Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:34, 7 August 2009

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Niffweeds complaint in regards to socionics article

I have written my side of the story on the noticeboard incident report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rmcnew_and_Socionics

Clear evidence about Corticopia's sock

Check this out, more Corticopia evidence. An anon. IP from Toronto and Ixtapl are the same person, editing and pushing the same POV, same hour same POV:

• (diff) (hist) . . Outline of Mexico 05:02 . . (+60) . . 216.234.60.106 (talk) (restoring some prior notions...)
• (diff) (hist) . . Geography of Mexico‎ 05:04 . . (-67) . . Ixtapl (talk | contribs) (rv disruption)
• (diff) (hist) . . Middle America 05:04 . . (+92) . . Ixtapl (talk | contribs) (restoring valid synonym)

I think this evidence is enough for a block, since all he is doing is edit warring and disrupting the status of the articles, because no other user besides himself is pushing this particular biased POV. Please pay attention to the fact that the anon. is the one that in the past opened and reported Jcmenal. AlexCovarrubias 10:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very terse summary of the problem. I have blocked Ixtapl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as a sock of Corticopia and the IP for six months. Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked and he is still free to edit. I encourage Corticopia to use one single account from now on, and to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution rather than continuing a perpetual revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your involvement! So far, this problem has 2 years now, and even if administrators have taken actions against edit-warring, no one has shown interest in ending this rampant sockpuppetry situation, in which is frustrating that one single person can disrupt several articles. AlexCovarrubias 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Corticopia is avoiding his block, editing anonymously again . Note that previously Ixtapl, a proved Corticopia sock, was the POV pusher. AlexCovarrubias 00:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Middle America. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Ed for your fast and fair response. AlexCovarrubias 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Incredible... Middle America (Americas) history. Same problem, he's edit-warring anonymously, disrupting the article. IP of the same range, located (as always) in Toronto, Canada. Same POV push, same behaviour. AlexCovarrubias 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes: incredible. What POV push are you referring to -- yours? Both the body of references and citations in the article clearly support more balanced phrasing. Dispute resolution (as suggested) is useless with these particular editors from Mexico who haven't even discussed the issue on the talk page, and regardless do as they usually usually do: revert war, disrupt, and resort to ad hominem argument. And, before the administrator - who is arguably already complicit in locking down pages and supporting a proven edit warrior and sockpuppeteer - decides to compound that error and do the reporter's dirty work for him, please be advised that I need not nor will not edit with a user name. That is all I have to say. 69.158.152.157 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello 69.158.152.157. You've been around a long time, and I think you know what you would have to do to be taken seriously. I hope it doesn't come as a complete shock that someone who contributes to a wide variety of articles under a registered account is more credible than a constantly-changing IP who hops around to avoid blocks. Your only goal on Misplaced Pages appears to be maintaining a fixed viewpoint on certain middle-American topics that you try to enforce by edit-warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And that justifies similar actions of 'established' editors - with a fixed viewpoint on similar American articles, who pop up largely to preserve that viewpoint through reversion and edit warring (which your ignorance of is, well, unsurprising) - who do exactly the same thing, yet are not sanctioned for it? In fact, they are encouraged through your semi-protection of articles, as the above editor will predictably revert to a preferred state. Your actions, frankly, are laughable and can't be taken seriously. Keep up the good work. 69.158.152.157 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Ed. In a complete defiance to the established rules, Corticopia's from Toronto is again edit warring, now in his preferred article North America. Note that when he is gone, none of the other editors, nor regular visitor of the article objects. He's the only one always trying to impose with his "Central/Middle America agenda". And just a hint, because I know how he works (and can prove it with Ixtapl): he will now register an account, pretend he's a "good guy" (other than Corticopia) and then he will start implementing his POV among the articles. Ixtapl appeared in the article Mexico initially pretending he was a different person than Corticopia... in fact he even "discussed" with Corticopia (LOL?) and took opposite sides! As stated in the sockpuppet article, this is a classical behaviour or sockpuppeters. AlexCovarrubias 19:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the Fowler's quotation verbatim in North America, and the text related to it: it was changed without consensus, previously removed by the commentator above (see archives), and the actual quotation was recently changed by a similar edit warrior who has since departed. I won't comment on other gibberish above, but I'm clearly not the only editor who supports said viewpoint, reliably sourced; others don't necessarily challenge AlexC because they, as I, tire of talking to a wall and discussing issues with an admitted Mexican 'patriot' (per talk page) who continuously reverts with limited scope and who cannot accept disagreeable source matter. In light of incompetent editors and complicit administrators, I will ignore all rules -- a policy. I defy this editor and, since few editors appear to come to their defense, see little reason to yield in any incarnation. No more comment. 69.158.152.157 (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok Ed. Now he's just being disruptive out of rage or frustration. I think he's made clear he won't stop. contribuitions

No, not really, since I can edit at will regardless of semi-protection. The reporter seems to be more frustrated than anyone, given their persistence and is likely politically impotent etc. in the homeland: the bulk of his edits are in support of one viewpoint, however misguided, and is his entire talk page is devoted to whatever the issue is. The map the user tries to include is of limited utility, and has been absent from the article for months without a peep. But, the administrator seems more like a yes man, so get to it. 69.158.152.157 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ed, this is now jus insane , he won't stop his disruptive behaviour, going from article to article no matter what. AlexCovarrubias 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) broke 1RR.

Version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 13:10, 23 July 2009

Version reverted to:

• 2nd revert: 18:09, 23 July 2009

-- Vision Thing -- 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for The Four Deuces, asking him to undo his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed the last change. I had not thought it represented a second reversal because the first reversal was reversing a paragraph that I had entered. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph about Hayek that you had added in that edit is different from paragraph you removed. Changes were made in between (and you had expressed your disagreement with them on talk) that you reverted by removing paragraph. -- Vision Thing -- 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

the dazzle dancers

hi,

this page should be deleted... there is some editor whom is being very rude on this page... they are a music group with strong gay overtones...

not notable at all as per the music requirement..

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dazzle_Dancers#The_Dazzle_Dancers

i beleive the editor is part of the group since he is so arrogant and rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.105 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you need to review these actual press notices... They are mentions in passing as opening acts, etc..

Not feature articles (in the main respected references)... additionally, they are just extras in that gay film...

id ask to re-consider.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.105 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi ED, hope your wikibreak has so far been satisfactory,

I knew it would happen man, and i think i told you about this account, Edc018. I imagine PARARUBBAS' surprise when he found out he had no need to open a new sock, because this one was still available.

He immediately started to contribute, gluing all sentences F.C. Paços de Ferreira (here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=F.C._Pa%C3%A7os_de_Ferreira&diff=next&oldid=303911157, anon) and Rui Bento (here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rui_Bento&diff=303746064&oldid=300668721) - i already reverted - and be sure, he will remove player infobox stuff if he is "given the chance" (latest "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Edc018).

All for the moment now, continue to relax, all the best, have a nice weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Have also sent this message to Satori Son, whom originally (and greatly!) assisted me in this situation, just in case your schedule does not permit for a login in the next hours.

• Look what he wrote, here as anon, in same ball club (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=F.C._Pa%C3%A7os_de_Ferreira&diff=prev&oldid=303948228). Are these "people" needed here?

--NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: John Serry Sr. Cleanup & Peacock Tag Removal

Dear Mr. Johnston: Just a quick note regarding the article: John Serry Sr.. As per the Misplaced Pages:Cleanup process guidlines I have attempted to remove the Peacock & Cleanup tags which were placed upon the article on March 21, 2009 (i.e. an attempt to de-list the article) after making an effort to re-edit the article in order to address various objections raised by User:Damiens.rf. My attempt to remove these tags was reversed by User:Damiens.rf who indicates that these tags must be removed by someone else but does not indicate who I should contact. If possible, kindly review the article for the editorial changes which have been made-- including the removal of "Peacock" terms and the general cleanup of the article. If possible, please instruct User:Damiens.rf that these tags should be removed at this juncture as per the Misplaced Pages: Cleanup process. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely: --Pjs012915 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Talkback

WuhWuzDat 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ed - perhaps this posting on my paysage blog could be a interesting reading for a wikipedia admin ! best wishes from Grünstadt ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hey. I've responded on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pantepoptes

He has resumed edit-warring without discussing. 3R at Anatolia , 3R at Accession of Turkey to the European Union , accompanied by copious shouting and incivility. Even though related threads have been started in the discussion page of both articles, he will not discuss. Something else that's weird: This account edits on a 24 hour basis . He also seems highly knowledgeable about wikipedia procedures for such a new user. --Athenean (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Without discussion? See: Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Every single sentence that I added are supported by at least 1 (in most cases 2) references. And "none" of the references are Turkish sources (I actually added Greek Cypriot sources). Please stop removing referenced content. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, after I warned you for 3RR. And just because something is referenced doesn't mean it's within the scope of an article. Your edits are highly POV attempts to justify the invasion, which is not only wrong in itself, it is also beyond the scope of the article entirely. --Athenean (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, "before" your hilarious 3RR warning, because you reverted as many times as I did (I didn't remove your unreferenced additions, but you kept removing my "referenced" additions - none of which are Turkish references, but neutral sources.) Pantepoptes (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check that again . 14 minutes later. So you are dishonest. And can you please explain how it is that you edit on a 24-hour basis and know so much about wikipedia procedures while so new? --Athenean (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pantepoptes has been blocked 24 hours by Toddst1 for edit warring at Anatolia. I don't think I have any continuing role in this matter. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong

Hello EdJohnston. You've helped mediate a dispute between myself and User:Supreme Deliciousness before on Stephan Rosti, and to my recollection the problem was solved in a reasonable amount of time. SD had to withdraw his false claims to the article because YOU were even-handed. I see you responded today to Annyong on the Asmahan article dispute between the same 2 editors. I would like to alert you that the RfC did not work specifically because Annyong was NOT the neutral 3O/mediator that he had presented himself to be. Annyong was invited to mediate the dispute by SD, and since then, he has supported SD all along, even when SD was deliberately misquoting the sources. For example, SD used a statement from a book about another music personality to support his POV on Asmahan, and SD's false position received instant backing by Annyong. To assume good faith, Annyong was doing a very poor job checking the sources or even reading the inputs on the Talk page. This has happened over and over again. The RfC did not work because, as soon as another user, Nefer Tweety, agreed with my position, both SD and Annyong brought sock-puppetry charges TWICE against that user. The two SPI's have resulted in "Declined" and "Unrelated", respectively, yet the puppetry accusations against and intimidations to NT continue to be made. Annyong has supported SD all along, even in edit-warring reverts of legitimate edits made by myself or NT. I can very comfortably state that Annyong's self-presentation as a neutral 3O/mediator was dishonest and an affront to the process, and has prolonged this dispute much farther beyond its due course. Annyong's contributions to the matter since another mediator, Diaa Abdelmoneim, stepped in, and who has been much more reasonable and fair than Annyong ever was, have been to criticize judge, and revert, all in support of SD, and to stifle NT's opinion through intimidation and false accusation. If Annyong had taken an even-handed 3O/mediator position on the matter, like you had done on Stephan Rosti, it would have been resolved even before the RfC. I therefore request that you please exclude Annyong's opinion from your review of this matter. If I knew where to report Annyong for abuse of the 3O/mediator process, I would do so. Regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

System

Hi, I seem to have a disagreement with a new editor about the removal of a textline. I wonder if you could check, and maybe comment on it on the talkpage. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New developments kind of resolved the situation -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Return of problematic editor

This person User talk:Mr3003nights seems to disregard most established editing norms and also intensely stirs the pot at the same time on the wage slavery article (see talk). This person also has freely employed sock puppets in a kind of fake rhetorical polemic in the past in edit summaries and point arguments in the talk page also User talk:99.2.224.110.

You previously page protected the article, probably as a result of this same person also (Have to assume so as the language and debate style and debating points are identical . That user has consistently run multiple accounts in the past and re-appeared with the same edits using different names over and over and generally is a major nuisance as to disruptively attacking editors and making edits not connected to sourcing ... and there are a number of other similar accounts and i.p.'s, this person has used. If you could take some action about all that, it would be much appreciated. This person seem awfully consistently a problem on that article, and only seems to get more aggressively negative as time goes on despite multiple blocking and lots of positive suggestions being tossed their way. skip sievert (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you believe that Mr3003nights, 99.2.224.110 and NeutralityForever are the same person. I suspect there could be enough evidence sitting around somewhere to justify more blocks or protections, but someone would have to put it all together. Are you willing to file a new report at WP:SPI? List the past blocks and protections that are related to this article. There is enough abuse here that a checkuser can probably be justified. If a report is filed, ping me and I will take a look at it. If you think this is a good idea, here are some links that might be included in the SPI report:

3RR complaint about NeutralityForever

3RR complaint about the IP

ANI complaint about the original sockpuppetry

The IP's block log

Block log of NeutralityForever

Block log of Entresasix

Protection log of Wage slavery.

If this is filed at SPI, we need at least one other admin to look this over, since I took many of the past actions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas and more background info. - I am not sure I am the person to file an investigation because of baggage accumulation also. I did bring it to the attention of one other Admin. User talk:William M. Connolley - - skip sievert (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no sockpuppeting here. I am currently using the name mr3003 nights, and though I did have other names in the past 1)sometimes I don't sign on and thus my IP registers as 99.2.224.110. 2) there has been no violation of wiki rules on my part, such as 3 reverts in 24 hours or anything like that for a long time 3) I've already payed for whatever mistakes I made in the past. Now, the truth is that skip is accusing me of precisely his own actions. Please check the last few posts of the discussion page of the article on wage slavery. I'll try to summarize

Skip claims that by quoting the actual text; that by writing "the overcoming of wage labor became 'in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war'" that I am interpreting the source in an incorrect way. Skip, in turn, has placed marks after sentences like these E.g.

Even Abraham Lincoln and the republicans of that era saw wage labor as unfree, only better than chattel slavery in that the worker could eventually rise above it and achieving self-employment. Their republican artisan tradition considered "wage labor inconsistent with freedom" and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike," such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status".

even after fabricating quotes that didn't exist and attributing them to the text

For example:

Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" (skipsievert's 1st version, nowhere found in the text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300425845&oldid=300267945

A preference for wage labor over slavery, however became for Lincoln, a "rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" (skipsievert's 2nd version nowhere found in the text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300813400&oldid=300784311

If you want to take the time to verify this, read the text I'll paste which is a trascript of the source in question

p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel

... unlike the abolitionists, he did not equate free labor with wage labor. The superiority of free labor to slave labor did not consist in the fact that free laborers consent to exchange their work for a wage, whereas slaves do not consent. The difference was rather that the Northern wage labor could hope one day to escape from his condition, whereas the slave could not. It was not consent that distinguished free labor from slavery, but rather the prospect of independence, the chance to rise to own productive property and to work for oneself. According to Lincoln, it was this feature of the free labor system that the Southern critics of wage labor overlooked: "They insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen. What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern laborers! They think that men are always to remain laborers here -- but there is no such class. The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him." Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers are comparable to slaves. He held that both forms of work wrongly subordinate labor to capital. Those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," considered too narrow a range of possibilities. Free labor is labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike. Lincoln insisted that, at least in the north, most Americans were independent in this sense: "Men, with their families--wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other."Wage labor as a temporary condition on the way to independence was compatible with freedom, and wholly unobjectionable. Lincoln offered himself as an example, reminding audiences that he too had once been a hired labor splitting rails. What made free labor free was not the worker's consent to work for wage but his opportunity to rise above wage earning status to self-employment and independence. "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages of while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." This was the true meaning of free labor, "the just and generous and prosperous system, which opens the way to all." So confident was Lincoln in the openness of the free labor system that those who failed to rise could only be victims of "a dependent nature" or of "improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune." Those who succeeded in working their way up from poverty, on the other hand, were as worthy as any man living of trust and political power.In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War. In the 1830s and 1840s, labor leaders had invoked this conception in criticizing northern society; wage labor, they feared, was supplanting free labor. In the late 1850s, Lincoln and the Republicans invoked the same conception in defending northern society; the superiority of the North to the slaveholding South consisted in the independence the free labor system made possible. "The Republicans therefore identified themselves with the aspirations of northern labor in a way abolitionists never did, but at the same time, helped turn those aspirations into a critique of the South, not an attack on the northern social order."

And it doesn't stop there. Skip has a personal vendetta against me. So for example, today in the discussion page he wrote:

Also the area around that has been fact tagged as that area is not connected to the latter reference to the N.Y.T. article source. That area also needs direct sourcing or removal. skip sievert (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My answer was

skisievert, that quote from the NYT is on page 183 of the source, and it is directly sourced. IT IS YOU!!!! who is removing the source and placing marks. Your record of deceit is really shocking. Mr3003nights (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now. if you want to check who is lying here, please go to page 183 of the source p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel and check for yourself. Mr3003nights (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism - 1RR

An entry I made to the Fascism article was reversed by IP 72.219.161.154 with the notation (Undid revision 304808298 by The Four Deuces (talk) Change not addressed on talk). I note that no IP has participated in discussion recently. A check using an IP locator shows that the IP is from Laguna Beach, Orange County, California. I note that User:Mamalujo works in San Diego, California and had made an edit ten hours previously. Of course I have no way of knowing if they are the same. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll reserve judgment on whether this IP and Mamalujo could be the same. But since the IP removed your disputed reference to Stackelberg, I think it would be good to assess whether your inclusion of the Stackelberg quote has consensus. One way you might try to do that is post a request at the WP:Content noticeboard for any admin, or any experienced editor (who has not edited at Fascism), to look at the discussion at Talk:Fascism#Professor_Stackelberg to see if there is consensus to include the quote. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that. I had set up by the way a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your thread at RSN. If you do find a volunteer to to 'close' the Stackelberg discussion, ask them to look both at Talk:Fascism and WP:RSN#Fascism before offering their conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a notice to WP:Content_noticeboard#Fascism. Could you please check that I have stated the request adequately. Thanks. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you want to refer specifically to inclusion of the Stackelberg reference. And whoever closes the discussion is only supposed to judge the consensus, not state their own opinion. (The question of whether Fascism is right-wing is way too difficult for a discussion-closer to quickly determine). EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson and Finneganw

Hello. Since spotting your warning to user Finneganw, I'd like to ask whether this leniency toward him is fair. He's a sock puppet/sock puppeteer and well known for it. Do you really think he'll stop ranting at Anna Anderson? Just because you asked him nicely? That creature does not recognize "nice". I am nobody, yet I am the Revolution and I entreat you to join with the three other admins who call for his banishment from the topic. By the way, I am an indefblocked editor thanks to Nishkid64. Do you know why? Mainly because Finnie and his shadow aggiebean told Nishkid to do it. Finn is much more trouble than he is worth. READ the history. And furthermore, user aggiebean ought to be warned as well, but not banned.75.21.105.228 (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed, sorry to post again, but I would ask that you look as a 'fresh pair of eyes' on the abuses of Nishkid64. Because I have implicated him in the matter of Finneganw's topic ban from Anna Anderson, he's tried yet again to range-block me. He has as per usual resorted to name-calling in the most stupid fashion at the admin's notice board in the matter of Finneganw. He has entreated the admins to ignore my support of the ban. He is an abusive, deceitful admin. Is this what your precious administrators consider fair? All I have done, as Nishkid himself will tell you, is "annoy" (read: disagree with) others. Yet there is no real action to ban Finneganw from here. I am beginning to suspect the nature of Nishkid's deep involvement in the trouble at Anna Anderson.75.21.147.214 (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been more than annoying. This troublesome user has been blocked by multiple administrators, all of whom he claims are harassing him, on his various dynamic IP addresses. He doesn't seem to understand that a block is a clear message that he is no longer welcome to Misplaced Pages and that his edits will be reverted and his IPs blocked. Ignore this guy, Ed. He seems to latch on to any poor soul who'll lend him his ears for five minutes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid, thanks for your comment. I'm not planning to respond to the IP editor, but I didn't consider it worthwhile to undo his posts from my Talk. If you want to remove them from AN that's fine. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Thikkamasala

Hi Ed, I appreciate your remark on the talk page. I really don't want to get into a fight there, and I certainly don't want to lose my patience--cooler heads should prevail, and yours is probably cooler than mine. So thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Shayan Italia, the block is over. The user is as uncommunicative as ever, and has restored the entire article--"now with sources." There's only one somewhat reliable source, and the rest is a bunch of press releases and other stuff verifying all kinds of trivial information. What shall I do? Where should I take this? Or do I just go ahead and start cutting, basically baiting for another 3RR block? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If a guy comes back and resumes doing the very thing he was blocked for, it's a very clearcut case. You might even be able to take it to AIV. I've reblocked for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Pantepoptes

I put in a request for full protect of this and was asked to ask you as the blocking admin. would you consider in light of vandalism and removal of official block notices? LibStar (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline. Users are allowed to remove their own block notices, and some amount of venting by blocked users is tolerated. This editor behaves as though he expects his future on Misplaced Pages to be short, because he goes around with guns blazing to every article he visits, freely abusing others in his edit summaries. My guess is that we will meet his expectations. I wonder if he could be a well-known sock, but I don't follow Middle Eastern articles much, so I don't know the likely candidates. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

could be a sock, but not 100% sure. although no one else has been so pro Turkey recently on the Accession article. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!

Hi ED, sorry to bother you,

Could you please help me? Asked User:Kingoomieiii for help on a page move subject (we have been talking this past hours about some subjects, mostly regarding...you got it - vandalism!), and now "pass the ball" to you (this user told me to get help from an admin)...

I have been trying, to no avail, to move these two footballers' pages (Franky van Der Elst and François van Der Elst), to no avail. Have already managed to move Leo van Der Elst. Why you ask? Because the correct language form, in Flemish - and i think in German too, although such names are much less common there - is "van der Elst", not "Van Der Elst". Only way "van" gets a capital is in the start of a sentence. I get this strange message "a similar page already exists", dunno why. Could you help me out?

KINGOOMIEIII also gave me this redirects which i think will be helpful for page merge(http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Franky_van_der_Elst&redirect=no) (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fran%C3%A7ois_van_der_Elst&redirect=no).

Thank you very much in advance, happy weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just saw this now man: judging by this (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:195.234.134.115); how bout a block in this standard IP? Seriously, i don't see any other way for these "people" to learn...Sad!

Take care, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Vasco. I agree that Franky van der Elst appears most logical. However, I see that these names are spelled in a variety of ways. Take a look at the first entry in the history of this redirect: moved François van der Elst to François Van Der Elst over redirect: Belgians use capitalized "Van" and "De". I left a note for an editor from Belgium to see what he thinks. We do not want to have a 'style war' — those are the very worst kind! EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See the advice provided by JoJan at User talk:JoJan#Belgian advice needed. This suggests to me that, for these names, it is safest to follow: (a) spelling of that person in Dutch-language newspapers, (b) spelling in Dutch Misplaced Pages if newspapers aren't available. I think 'Leo Van der Elst' may be correct for the footballer, based on Google hits in reliable sources, even though Dutch wiki has nl:Leo Van Der Elst. I am now doubtful of the claim that 'Van' and 'Der' are always capitalized in Belgian use, even though a couple of editors have asserted that in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks a million for the input, ED. However, one problem persists: since "we" decided it's best to write subject's name as "Van der Elst", i proceeded to alter everything (templates, storyline sentences, infobox, page move). But, regarding page moves, one setback: I could only move Leo Van der Elst's page, Franky van Der Elst and François van Der Elst remained "wrong" (well at least different, and i think there should be some coherence), i cannot seem to come around and move those pages, always get the "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid" message. I do need help!

Cheers, and thank you again, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My findings suggest that all Belgian footballers 'Van Der XXXX' may use different capitalizations, and we need to discover what each person actually uses. If we see how the media usually describe them, that should be enough. Have you searched for how Franky Van der Elst's name is given in reliable sources? Your claim that 'there should be some coherence' only implies that, for each person whose preference we know, we capitalize their name the same way in all our articles. Please let me know what your searches reveal for how these two guys' names are usually capitalized. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Gotcha!! Browsed Google and Yahoo. For Franky, i found this (http://www.gva.be/nieuws/sport/voetbal-binnenland/wordt-franky-van-der-elst-nieuwe-coach-van-kvsk.aspx) and this (http://www.hbvl.be/nieuws/sport/voetbal-binnenland/franky-van-der-elst-moet-opkrassen-bij-brussels.aspx). For François this (http://multiblog.vrt.be/canvasprogrammas/belga-sport-swat-van-der-elst/ his nickname was Swat). Thus, i think both pages should be altered to match Leo Van der Elst. Ah, and silly me, almost forgot (this should come in real handy!), François and Leo are brothers, so at least these two have to have equal surnames, i reckon.

Cheers, nice teamwork,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved Franky and François to new titles based on the sources that you found. Can you use 'Whatlinkshere' on the old names to see if these moves created any double redirects? Also, can you be sure that the new sources are included in the respective articles? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sure thing man. For Franky this (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:WhatLinksHere/Franky_van_Der_Elst). For François this (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:WhatLinksHere/François_van_Der_Elst). And rest assured, links i found will be added, by force if needed ;) into the articles. Cheers and many thanks,

VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet use by user Iwanafish

Hello,

FYI, I am afraid that user Iwanafish is reverting back to using sock puppets. Same behavior and comments with different names.

It is something to watch. If the warnings of removing tags by other editors do not work, I will advise.

See his other known sock puppets and contribution efforts at: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Iwanafish#26_May_2009

Current aliases seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Daikusama

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/66.165.27.244

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Both are now blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Efective. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fouad Ibrahim

Hello Ed - I have tried to clean-up and improve the article concerning Fouad Ibrahim. I have one time named my paysage blog as reference - because I have not found any other - but you can change this. I would be good you just read it and perhaps if necessary correct the article (grammar, spelling). Thank you very much ! bist wishes from Grünstadt Christophe Neff (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yasis year two

There's been a big uptick since the one year anniversary. NJGW (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He's been given a special anniversary rangeblock. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there some sort of barnstar we can give him for holding one hell of a grudge? NJGW (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice guy

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

nice teamwork on the VAN DER ELST stuff, man!!

Also, how bout this chap? This is what i get for fighting vandals with all my heart and soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:NothingButAGoodNothing&diff=prev&oldid=305185006); furthermore, he has a dynamic IP, so nothing can be done about it :(

Have a nice week,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

VirtualSteve has addressed the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Volhynia dispute now at AN3

I was thinking about protecting the article, but your solution seems even better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to prevent these disputes from spilling onto other pages, I'd slap 1RR on Ukrainian Insurgent Army as well just to make sure.(I've left this comment at the Volhynia talk page as well).radek (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, you realize that 1RR on these pages creates a distinct disadvantage to one side? There are twice as many Polish editors working on the page, half of which are acting destructively. Then on the other hand there are 2...maybe 3 Ukrainian editors trying to combat this. Can you not see the problems this would cause? It solves nothing, just threatens to bring sanction on Ukrainians trying to give the article a NPOV.--Львівське (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The success of your arguments should not depend on the speed of your reverts. If you can convince others that your edits are neutral and balanced, things should be OK. Consider trying to negotiate with people on the other side. WP:AE is available to report any abuse. The alternative to a 1RR is probably full protection. It's hard to believe that full protection would be better than 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Pantepoptes

I have reason to believe that the newly-created acount Pipebag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a block-evading sock of User:Pantepoptes. I have initiated an investigation here and listed evidence there. What do you think? Regards, Athenean (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Looks like Nishkid64 has wrapped up the entire problem, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pantepoptes. See Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma. (I remember all the socks with the Roman-emperor names that had a pro-Turkish POV). They seem to be the same guy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: recent change to WP:RESTRICT

Sorry about that. The actual wording at the discussion was "must stop" (which is essentially the same) but that got lost in translation. I've changed it to that. Is that ok? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

as I expected..

he didn't edit for 3 days and came back and his first edit was to shove the copyvio back into the article .--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

about that ban... .--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Another admin to the rescue here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but somehow I feel we're far from done..--Crossmr (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

minor

Sorry, seemed minor to me. The comprehensive article by Snyder on this makes no mention of 1945, just 1947 when the UPA was finally booted from the territory by the Soviets.--Львівське (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR

I'm guessing you saw this since you saw the 'minor' issue, but 1RR? 1 2 by Paweł5586? It's annoying when you try to make constructive edits w/ sources expanding the article and it just keeps getting reverted.

As far as the edit goes, I think it gives undue weight to keep repeating "80,000" 3 times in the intro paragraph. Give a detail of all that happened then branch off into specifics, no?--Львівське (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the editor about the 1RR. Regarding the 80,000, you may well be right but you should make that argument on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, sorry, but read it carefully it is not proper topic for this informations. This topic is about Massacres Poles in Volhynia not about population. Look at Ukrainian Insurgent Army topic, Lwiwskie made many vadalism there, removing photos without any good explanation.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Pavel, there are at least 2 discussions on the talk page for the removal of said pictures. Just because you don't appreciate the work of another, doesn't make it "vadalism".--Львівське (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing, Lwiwskie has no respect to innocent Polish, Jews victims of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. UPA were nationalist and terrorist organization responsible for 100-150 thousands Polish victims, 30 thousands Ukrainians (killed for helping Poles) and Jews. Look at his profile - you can find their flag and sentence - heroes. I hope English Misplaced Pages dont support them. This flag should be removed by admin. What Jews would have say if someone would add nazi flag to his profile.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Will your WP:POV pushing end? Sheesh...--Львівське (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I promise. One week in this topic. How about Lvivske and his behavior. Stop him too. --Paweł5586 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)