Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

• Talk
• Sockpuppet investigations
• Backlog

Civility Note that civility here is not optional. This edit is not called for, and recurrences could lead to you being blocked. Kevin (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not made any contact with the user and I wish not to do so, however the user will not leave my personal talk page alone and now I recieve daily interactions such as these below...

Welcome Back Wow, were you on vacation? I see you've also developed other interests and learned some HTML, great! You'll be a much more productive contributor now. McCoy has gained a lot of weight, I know why, that is a positive as well.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Advise It might be helpful to blank your talk page and begin aknew.--Victor9876 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Last Request to blank Carrt. I have asked you politely to blank your talk page. You have a right to blank your own page or not. I am amending my request to ask you to blank only my exchanges with you on your talk page. If not, I will ask an admin to do it. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Carrt81"

• • Now Carrt81 has pushed the envelope on Roux's talk page - ], he is now claiming that I impersonated Houston McCoy, the officer who shot and killed Charles Whitman. This meme he has created has crossed the boundary of sound judgment and prudence. Unless he retracts this statement, or proves it, I will seek an administrative banning of Carrt81. History - I was power of attorney for Houston McCoy for several years and recognized early on that he was suffering from PTSD, a mental illness that strikes some people who have been involved in a traumatic event that effects their ability to function as before the incident. Such is the case of McCoy. I had him diagnosed, and helped him get SSI, at a great cost to myself and my own health. Before the 40th Anniversary of the tower event, I was in Menard, Texas, helping prepare for the media onslaught that was coming. I have most of Whitman's records. McCoy didn't like the way WP was portraying his character (with good reason from past history with the made for TV movie "The Deadly Tower" with Kurt Russell, where a character that resembled McCoy was used in a cowardly manner to promote an Hispanic officer who kills Whitman with several gunshots to the back), so he had me create the Houston McCoy user page and he picked the name and password. This was all done at the Menard Public Library. The librarians will recall our few visits there. As I have stated previously, with Carrt81's knowledge, McCoy was computer illiterate at the time, and wanted things changed that could be verified. I did the best with what I could with verifiable information on the net, and to my knowledge, never crossed any WP rules. However, McCoy's daughter became aware of the account and blamed me for all the didtortions regarding her father. She butted in after nine years of silence on her part, and totally undid everything I had accomplished for and with McCoy. The relationship became strained, and eventually, my POA was mutually withdrawn, after the media in Austin honored Martinez exclusively and gave shoddy accounts of McCoy and the whole history of the tower tragedy. The daughter took over completely, (if you think a father is going to choose you over his daughter for any reason, you are fooling yourself), and I helped her with speeches, information about Whitman and the tragedy to advance the honors and awards given recently to all the officers and civilians. I have over 300 emails to verify this, mostly from her employer's email address in Texas. I was receiving no compensation for my time or efforts. Eventually, the daughter got all the credit for the awards and bringing the officers together, she was instrumental, just not the only source. The daughter also gave me information that was concerning to me, but refused to reveal the source so I could try and set any record straight that may have been in error. All of this is mentioned because Carrt81, echoes the daughters behavior, remarks, quick temperament and has tried to post information, that was privy to only a few individuals, her and myself being two of them. I am not saying Carrt81 is the daughter. I am saying there is a glaring similarity to their language and communication skills (or lack thereof).--Victor9876 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the above for the admin who reviews this AN/I.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

One of my acused sockpuppets has confronted Carrt81 on his talk page ], proving I am not a sock of that user, or JohnTex, another accused sockpuppet.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's really not "evidence" of anything at all. Further, from your collapsed section above: "n other words, I purposely broke policy to show why the change needs to be made." is a direct admission you violated WP:POINT. Really, you're digging the hole deeper this way. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I mention below the section, it is for an admin to review. It doesn't say comment please HandThatFeeds. In fact, if you read the comment again, this is exactly the type of exchange it suggests putting an end to. I'm using WP:Ignore all rules to help improve the system.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Carrt81 admits mistakes to Sbharris ], how many more mistakes has he/she made? Look from the beginning of his/her contribs. I tried to help and got insulted. I got called names and even was told I was going to be a project of his/hers. Yes, there was a civil war, but I tried to make amends and now I am here as a witch hunt by a user who claims to have researched McCoy and knows more than I do. Carrt81 even posted a list of alleged users as my sockpuppets, and now he has been bitten. Fine, just prove knowledge as I have with some substantial contributions and move on. Let's end this charade and get back to useful energy spent onarticles and not false allegations. It wouldn't hurt for Carrt81 and myself to avoid each other. We can't be all things to all people.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your continued insistence that only an "admin" comment is contrary to reality, and indeed, if you continue following what seems to be related to this essay, I would suggest that admin action will be forthcoming ... in your direction. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you check above Bwilkens, an "admin" had already been called for and "coming in my direction" - so in anticipation of that, I composed the collapsed article with an attention note below it for the "admin" who is due to arrive. I had hoped that would be honored, of course, anyone can read it, but just like the one responder who selected one passage to bring into the forum (out of context), I had hoped to not make it a public debate. It was just an explanation of a problem I see with the WP policy. I was being bold in my attempt to bring the problem to the foreground for an "admins" review. I don't recall "insisting" on anything, I don't own the page. Just to make sure that I am grounded in "reality", were you calling me a WP:Dick which was buried in your essay link? The suggestion is there, however, the explanation says that doing that is being a Dick and that there may be a high level of testosterone in the accuser which leads to another term that I would prefer to not suggest that you are over a potential misunderstanding. Can you clarify your position please? Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Final point Obviously, I did not call you a dick - if you feel that your actions fit the bill, then you're merely doing that yourself. I merely suggested you read an essay to ensure you weren't getting there. You have been told to never edit someone else's talkpage the way that you did, I expect you have learned this lesson (WP:IAR does not matter in this specific instance). You have also been suggested to stay away from this editor completely, and vice versa. You have no authority ever to dictate what someone keeps as an archive, unless of course it violates WP:BLP, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. Based on this, are we done here? This pointless drama has gone on far too long. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely. Now is this AN/I over so everyone can return to some normalcy or abnormalcy, whichever they prefer?--Victor9876 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on RfA - please remove

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

Could someone give some thought about removing or censuring this comment. This same editor also recently emailed me with some eccentric and strange remarks and I really don't like it. The remarks he is referring to were on another site and were so obviously intended as a joke that he should not be taking them out of context. Peter Damian (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be construed as a personal attack if you are indeed the one that posted and owned up to such a remark. If that was not you, than you have my sincerest apologies. However, if that was you, a clear and concise plan is not hyperbole, and I am free to use your own words as an attestation. My email to you was one, as was my helping you on an article, done in good faith. It is not unconventional for users to be chastised for off-wiki commentary. As I reiterate, if that was not your posting, you have my apologies. Law _{type! snype?} 10:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no WP:NPA violation here. If you don't want to be quoted, Peter, then I suggest you refrain from making statements. With that, I'm off to do some vandal fighting...gosh, I feel demoralized. :) Bullzeye 10:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. Don't say things like that if you don't want to have it quoted. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke. A bit like the time Kenny Everett said 'Let's bomb Russia'. And Law goes well beyond simply quoting me, if you actually read what he says. I have removed Gwen's tag.Peter Damian (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me simplify it. I did not like how my block was undone. Hyperbole is not hyperbole when it is backed up with specific actions. If they were in jest, why qualify them? Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
Blowing off steam is one thing, but a plan, laid out, in which you are not even comfortable with your own device shows that you had shitty intentions. You should remain blocked. My only regret is that I adhere to COI. Law _{type! snype?} 11:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And let me add, for those who accused me as a 'sleeper,' which part of this is an exageration or part of you blowing off steam?

I've indeffed people for username violations because they are simply usernames which are not acceptable. Why anyone allows you to edit here is beyond my comprehension. Law _{type! snype?} 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Go on keep up with the bullying. Peter Damian (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Law's email

And here then, as I must, is the strange email that 'Law' sent to me - I find it very disturbing the way he writes these strange disconnected, ungrammatical and mispelled statements. He comes across (to me at least) as someone who would be prepared to use violence. Peter Damian (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

'Cheers? That's not even in my colloquial vernacular. Take it to my talk page man. You really are reaching. I also am pretty adept at using caps when necessary. Cheers, Law. Law _{type! snype?} 11:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't post that email unless the sender says it's ok to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Um Am I OG?

This is a procedural action. I really would hope that I have not given the impression that I would unleash my gat when involved with a debate on wikipedia. Would I? I hate ANI, but seriously, I think the accusation does merit a discussion. Am I violent? This has to stop. Law _{type! snype?} 12:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does merit a discussion. Any comment or action I would take with regard to that user risks being perceived as non-neutral, so I will refrain from further comment. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, that's an AGF failure. I'm up for a community ban of Peter once enough other people are. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm with Jclemens on this one. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• I have been uninvolved with the offender. My take after reading the link: Over the top, uncivil, basically outrageous. My vote is a concurring one with Roux and JClemens.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close Seems trifling to me. Many (most?) people on Misplaced Pages come across to me as borderline psycopathic and potentially dangerous. I think it's best to let the comment go and move on. If stating a plan to destroy wikipedia and then moving to implement it isn't enough for a ban, then I don't see how this comment amounts to much. Stating one's perceptions of an editor based on an over-the-top reading between the lines of an e-mail communication, is probably within the limits of tolerability. The comment seems fairly trivial to me and may well have been a lashing out at a blocking admin. Maybe it was just another joke? Even if the comment was an effort to stir up trouble, it's an admin's job to minimize drama wherever possible and in my opinion this case called for ignoring the comment and exercising restrain. If something substantially disruptive is done that's a different story. And Law, you have been a bit bitey on your talk page recently. So if you don't want to come across as mean as scary, try doing more flattering, more cookie and barnstar distribution, and more loving engagement with your fellow psycopaths editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I may bite but never violent. Never. Law _{type! snype?} 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

User warned for vandalism , replied with legal threat . JNW (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone holding forth about legalities, not making a threat. "That's against the law" is quite different from "I will take you to court". KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, "your support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions." sounds like a (vague?) threat to me. — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and looking at this other contribs, he's definitely on a mission. "sheetheads" is completely beyond the pale. He'll get blocked in short order one way or another if he doesn't mend his ways. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a direct "I am taking action", but it is at the least intended to be disruptive, as were the edits preceding it. JNW (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think CIS is correct, "will ... in a criminal court of law" could be held to technically violate the NLT policy. OTOH, this person is clearly full of all kinds of hostility, and I agree with JNW that its not an actual threat. We could indef on a technicality, or we could see how he responds to the warnings he is getting. I have no argument with either approach. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua left a welcome and I left a warning. We'll see where it goes from here. TNXMan 13:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, my welcome was one of the vandal welcomes! Not exactly a hug. :-P KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the alliteration worked so well! TNXMan 13:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I myself have bent to the call of the cadence upon occasion. You are forgiven. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtfulness. :P TNXMan 13:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alliterative administrators ascendant!!! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a legal threat, but so hollow as to worth, there's almost nothing to block over. If it happens again though, a block will fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur that "will" was the key word that made it a hopefully minor violation of NLT, and that just a warning was a valid action for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above input and response. Although I saw little credibility in the suggested legal action, I thought it merited administrative consideration as a disruptive account moving, with the invocation of "a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions" in a more provocative direction. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have the talkpage watchlisted and will monitor, but the behavior resumes, let me know. TNXMan 15:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but when a new users makes a comment like "support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions" then that is pure and simple intimidation with legal threats. The very last thing we want to do is wait for it to happen again. Allowing users to continue to edit after making a legal threat puts Wikipedians in the middle of a legal battle, the whole point of NLT is to insulate on-wiki from such legal action. It is incredibly damaging to neutrality to allow any sort of intimidation. I have enforced our no legal threat policy and blocked this user until he/she retracts the legal threat or the issue has been dealt with outside of Misplaced Pages. Chillum 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Even more appreciated. JNW (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the interpretation, but what's done is done. The threat really didn't seem that coherent to me. TNXMan 15:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

IMH(non-admin)O, the NLT rule is of two parts: the obvious part is the "I will sue you!" direct legal threat which triggers our own Godwin's law, conversation is over, blocked until threat withdrawn. The other part is the vague "you are doing illegal things" which isn't technically a violation of NLT, but is most definitely disruptive as it is a wrong-headed intention to chill debate and frighten the editor. I believe that deserves to be treated under the NPA rule, warnings before blocking. Thoughts? Auntie E (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law"(emphasis added). This is not a "you are doing illegal things" comment, it is a "this will be used against you in court". If the user retracts this threat then unblocking would be prudent. That being said, if consensus emerges to do otherwise I will certainly abide by that. Chillum 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

my point of view is that most legal threats o this calibre should be treated like threats of violence or other example of implausible but still inacceptable threats. warn, if that doesnt work, then block, and if then that doesn't not work, then bann Smith Jones (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And my point of view is that there was an ongoing discussion, and everyone who had spoken agreed that the warning left by Tnxman was sufficient, and before any response or further problems, and without even discussing your intentions with those already reviewing the situation, you indef'd. I'm not interested in undoing it; I don't think the contributor was likely to become at all valuable, however I am not happy that there was consensus and you merrily rode over it, on a technicality. If you feel NLT is to be always enforced with no room for common sense or judgment; that's your prerogative, however it would have gone down better to me had there been any indication this was even remotely meant as an actual legal threat. It seems a bit inflexible to me, and a bit rude to those who had already given this matter their attention and thought. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bare-faced legal threat, and legal threats must not be tolerated, because if they are then it opens the door to all kinds of nonsense. No leniency, unless they fully recant such threat. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could it be called 'bald legal' threat? Should I run for the door now? HalfShadow 22:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Or fly. P.S. I indented your comments and mine, for better nesting. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I almost blocked the account myself, I was ok with only a warning, I'm ok with the block, legal threats are blockable on sight. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are only 3 existing contribs from the editor, and they suggest the editor's only purpose here is BLP-violations and soapboxing, so it's a good block all around. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. I'm not arguing the editor was useless; I quite agree. Not arguing the block was legal; totally. Am saying that when there is a consensus on how to handle something, then running roughshod over the others without even the courtesy of discussing it first is a bit rude, that's all. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there's nothing to discuss. Legal threat. Indef block. End of story. No compromise. If he comes back and retracts, that's a different story. He only made 3 edits, at least under that user ID, so unless he speaks up, it's done. Baseball Bugs carrots

Yes, this is indeed done, and the editor was indeed useless, and technically he made a legal threat. None of that is under discussion. I am saying that Chillum could have been polite enough to mention his difference of opinion rather than simply doing something several other admins had decided was overkill. Taht's clear enough. Your repetition that "there's nothing to discuss" does not mean my minor but valid quibble about this is somehow rendered moot; it is not. It has not, in fact, even been addressed. I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't keep posting as though the editor were of any value to anyone, or the block were not technically completely called for. That's not, and has never been, at issue. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I've long been willing to put up with an admin breezing by with a block over a legal threat, whatever the consensus may have been, because LTs are so harmful. If I was unhappy about this, I'd try asking about it on Chillum's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for sure that the editor is "worthless". He's probably acting in what he considers to be "good faith". If he wants to appeal the indef-block and if he recants the legal threat, then it could be considered. I'm simply saying that when someone issues a legal threat, you start with the indef-block and work back from there as appropriate. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh please, this is "good faith"? New definition I guess. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 02:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the editor's mind, he's doing the right thing. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course the editors's mind in this case probably resembles a game of Missile Command, but still... HalfShadow 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith. I don't assume sanity. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock needs a block

Pat Wynnon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously Scibaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've started an SPI, but Wynnon is editwarring over the inclusion of the sock tag on their userpage, and is doing the usual disineguous "Who is Scibaby?" stuff. Pls block, and a CU can clear out the drawer via the SPI. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PW blocked indef. Tan | 39 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. → ROUX ₪ 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux on blocks of fox in socks. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Except "Roux" is pronounced "roo". :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

roo on bloo of foo in soo???--Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sacre bleu! Baseball Bugs carrots 12:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never been to the Soo. → ROUX ₪ 17:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Soo? Si. Yikes. Now I'm channeling Mel Blanc. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated false Accusations and Insults by User Supreme Deliciousness (SD)

Ever since I became an editor on Misplaced Pages, User Supreme Deliciousness has been falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another user, Arab Cowboy. SD has even made a formal request for investigation, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy, the conclusion of which has shown that Arab Cowboy and me are unrelated editors. Yet, SD has continued to make these false accusations and to call AC and me liars on this Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Asmahan#Identity_Section and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Asmahan#Sockpuppetry_Allegations. SD’s false accusations and insults are not acceptable. He is stifling my freedom of expression and impeding my ability to freely contribute to Misplaced Pages. He should be reprimanded, blocked, or banned altogether. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not, in fact, what the SPI said. It said that there was not enough evidence to justify looking at your information. → ROUX ₪ 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, as usual) While the US Congress may not make a law abridging your freedom of speech, Misplaced Pages can - a policy, that is. That said, I looked through the threads you linked to, and I can see no admin action necessary or even remotely warranted. Tan | 39 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tan, do we take your response to mean that SD's false allegations and insults to be acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages? Shall we start calling each other "liars" and other names? What kind of civilized discourse would that leave us? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear the voice of the duck, calling "Plaxico!" Baseball Bugs carrots 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has shown that you two are related or unrelated yet, just that there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant CheckUser. MuZemike 00:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for some replies: do we take your response to mean that SD's false allegations and insults to be acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages? Shall we start calling each other "liars" and other names? What kind of civilized discourse would that leave us?
• The burden of proof that Nefer Tweety is my sockpuppet is upon SD, and if he has "insufficient evidence" to support this accusation, then he should be reprimanded for making it, especially that he has already done so through a formal route. And to start calling NT and myself "liars" will open the door to a very different kind of dialogue on Wiki pages.
• Tan has stated that Misplaced Pages can stifle a user's freedom of expression by policy. What kind of violation has NT or myself committed to warrant that action? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Were I an admin, you and Nefer would have been blocked some time ago for the sheer obviousness of the fact that you are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Perhaps it's a good thing I'm not. → ROUX ₪ 04:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux, obviously, it's a good thing that you are not. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" here. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Maybe you should just focus on good editing, and leave the personal stuff alone? Baseball Bugs carrots 04:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "logic" of some of the users here is pathetic. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

From where are you getting the idea that there is "freedom of speech" here? Baseball Bugs carrots 05:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Forget the constitution if you so desire, but to intimidate users through allegations of sockpuppetry and lying is not the sign of civilized behavior. If you find that to be an acceptable norm, then so be it, but from the way the answers have been coming here, it's more like a madhouse than a place to have an intelligent discourse. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Forget the constitution" is a red herring. How do you figure the constitution comes into play here? Baseball Bugs carrots 05:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning. Tan | 39 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it doesn't. It wasn't I who brought the constitution into play here. It was Tan who brought up Congress and the Constitution in the first place, and diverted attention from the real issue. On your user page, you state, "Misplaced Pages is a community, not a crazy den of pigs!", yet you have shown it to be exactly the latter. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Tan | 39 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy folks! I am not AC, I have no idea who this person is! Honestly, it is kinda funny to see that some users still think we are the same, even though I tried to clarify it!!! Is there a way I can prove it, as obviously what I keep repeating isn't of much value :( --Nefer Tweety (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With edits so close together, this would be a good time for a checkuser to take another look at these two redlinks and see if there is any additional evidence tying them together. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a sock investigation, but it was declined due to lack of evidence. How does one go about reopening it? — HelloAnnyong 13:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, now Nefer Tweety is on AC's talk page, offering help. And there's the usual calling for "thorough investigations" into my "abuse of power". Meanwhile, a second unblock request is pending - anyone want to tackle it? Tan | 39 14:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They are acting, at the very least, as meatpuppets. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a second unblock request: this individual didn't like my decline & removed it. (And he & Roux edit-warred over this for a short while.) For that reason, I've gone ahead & protected his talk page for the remainder of his 72-hour block. Since an uninvolved Admin might consider this a conflict of interest, review of my acts welcomed -- & I'm stepping away from this matter unless further developments require my input. -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The version you just recently reverted - this one - seemed to have both the request you declined and a new, second unblock request. As far as I see, he does have the right to an appeal of your decline. Perhaps reconsider? Or am I missing something? Tan | 39 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well no, I am. A nearlier version here had him deleting the decline, & the following comments to AC & Roux's reverts convinced me that they were edit warring over this template. He does have the right to appeal my decline; I never meant to imply otherwise. I'm reverting my change & the protection -- & won't intervene again. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to leave a note on his talk page explaining the situation. Tan | 39 21:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I left an apology. Does that work? -- llywrch (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure. It was clearly a mistake on your part; I was just suggesting that you leave an adequate explanation of the block on his page. Tan | 39 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarey Savy and related pages

Can an admin take a look at these? The constant re-creation of this and now additional related content seems disruptive to me.

Three SPA accounts (75.92.208.32 (talk · contribs), Googleisawesome (talk · contribs), and BoredBoredom (talk · contribs) - from which I hear loud quacking) have been creating the musician's article under various names - sometimes more than one at the same time. And have attempted spamming links to the article onto multiple other pages.

The musician articles was first created under Sarey Savy, which has now been deleted four times (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy for the AfD on that one).

More recently, the content was re-created at Sarey, Sarey (Singer), and on the userpage of User:Googleisawesome (Googleisawesome has claimed to be Sarey in this post). Speedy tags were added to "Sarey" and "Sarey (Singer)"; but the author repeatedly removed the speedy tag from "Sarey (Singer)" despite warnings and having the text pointed out to them that says to "not remove notice from pages that you have created yourself", so an AfD was created for that one at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarey (Singer) so that visibility would remain even if the tag was again removed. Technically, it's a second AfD for the same content that's now under the new article name.

Now, today, BoredBoredom has created Don't Stop Believin' (Sarey Savy Song). Normally, I would add a speedy tag to that one as well; but, from my reading of {{db-a9}}, it appears that the speedy tag only applies if the musician's article does not exist (which, it likely wouldn't if not for the repeated removal of the speedy tag that resulted in it going to AfD again). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, after digging a little deeper, I've also found that Sarey Savy has been salted, which is likely why alternate article names were used this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and salted both the other titles used, but I want a second opinion before blocking the other accounts and the IP. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as the artist's page is now deleted, I've gone ahead and tagged Don't Stop Believin' (Sarey Savy Song) with {{db-a9}}. Also, I see that someone else has created Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Googleisawesome. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 Completed -- Luk 05:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Greatmathias09

Can someone block this editor please. Look at their lovely comments to Cirt at an IP's talk page and really all of this user's contributions. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, they were just blocked. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

However, given the obvious socking, a CU is probably needed to root out any others laying around. → ROUX ₪ 07:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Page creation header

Sorry if wrong place (maybe), but I noticed that the header for creating article is changed to following text:

You have followed a link to a page that does not exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, click your browser's back button.

Why can be like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with it can be like this? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 09:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem here... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He's right, it looks like MediaWiki:Newarticletext is no longer used and MW is falling back to the default message. I have no idea why. -- Luk 09:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A null edit seems to have done the trick for now... -- Luk 09:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Luk. The Junk Police (reports|works) 11:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in huge trouble for this

Self-reporting.

1. My edits: moving discussion, moving discussion
2. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit: this is not "discussion"; these are, quite plainly, lulz. do not refactor or otherwise fuck with our lulz, Durova. you're treading on thin ice, young lady.
3. My edit: restore move: commentary is admittedly disruptive
4. I post to his user talk:
5. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit: You're in huge trouble for this....

He has not replied to my attempt at polite communication. Seeking independent review and opinion. Durova 14:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Durova's moving of threaded commentary to the talk page conformed to accepted RfC formatting guidelines. The reverts and even more so the edit summaries by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are incivil, disruptive, ownerous and incomprehensible. ("Lulz"? This is an encyclopedia, not a website for lulz.) He should be blocked if he keeps this up.  Sandstein  14:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, he did mention your youth... style points? Anyway, if shenanigans like that continue, sanctions should ensue. Tan | 39 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back made a disruptive comment in his edit summary. To be fair, you responded with a sarcastic comment on his talk page that didn't really address the conflict. If I had found a message on my talk page like that I wouldn't have known how to immediately respond to it, and neither would I have seen it as "a polite attempt at communication". It's quite possible that I don't understand the seriousness of moving this text, or the immediate trouble that is sure to follow anyone who does so. IMHO, both parties are at fault. a little insignificant 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I have significant respect for you as an admin, but anyone who has spent as much time on this "project" as yourself should have long ago relieved himself of the delusion that "this is an encyclopedia, not a website for lulz." Look around.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

technically TFMWNCB is not an admin so your edit summary was incorrect Syrthiss (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right... I keep forgetting, sorry... a little insignificant 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the above. The revert, and edit summary seem to be pretty uncivil and disruptive. I've gone ahead and informed The Fat Man Who Never Came Back about this thread. - Kingpin (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was attempting to lighten the tone, rather than attempting sarcasm. Durova 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I ad an edit conflict, so I was actually agreeing with Sandstein & Tan :). I can't see a big problem with your message. - Kingpin (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alternately, Durova, you can be satisfied in the knowledge that people agree that you are technically in the right, but then just let it go as not worth the drama. C'mon people, this is not Utopia, we can allow things to get slightly messy and imperfect without threats of blocking and sanctions. Durova's response on his talk page was perfectly fine. It's all a joke, it isn't hurting things that much, TFMWNCB pushed the joke a little too far when reverting a second time. But let's go find something else to do. Also, I wish someone would call me young man. It's been decades. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If ever there were a page that needed some lulz, that would have been it. Nonetheless, Durova's edits were proper from the prescribed format point of view. Let's drop this now. Incidentally, given the number of times that he seems to come back here, I call BS on the Fat Man's username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So I come to back to AN/I from time to time. Big deal. I like my name. If you found out I had a svelte, Pilates-toned physique, would you complain?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to see either one of two editors blocked over something like this. a little insignificant 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore him Durova, you are definitely not in any trouble. It clearly states at the bottom of the page ] that discussions should be taken to the talk page. And his personal remarks to you are also unnecessary. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure Durova is relieved at your reassurance that she is not in trouble. Thank you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the swift responses. This looked like the kind of thing that could turn hot, so was mainly seeking third party intervention before any blockable action happened. If the threaded commentary was correctly moved, would someone reinstate the move please? Other than that, would be glad to mark this resolved. Durova 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Norcalal & User:Highspeed

These users have worked together to make disruptive edits including vandalizing my talk page, and wikistalk articles I have created or contributed to and nominate them for deletion. I have blocked User:Highspeed as a sock of User:Biaswarrior per WP:DUCK as Biaswarrior had engaged in previous similar stunts, but Norcalal considers that I am biased against him and so I'll let an uninvolved admin figure out whether he's a sock, a problem, or whatever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see where Norcalal has 'vandalised talk page'. Would you please back this up with a diff(s)? — neuro 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He posted this to Highspeed's talk the same day that Highspeed vandalized my talk page, it's clear who the personal attack was refering to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Prestonmcconkie harassing

User:Prestonmcconkie has been harassing me on my talk page. I took it to WP:WQA and User:GTBacchus did a good job handling the issue. After GTBacchus left the user a warning about civility, he snapped at me on my talk page again.

I asked him to please stop leaving me messages about the issue, hoping to drop it. User:Prestonmcconkie replied with "Yay! I win!" as if it was some kind of contest.

Hoping to stop this once and for all, I wiped the string of messages from my talk page. It didn't sway them. They reverted my removal of messages on my talk page with this edit summary: "Yeah, I'd be embarrassed, too. Don't be a wimp." (diff)

Someone else stepped in, warned him, and reverted his edit, but I doubt he'll comply as he has been shown not to before this. Can I please get some help? This is getting beyond ridiculous. Thanks. --13 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He has also deemed it appropriate to post the message string on his talk page, which I don't feel comfortable with, since they were originally on my page, they are my comments, and he's just trying to put it up to "showcase" his "win" against me. --13 19:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He actually has this as the message directly above the string: "Still, for the sake of posterity and because I simply find it funny, I'm preserving the exchange in the next section." Him adding the string is just another attempt to harass me. He has also ignored the request by another user by doing this and, in an ironic twist, when I left the auto-message for this report, he told me to stay off his page. --13 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, gee. I go offline for an hour to get a cavity filled, and this is still happening when I come back? User:Thirteen squared, you've got to disengage with this guy, and he with you. There's no rule against keeping a copy of the conversation on his talk page. Do consider that anyone seeing a conversation here that ends "Yah, I win", is not likely to think much of the person saying that. I'm going over to his talk page now; I request that whatever conversation he and I have there, you not contribute to. I'm not commanding you not to, but I think it would inflame the situation. -GTBacchus 20:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, no, no. That's absolutely, perfectly fine. I wanted this to end, which was why I asked him to stop, when he didn't I removed the conversation hoping it would stop, and, when it didn't, came here instead of talking to him (outside of leaving him the required message to inform him of this report). I do appreciate the help you've given. I just want this to end and for him to stop harassing me. Thanks. --13 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it ends now, too. We'll see. -GTBacchus 20:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

While he seems to have finally stopped trying to insult me directly, he won't let it drop here. --13 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee from the picture on his User page, I wouldn't think Prestomcconkie was twelve years old. Are we really arguing over graham cracker crust? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, WTWAG, that was helpful. By the way, did you answer the question I posted to you the other day? If another admin or two could keep an eye on the situation, I'd appreciate it. -GTBacchus 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I must have missed the question. Where did you post it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was on one of these noticeboards. It must have drifted into the archives. I guess it wasn't really important, anyway. -GTBacchus 20:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we aren't arguing over graham cracker crust. We were arguing over someone wiping out my article repeatedly with no discussion, and not in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Yes, the discussion got acrimonious, and my language was the most uncivil. But I don't see how calling me a 12-year-old qualifies as civil or, ahem, gentlemanly. --Preston McConkie 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't. That's what I was alluding to with the question I'd asked him last week, in a thread about civility on this very page. That's one problem with these angry words we type - they tend to gather more and more about them, until six people are being uncivil instead of just one. That kind of situation can waste a lot of time, which is why we have a civility policy. It kind of makes sense, if you think about it that way. Seems to me, at least. -GTBacchus 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WTWAG never called you a twelve-year-old. They said specifically, "From the picture on his User page, I wouldn't think Prestomcconkie was twelve years old." They were replying to GTBacchus' warning on your talk page, regarding "This is not middle school". Your claim has no merit. a little insignificant 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it has a little bit of merit, and it made me think immediately, and hard, about my "middle school" remark. I think it weakened my message, and was therefore unwise. We do best when we all treat each other with dignity and respect. It's not that much to ask, but in practice... we're all human. I hope Prestonmcconkie looks past my hasty rhetoric and hears what I wanted to communicate. If he doesn't, then I just screwed up, by not treating someone with dignity. -GTBacchus 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wassermann

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547#User:Wasserman. An IP editor, User:172.131.130.5, has been editing identically to the edits for which User:Wassermann was brought to task in the above section. Behavioral evidence alone is obvious, although I misread the block log and thought Wassermann was still blocked, and reverted all the edits. Is a longer term user block combined with the appropriate IP anon range blocks called for or not? -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wassermann's contribs, he hasn't edited under his main account since June 25. Agree with Avi--the quacking is getting awfully loud. Indef might not be too harsh at this point, considering his block log. Blueboy96 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This account has been a problem for a long time, and this new editing looks like the same kinds of problems as before. He was most recently blocked for a month. Either a much longer block or an indef would appear appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP's just AOL, so not much to be done there; I'd indef the guy, but I'm not particularly fond of yellow-badgers, so I'm way biased. --jpgordon 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with an indefinite block: socking, long term bad edits... let's just get it over with. Triplestop x3 01:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of POV and Cite check tags on Kosovo article

Hi, User:Dbachmann, an admin, has unilaterally removed the tags here, with the reason "rm stale templates. There is the usual nationalist noise on talk, but this doesn't establish that there is any bona fide issue. If there is, use inline tags to help localize it."

The POV tag is dated December 2008. The Cite check tag is dated February 2009. I have been here for a couple of months, in that time no substantial edits have been made to merit the removal of the tags. I explained my position to the said admin here and was asked to inline tag all the non-neutral and dubious cites on the article - a move which would mean over half the article is tagged. This was explained to the admin in his talk page. The admin also accused me of improper conduct on Misplaced Pages, an notion I reject. The said user did not agree with my views and thus branded me a Wikipedian who gives the "usual nationalist noise on talk". I would agree that my actions have not always been proper, but my presence in the article is necessary to counter other points of view. The said user has assumed bad faith on other occasions, but I would like a response to this incident.

Regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I observe Kosovo with amusement, and can only condone dab's actions here. If the article is really that bad, please go and inline tag it. ninety:one 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article beings; "Kosovo is a disputed region in the Balkans." This, in its self is a POV statement as according to 62 nations (mostly English-speaking nations), it is a country located in the Balkans. Why shouldn't I be allowed to address these points without being called a "nationalist". Why should we remove the tag when a Serbian POV has been allowed to override the article and thus un-due weight is given throughout. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).

No, it's an NPOV statement because it fairly describes the existing situation. While Kosovars have unilaterally declared independence from Serbia and 62 nations have supported this, Serbia still claims Kosovo as a province and not even a plurality of the world's nations have given their support to its declaration of independence. Until Serbia drops its claims and nearly all nations have accepted Kosovo as an independent nation, then it's quite fair, objective, and NPOV to say it is a "disputed reason". If you could provide reliable sources confirming that Serbia has accepted Kosovo's independence and given it such recognition, then your POV would become NPOV. As it stands, there is no reason for administrator action in this case. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys could formulate some compromise wording that is acceptable to all - I doubt that we would use the phrase "Israel is a disputed region in the Middle East." because a number of countries do not recognize Israel; or "Iran is a disputed region in the Middle East." for similar reasons; or " Korea is a disputed region in Asia." or anywhere else. Perhaps using facts rather than the ambiguous weasel-word "disputed" such as Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, 62 countries recognize such independence, and XX countries recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia. or something else. I'm not sure any admin action is required here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:V and citations

Over at Talk:Sacha_Baron_Cohen#Cleaned_up_Family_section, User:J M Rice has said that the "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" part of WP:V means that all material that doesn't fit this description doesn't generally need a reference; he has thus now twice removed all citations from an entire section of Sacha Baron Cohen. Surely all biographical information, especially on a WP:BLP, needs at least one reference, even if this material hasn't been challenged? All Hallow's (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and thus not appropriate for AN/I. Please try dispute resolution. I would suggest asking for a third opinion. → ROUX ₪ 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I echo the sentiment. Mediation may be necessary here, judging from the article talk page, but I can't see any administrative action being appropriate here. Law _{type! snype?} 02:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead

This user has been a minor problem for some time now, being a single-purpose account that exists apparently only to promote and maintain positive comments and puffy text regarding the film The Hurt Locker and people connected to it. This has been going on since mid-2008, including a series of edits that add glowing comments, excessive details, selectively chosen review quotes, delete negative remarks, add non-standard formatting, and so on. Editors who challenge his edits are usually reverted, often with misleading edit summaries. I have had to constantly watchlist the article, and to also review all changes to it by this editor (including following up on reviews and references to ensure they are used correctly). Today, after dealing with the latest problematic changes, I noticed that Inurhead had begun to indiscriminately revert other edits I had done in articles unrelated to anything he had seen before, This included restoring spam links and incorrectly placed material. Anyway, long story short, I don't feel comfortable acting as an admin in this case because of the past history of having to clean up after this guy, so I'd appreciate a third pair of eyes to review it. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz_spy 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given the user a (veiled) warning, and with luck it won't happen again. If it does, let me know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for a WP:BAN

There have been a number of user and talk pages recently created which are apparently tracking some sort of game, and using Misplaced Pages as a free web host. Sockpuppet case is here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ILMORGAME/Archive. And there's an example of this foolishness is at User talk:ILMORSEASONTWO. This user (or users?) clearly have zero interest in contributing to Misplaced Pages and are determined to take advantage of Misplaced Pages, and do not respond to attempts to discuss the situation, except with the occasional profanity. I suggest that this content and those creating it be banned, and that any of these pages be deleted on sight without further attempts at discussion, as it has been made clear that they do not respond, but simply move on to a new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:MFD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a response to the last sentence of the post above. Hell, it misses the point entirely. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would at least get the pages deleted in the meantime. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• We went through this identical situation a few months ago. Suggest an admin has a word with everyone involved, informs them that this is not what Misplaced Pages is for, and deletes any and all pages related. If they continue after this, ban 'em all. → ROUX ₪ 04:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Aasi (A sub Clan of Chadhar Rajputs)...http://en.wikipedia.org/Aasi

http://en.wikipedia.org/Aasi

I, Shehzad Asif Javed, President,The Club Group of Companies, Pakistan belong to a prominent Aasi family of Jhang and i head the aasi tribe, whenever i tried to write down my name at that page it always goes for speedy deletion, You are requested to solve the issue... Regards. Shehzad Asif Javed shehzad@theclubgrouppk.com +92-300-854-6297