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone else rv the vandalism here. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass pointy AfD noms

Could a bored admin go through Sceptre's contribs and close the dozens of AfD nominations he's just made. He's nominated dozens of criticism/controversies pages for the simple fact that the word criticism/controversies is in the name. I think we all know the proper forum for these debates is the article talk page and a little help from WP:RM. I'm out the door in 15 mins and don't have the time. - auburnpilot talk 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They're not pointy at all. Sceptre 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems the AfDs were nominated in good faith. People may find them misjudged, but they are not that obviously and grossly misjudged to warrant a speedy close, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointy or not, they're likely to WP:SNOW in a day or two. I believe consensus is against you here, Spectre. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the guidelines should reflect that. Sceptre 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I handled the majority of these. Almost all of them had a severe amount of coverage, and this was entirely pointy. Now, Sceptre, as someone who is advocating that you just take a small break instead of a block, I'd like to ask that you stop overreacting, please. Synergy 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This has happened before, hasn't it? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Sceptre 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I can easily believe Sceptre put up these AfDs in good faith, they do stray beyond the bounds of WP:Point in that the AfDs have mostly to do with Sceptre's wider worries over PoV forks. I've never liked criticism of articles, partly because they can indeed fork but mostly because readers of a topic are somewhat less likely to read content in a sub-article (along with being unlikely to find it by typing something into the Misplaced Pages article search box). However, starting a blizzard of AfDs is no way to fix this: An AfD is a nomination for deletion of content which would not be helpful here and I don't understand why Sceptre didn't think of this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's encouraged that violations of NPOV are deleted. Sceptre 15:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you didn't think that starting this many AfDs at once, in this manner, would start a ruckus. Tan ǀ 39 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually stopped at result 22 of this Google search because I knew that too many would flood AFD and actually be disruptive. Sceptre 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think 22 was about 22 too many. The presentation of these articles may indeed be PoV but there is seldom a need to delete sourced content, hence your AfDs were disruptive. A small batch of WP:Merge proposals would not have been disruptive and much more helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Person X is an idiot" is actually a good reason to delete sourced content. Sceptre 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out where in Criticism of Windows Vista, which you nominated for deletion, there is a statement as blatantly ridiculous as you state above? Tan ǀ 39 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see this as an reasonable action (in principle), I'm equally uncomfortable with the undue weight problem inherent in "Criticism of.." articles. This might have been dealt with over a longer period of time, but I think Sceptre has a very good point and was attempting to improve the encyclopedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Its good to remove the statements, not the entire article. Synergy 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In some cases, but when the criticism is not notable - in that the criticism has not been the subject of sources discussing the criticism as a subject in itself, then creating an article on "Criticism of.." is giving it undue weight. Such articles are frequently a NPOV problem, so do require close scrutiny and may often need to be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

True, scrutiny is wise on "Criticism of" articles, but putting them up for AfD en masse is not the proper first step. Something as simple as {{POV}} tags would be a proper starting point. --ZimZalaBim 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree in principle with his point, but I don't think making the point in this way was very wise or particularly constructive. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps said articles should be reworked to be "Criticism and praise of..." –xeno (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of rollback

I have removed Sceptre (talk · contribs)'s rollback for abuse of the function at and notified him. MBisanz 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A regretable action, but one I have to fully endorse. Pedro :  Chat  15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, good call. His explanation that removal of speedy tags should only be done by administrators is wrong and even more so when Sceptre had made such a weird call. Why couldn't he have just removed the parts he saw as an attack? Seriously though,a complete abuse of rollback and Sceptre should have known better. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would require deletion of the whole article. Sceptre 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I made a mistake in assuming {{drmspeedy1}} applied to all users. The rollback and AIV progressed from there. What the hell happened to AGF? Sceptre 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume good faith when you've been acting like a dick for the past week. Cut it out now or you're going to be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Main thread is here - best to keep this in one place I think. Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I thought we were supposed to WP:AGF regardless? And shouldn't ALL admins know better. You guys are supposed to lead from the front on stuff like that after all. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How about this (and it comes from a non admin): I just spent the last 10 minutes closing out the majority of Sceptres AfD spree (the above section). Combine that with his rollback issue and its an instant block. The reason he isn't blocked? Take one guess. Synergy 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think Sceptre briefly forgot the pith of WP:Point and then got very careless. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the carelessness of Sceptre has been going for a while now.--King Bedford I 16:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones/People's Temple editing on Harvey Milk (again)

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) is again edit warring to insert content on Harvey Milk, consensus, discounting SPA's, was pretty clear that additional content about Jim Jones/ People's Temple was undue. During the last ANI thread Wikidemo boldly started Political Alliances of the People's Temple which now has become a repository for similar sections from other articles. I've looked into only the Milk content but that section itself seems somewhat cherry-picked (to quote another editor who looked at this). Per advice from ScienceApologist I posted to WP:NPOV Noticeboard, although that board seems less active. I feel the content as it was on the Harvey Milk article, (last protected version), was fine, neutral and RS'd. As soon as the article came off full-protection Mosedschurte reinserted a new-and-improved section that again violates exacted what has been pointed out over the past 2.5 months. I reverted twice already but it's now back in. I'm sick of this and am taking a break. If someone else would look at this I would appreciate it. Banjeboi 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)