Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:23, 17 August 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

69.221.233.1

User 69.221.233.1 has been repeatedly vandalizing the Nobody's Fault but Mine‎ page and article, as well as my user page. While I agree with the criticisms on the article's page, it's still vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article. Enigma 06:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And warned the user. In the future, Walter, please use the templates at WP:WARN. Thanks. — Satori Son 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I'm getting this. Satori Son, are you telling Walter Görlitz that a robotic warning template is better than using his own words.. ? If you are, you're very much in error. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

No, a robotic warning template is better than no words. There was no warning or any other communication on the IP's talk page prior to the template that Satori had left. I interpreted the suggestion as a helpful one, saying that there was a quick and easy way to leave a warning on a vandal's talk page. -- Atama 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, Atama. I did check out this edit and saw that it had words (in the edit summary). But looking at the whole picture, I note that it's the only one that does; and more importantly, I missed the fact that Walter hadn't put anything on the IP's talkpage. That's certainly more important than edit summaries, so the advice was good and I was wrong. Bishonen | talk 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

So you're telling me that I should warn a user who doesn't care and continues to vandalize the article's talk page now that you've locked the article down? You people live in a world where these vandals actually care about being civil. Get into the real world and block the IP already> I'm tired of wasting my time reverting the edits. If The admins won't do something, give me the ability to do something. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Walter, but nothing about this is going to change. If you try to go to WP:AIV to complain about a vandal, you will be told you must warn them first, and nobody will block until that's done. Four times. And Bishonen, it has long been practice that only 4 specific robot warnings will get anybody blocked. Note also, that the vandal bots are expecting to see robotic warnings, if they don't they'll start over with warning level 1 if they encounter vandalisms they can revert. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that's a strange requirement, & makes for more work to use something that's supposed to save work. Do these bots send the cases where there aren't exactly 4 warnings they are expecting to some queue so a human can make the final call? If not, then why? -- llywrch (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Editor M (talk · contribs), started a discussion attempting to gain consensus to remove the OTRS policy as a policy. Consensus was never achieved, and the discussion participants grow tired. This is akin to seeing spiderman on the tower... the editor does not does not understand that there is no consensus for the change. Too much time is going into the discussion. Please reference the now archived original discussion, where consensus among participants was to keep the policy. Note also this discussion started in a separate forum in an attempt to get another consensus. And the currently ongoing discussion. Please intervene, this is now a time sink and is crossing the line from debate to tendentious editing. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The initial discussion was on the subject of whether the page was correctly labelled as policy (it was based on a consensus of three people, though it has remained policy for a while - though, it hasn't been crosslinked or listed, and is one of the least-visited policies). The discussion has moved through various objections to OTRS policy, and counter-objections. Throughout this time, the number of responders who were OTRS users, or who were directly involved with the page, has been very high. Accusations of disruption, threats to block, and requests to stop discussion or move it elsewhere, have come from exclusively from OTRS users, and even from the very start. The opposition to discussion of this policy is overrepresented by OTRS users, who are a very small fraction of the community at large. The RfC at WT:OTRS was closed (using an archive box) by an OTRS admin actively involved in the discussion, and it certainly did not have consensus to keep. It should be noted that external responses were not decidedly for or against the OTRS position. I asked for input regarding the situation at the more neutral policy pump - here, responses like the following:

"I still wouldn't mark it as policy, since it's generally just an informative page, but I don't think there's anything that might give grounds for unreasonable censorship any more.--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC) (concerning very recently changed wording)

"I agree that no page should say OTRS shouldn't be reverted, because OTRS volunteers do sometimes introduce problems. I saw one situation where a volunteer introduced a serious BLP violation to a talk page. Editors have to be allowed to use their discretion in situations like that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"What the box says is that if the summary of a policy given in the list disagrees with the actual policy, the latter prevails. Nothing about policies not listed. I'm still awaiting an alternative explanation of why that policy (?) isn't listed. Peter jackson (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

have been typical, though of course OTRS users have also had their (disproportionate) say. I believe this to be a case of a vocal minority attempting to override widespread consensus on what that minority's censorship rights may be. I'm concerned that the policy is or may be used not to offer a way to get more information, but to authoritatively shut down discussion based on private reasons, in cases outside of BLP and Copyvio, etc. Yes, the discussion needs to be cleaner. I've tried to do this by moving the discussion into a statement of positions (rather than arguments) a couple of times, without success. The way to do this might be with a more formal method of discussion, such as a proper community RfC.    M   21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are the above 3 signatures not linked? I was looking for a nowiki somewhere, but don't see it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

They are quotes. I tried to do the quotebox, but I'm screwing it up, so I did a codebox. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You certainly are ;) Please don't mess with my message, ok? I added " " these things, I think it worked.    M   20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In before tl;dr. NVS has this basically correct. (Disclaimer) I support the OTRS policy as written Protonk (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this report, reluctantly. M's intentions are good. His main concern is that policies should not contradict each other, and he is right. That is why he challenged the OTRS policy that OTRS edits should not be reverted without discussion, because it seems to contradict other policies that say anyone may edit anything, be BOLD etc. He is making the same objections on policy pages that advise people not to be BOLD when it comes to editing policy. I don't agree with him, but I respect his motivation.

However, his style in making his point borders on disruptive. He changes policies then reverts multiple times over objections; he starts discussions on project talk and user talk that continue with no end in sight, even when it's clear no one agrees with him; and he has ignored the results of at least one RfC. I would ask him here please to stop what appears to be a crusade to change the policies, tone things down a little, and take things more slowly. With less of a concerted push, he might actually end up achieving more, because less of the time will be spent arguing. SlimVirgin 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are inaccurate, and this matter is unrelated. Please provide diffs.    M   20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not unrelated, because the issue is your approach: changes to policy without proper discussion, a failure to recognize consensus, a lack of knowledge about the history and development of the policy, multiple reverts against objections, opening discussion on several talk pages so that no one can keep up; forcing people to devote a lot of time to responding. It is just your approach that needs to be changed, not necessarily your ideas. As I said, I respect your main aim, which is to make the policies more rational and consistent. SlimVirgin 20:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are expected to provide diffs when you make serious accusations. I expect you to either <del></del> your accusations, or to provide evidence in the form of a diff. I'm treating this as a serious issue, and you should as well.    M   21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, while we have instructions on making policy, policies are descriptive statements of the way we work, rather than prescriptive instructions. There are exceptions, and then there is common sense. If an issue has come to light through OTRS in relation to non-public information, you will inevitably be in an unequal position, however, it makes sense that said information remains non-public. Therefore, restrictions in relation to OTRS are common sense, and there's no reason they shouldn't be considered policy. You make clear that your dispute isn't that it is policy, but rather in how it came to be policy, which is something of an argument about process rather than the result, and would be viewed by many as overly legalistic. You will find that in the grand scale of things, nobody cares. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not, my positions: it is not policy. It is not even a policy on meta. It did not come to be marked a policy page correctly. It contradicts other policy. It can be used to shut down open discussion. It helps OTRS deal with situations. OTRS users are good, but make mistakes. There has been at least one RfC that showed consensus for the 'prescriptive' variant. I'm not going to state my position on this matter since it takes too long. I'm not going to argue for any of these, this isn't the place, just please be careful not to misrepresent my positions. Feel free to ask me what they are, if it is relevant, though.    M   23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The issues you've raised are hyperbolic. It can be used to shut down open discussion when it threatens to make non-public information public. Your argument is akin to saying that we should ban flour because it can be used to make bombs. You've not presented any evidence of actual, wilful abuse of OTRS privilege. We can discuss this when it happens. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not about OTRS, but about my behavior. I responded here.    M   00:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would add that User M along with Kontiski, has been using the same tactics to try to significantly alter the Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict guideline, moving the discussion elsewhere when failing to gain consensus on the article talk page etc. Xandar 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not accurate, but let's not go into that. Comment: WP's policies and guidelines are such an almighty mess (often duplicating or contradicting each other, or simply not making sense, like the one Xandar refers to), that someone has to start taking bulls by horns and clearing them up. While I don't agree with the detail of all of M's bold edits, he deserves praise, not criticism, for addressing himself to this task. It's the people whose "arguments" consist solely of "well it's said this for a long time" who are the disruptive ones, as they are hampering efforts to get WP's practices properly documented.--Kotniski (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Critics of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

Was recently added by a new user. He/she has added 41 people to the list. I assume the user is trying to make some sort of political point. Please review & delete Cat, if deemed warranted. 08:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just nominated it for deletion, although I was not at the time aware of this post.-gadfium 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain what is wrong with this category? Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems trivial. Is there a category for people opposed to Obama not showing us his long-form birth certificate? 09:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:insane nutjobs does not appear to exist yet.--Jayron32 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. It'd be huge... HalfShadow 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Incident report against Caden and another user operating under three different IP addresses

68.50.128.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.114.133.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
162.6.97.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yesterday, a user who was operating under IP address 68.50.128.120 was stirring up unwanted wikidrama towards me. This all stemmed from a month long debate about a certain information at Rebecca Quick which was ultimately resolved last week. But despite that, this user (who has also used IP addresses 162.6.97.3 & 76.114.133.44 as sockpuppets to evade blocks) felt the need to prolong this incident even though the hachet was already buried on this debate, resulting in unwanted wikidrama. I tried to ignore his comment by simply removing it, but he seems presistant on being obnoxious in his ways, and continue to bug me over a debate that is already done, gone, finished, over with.

As for Caden, this person was guilty of Wikihounding me in the past, trying to mingle into my own affairs here on Misplaced Pages when it was none of his business, and this is the proof ] on that by adminstrator Georgewilliamherbert (at the very bottom of the page). We are three months removed from that particular incident, and obviously this user has not changed in his ways despite a questionable remorseful statement by him saying that he was “sorry” to me. The incident between me and this other user was STRICTLY between me and that other user. And ONCE AGAIN, here comes Caden stepping into my own affairs when it was none of his business, wikihounding me AGAIN, and looking to pick another fight with me ANY WAY POSSIBLE. This user has a negative history on Misplaced Pages, stemming from disruptive edits, picking fights with other editors, showing hostility towards other them, and stirring controversy in the Misplaced Pages community such as his references to the Ku Klux Klan in his user screen name. But don’t take my word for it. Go through all of Caden’s edit logs, talk logs and block logs. All of those pretty much explain themselves as to the type of editor Caden is. Once again, this person has gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Misplaced Pages. No offense, but I find his actions very hypocrital.

The actions by anon 68.50.128.120 and Caden were obnoxious and unnecessary to say the very least. I try to pretend it never happened, but both seem persistance to have their ways otherwise. I will not tolerate childish behavior from these two users, and request an admistrator to issues warnings for their nonsense towards me. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I turned in the first two IP's since they went back to bad behavior once their previous blocks expired. I think the two registered editors have been at each other for awhile. It was peaceful for a couple of months, but maybe that's because Caden was offline. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, let me just first say that I was not notified of this report. Not cool. I really believe this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Alright peeps, here's how it goes: Keltie is not telling the truth. Yesterday he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Keltie a friendly warning to cease the personal attacks towards the IP. The dude then responded by deleting my warning and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin User:Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. The dude then removed that warning from his page and later went onto the page of another admin (User:AniMate) asking that I be punished. I have nothing against Keltie so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me, twisting the truth and demanding action taken against me. All this report shows is that he's out to have me blocked like the last time. He's hated me for a long time I think but I don't give a rat's ass. The guy has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, look at his history and his edits. You'll see he's disruptive and fires off personal attacks like it's no big deal to him. The dude's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy (he's been blocked before) but then again neither am I. I do not know what his rant over my signature is about. How the hell is my birthname a controversial reference to the KKK? Keltie should be blocked for that alone. It's offensive, untrue, immature but typical of him. It's yet another personal attack from good ol' Keltie. Furthermore, it's Keltie who has "gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Misplaced Pages" many times before and not me. Regardless man, I've done nothing wrong here. Judge for yourselves. Caden 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Left a note for Caden reminding him that as per WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me dissect this last statement by Caden for everybody here.

First disection...Caden said that I personally attacked an editor, 68.50.128.120, in my edit summaries.

Sure, the situation would have been different if I went to that editor's talk page and attacked him. But I didn’t attacked the editor. Putting comments in my own edit summary is not an attack.

Second disection…Caden said that I responded by deleting his warnings, and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary.

Yes I did delete the warnings. Where is the rule that say I can’t delete remarks on my own talk page? As for the obnoxious part, I’m not going to deny it. Any editor who had past dealings with this person (and there are a handful of them) would agree with me that this Caden is a difficult editor. Difficult to the point of that one particular word I used to describe him. If I get a warning for calling Caden what I have been calling him, so be it. At least I’m honest about what I say, just like Carrie Prejean who, despite losing her Miss California USA crown, still has her dignity and honesty, and isn't afraid to express it. I'm not afraid to express my own opinions either. Caden is just fabricating remarks to make me and other editors look like the enemy, and him the victim.

Third disection...Caden said that he has nothing against me so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me.

If he has nothing against me, then why in the world is he getting involved in my own affairs and Wikihounding me as he did in the past? Caden is known to get involved in arguments that didn’t involved him initially, but came in in the middle just to antagonize a situation more than what it should have been. I sense this is all fun and games to him. And he has done that twice to me in the past, first time was three months ago, and the other time was just a few days about. How is that having nothing against me? He says one thing, and does another. A contradiction on this editor.

Fourth disection...Caden said that I have been blocked before.

Indeed I have been once blocked before. Of course, Caden is not going to tell you the situation surrounding that particular block. Once again, it all comes back to this wikihounding incident he commited against me. He too was block for this incident. And in the end, an administrator DGG, unblocked me two hours later because he deemed my block as unjustified, rooting from a trouble-making editor, Caden. Take a look at my block log and see for yourself. Caden however, didn’t get unblocked. There was a debate about extending that block for the trouble he caused to me. I have never truly been blocked irrational behavior. That is something that Caden cannot say about himself personally.

Fifth disection...Caden said that he does not know what my rant over his signature is about. And how the hell is his birthname a controversial reference to the KKK?

Apparently, Caden is not just an irrational editor, but one who immediately jumped the gun before thinking it over first. Somebody read over my first statement of all this, and tell me exactly where did I say “birth” name? I said “user screen name”. There’s a big difference. As for as the reference to the Ku Klux Klan, I present to everybody exhibit A ]. In this particular exhibit (at the bottom of the page), it will show that Caden at one time incorprorated the white supremacy group in his screen name, going by the moniker CadenKKK. He was given an blocked indefinately by administrator Hersfold for that screen name, only to be uplifted upon changing it. It does not excuse the intolerable behavior of Caden, resorting to something as uncivil as that.

Of course, I can go on and on about this editor, but I felt I made my point. This simply goes to show that Caden has not been telling the truth on everything he has done, and it takes a person like me and other editors and adminstrators to undig all of his wrong doings. He claims he has done “nothing wrong.” I’m sure I can find other editors and administrators who will say otherwise. I don’t hate him. I don’t hate people in general. But at the same time, I'm not the type of person who will tolerate such abuse and behavior as Caden has demonstrated in his relatively short period of editing on Misplaced Pages. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The three IPs listed at the top all geolocate to the same greater metro area. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that while I posted the second IP, it was not blocked, because it has not edited in several weeks. Baseball Bugs carrots

Attacking another editor is an attack. It doesn't matter if you do it on their Talk page, your Talk page, an edit summary, or some other place. Don't attack others, period. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's my reply in response to Keltie's post point by point:

First disection - Keltie "did attack" IP68.50.128.120 in his edit summary. This is his personal attack: "Undoing crap by obnoxious editor." How can he deny that? The evidence is there.

Second disection - Fine man you can remove warnings from your talk page but "you can't" make personal attacks in your edit summaries like you did again with me. Your edit summary was this: "Again removing crap by yet another obnoxious editor. One who has even worst dealings." That is a personal attack. You say I'm difficult, well I find you difficult and so have others. And yes, I too am not afraid to express my opinions man. At least I tell the truth dude and am not afraid to say it. I can't say that about you man.

Third disection - It's true I don't have anything against you. I don't like to see you attacking other editors in your edit summaries and that is why man I gave you a friendly warning. Dude you've received so many warnings from admins and other editors for the exact same thing, so I wonder why you chose to single me out yet again? I think this is the third time you've taken me to ANI man. It's obvious you have a grudge against me dude. Why else would you be canvasing 3 separate admins on their talk pages in attempts to achieve a block against me? You've been to the pages of User talk:Exploding Boy, User talk:AniMate and User talk:Chzz, ranting your bull. I am not wikihounding you Keltie so you can quit saying that man.

Fourth disection - Dude you were blocked for edit warring and so was I. It had nothing to do with me wikihounding you, so don't flatter yourself. Trust me man, I don't care what you believe. Dude I was never blocked for "irrational behavior" so quit it with the lies already. My block log clearly shows it was for a edit warring.

Fifth disection - First off my username is my birthname and you've known that for months dude. As for your KKK allegations it's misleading lies on your part as an attempt to distort the truth in the hopes that an admin will fall for it and block me or ban me. Whatever. If editors want the truth, they can read about that in the link you provided to my talk page. In short, it had to do with an old ANI (the report was not about me) where 3 editors called me a racist or made remarks that I was somehow associated with the KKK. All of it was abusive lies and not a single editor was blocked for those attacks. I remember well how Bugs enabled and helped to fuel the fires of hell on that ANI. It's no surprise to see that dude sitting here silently now. Anyway when I saw that the community was pretty much allowing the devious lies, the abusive attacks and the appalling accusations to go on, I got very upset and made a poor judgment on my part. I changed my username in anger to make a point and I was punished for that with a block. Hersfold and I worked it all out after I calmed down and not only was the block lifted but he also expressed to me that he understood why I got upset and why I did it because something similar had happened to him on wiki. Dude my block was for "disruption to make a point" and not for my signature. I am human and do make mistakes.

Here's my take. The dude is pissed off that I exposed him for incivility and for making personal attacks in his edit summaries. So in retaliation (like before) he's here on ANI (like before) and canvasing to 3 admins on their talk pages to achieve what he hopes to get. A block or a ban. Period. Caden 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So, just why did you see fit to add "KKK" to your signature at one point? Baseball Bugs carrots 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...maybe he was just agreeing with someone three times? Yes? HalfShadow 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe a really successful inning? Protonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I knew you when you were just an amateur tonk. Good think you didn't decide to go with that name, huh? HalfShadow 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's German; it means "The Bart, the." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could people please re-read what I said or could you please read the link to this blown out of proportion lie? Listen, if you can't be neutral or fair then please don't bother causing me further harm here. Caden 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone labels you racist, adding "KKK" to your ID doesn't do much to dispel that notion, no matter how good an idea it may have seemed at the time. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, are you still here? HalfShadow 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bootlegtonk, perhaps? Also, explodingboy wins. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs you of all people know what happened on that old ANI that was filed against ParaGreen. Don't act dumb here please. It's insulting since you were the one who fueled the fire. And HalfShadow, I was protecting the use of freedom of speech on that ANI since I don't support censorship of any kind but in my attempt to do the right thing, it was twisted by Bugs and 2 others and changed into this whole KKK hate garbage and I was victimised from there. Caden

In fact later on Bugs thought it was funny and claimed he understood the whole thing. Here's what he said about it: I know Roux wouldn't want me to say this, but I kind of liked that signature of yours. It was too outrageous to be taken seriously. Probably better not to use it too much. But it was a way of mocking some of us, and pretty much deservedly so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Caden 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That was 5 months ago, and since I didn't recall saying it (I do now that you brought it up), it's not surprising that someone who stumbled across it would fail to see the humor in it. Seems to me like you two should take your specific content issues to dispute resolution so someone can untangle it all. As far as personal issues, maybe a no-contact ban on both sides would be in order. It's working so far, between me and some other editor whose name escapes me just now. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow baiting Caden

Here, HalfShadow has been engaging in baiting Caden, who didn't respond very happily. I warned him, he responded with insults, I warned him against the incivility, and it continued. It doesn't look like he's going to stop any of the offensive behaviour anytime soon. → ROUX ₪ 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If Baseball Bugs, HalfShadow, and Protonk can't remain mature or neutral then can you please stop posting. This isn't a game. None of you are helping. Baiting me is not acceptable behavior on ANI. EB you're an admin who's been in conflict with me not only in the past but just recently. I really don't feel you should be commenting. I apologize if I'm wrong but I don't see how you can help. All I ask is that editors and admins review this report in a neutral/fair manner. I will accept any decision or not. I just want this report to be about fairness and it should focus on the evidence only and not be distracted by some who think this is all a big joke. It's not. Thanks. Caden 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission granted to dock my pay for skylarking on the job. I wasn't commenting on the substance of the complaint, just a diversion near the end. Doing so is not serious business. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here, and in fact I was invited to comment on your behaviour but declined, so I think you should be counting your blessings. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Halfshadow is continuing his baiting and insults. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I admit that I sometimes enjoy Halfshadow's wry sense of humor, but I do agree that the "Stimpy" remark was OTT. — Ched :  ?  11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan history of edit warring at Rebecca Quick

The disruption at Rebecca Quick was not from the IPs, and certainly not from Caden, but from KMF; the history of KMF's editing of that article reveals a pattern of attempting to exclude mention of her former marriage, initially because it was "trivial." Later, the argument became one of impeaching sources, yet similar sources were allowed as mention of the current marriage. In reviewing this, I looked over KMF's editing history and suspect a possible conflict of interest involvement, which would explain the otherwise puzzling situation that KMF was willing to edit war over what was, from the beginning, a known and non-defamatory fact supported by reliable source, the prior marriage.

Edits to Rebecca Quick, all the KMF reverts are in bold:

• 17:15, 6 May 2009 64.210.199.231 (→External links)

• IP is registered to NBC Universal.

• 17:30, 6 May 2009 Mquayle (removed gossip reference).

• Mquayle registered 17:26, 6 May 2009. The current husband of Rebecca Quick is Matthew Quayle, the producer of Quick's program. This removal of reference to the identities of spouses stood until 7 July 2009.

• 21:49, 7 July 2009 162.6.97.3 restored a mention re the present marriage: "It is her second marriage."
• 12:57, 8 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 300875201 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Not really appropriate to mention.) This began edit warring.
• 11:44, 17 July 2009 76.114.133.44 etc.
• 12:20, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 302583314 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Not appropriate to mention.)
• 12:25, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302587651 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Again, inappropriate. Do not change it.)
• 12:41, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302588154 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Unsource, rude, and inappropriate to mention of a living person.)
• Then Onorem intervened and revert warred against the IP, giving "unsourced" as the reason. However, there was mention of the former marriage already in source for the previous sentence, which stated: "She now lives in Haworth, New Jersey". The 2006 source is the New York times, and it mentions her husband, "she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer." That would have been Peter Shay, we have the name from other sources. So there was no reference on the text itself, hence I understand Onorem's action. But there was adjacent reference adequate to establish a former marriage. The IP was blocked for edit warring.
• 162.6.97.3 was blocked] for "block evasion." (which is unclear, I found it likely that the two IPs are different users. I have a suspicion that one is the former husband, and the other may be a friend, but no proof of either.)
• 16:41, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (See talk page for discussion) etc.
• 17:33, 5 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306233866 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Despite everything, this edit STILL does not have a source listed.)
• 18:51, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (Please see talk page for discussion)
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (Protected Rebecca Quick: here we are again ( (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC))))
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: as before)
• 22:53, 6 August 2009 Abd (actually, the source was already there. Add additional source.)

• The additional source is a newsletter of a local organization that had a photo of Rebecca Quick with her then-husband, Peter Shay. I put it in to balance other information in the article, from not-so-reliable source, mentioning Matthew Quayle by name, the current husband, also to establish more clearly that the "computer programmer" is a different husband than the "producer."

• 15:01, 7 August 2009 Bilby (removed unreliable (and unneeded) source)
• 20:01, 7 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Reverted 1 edit by Bilby; No reason to assume 3rd sector source is unreliable unless you have evidence it has been hacked.. (TW)
• 20:28, 7 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306659446 by Elen of the Roads (talk) Not an adaquate source. Like putting water in a gas tank.)
• 16:47, 9 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Readded Cedar Run source. Talkpage consensus seems to be for it. Please discuss before removing again.)
• 18:26, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306997914 by Elen of the Roads (talk) I'm sorry. But two people (Elen and Abd) is not consensus.)
• 20:32, 9 August 2009 Coppertwig (Undid revision 307013795 by KeltieMartinFan (talk) Revert. Sorry, but one person (KeltieMartinFan) is not consensus.)
• 21:21, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 307034753 by Coppertwig (talk) It's not only me, but I'm not about to list the names either. Way too many.)

Notice that the first edit warring was not over sourcing, it was over the bare mention of the prior marriage. This was supporting the earlier removal by, we may assume, Rebecca Quick's present husband. In the discussion begun by the IP, Talk:Rebecca Quick#Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married., KMF wrote, I personally don't oppose JohnnyB256 suggestion of excluding all of Quick's martial information on this article. I’m sure Miss Quick and those close to her would actually prefer it that way. What makes sense to me is that, indeed, Ms. Quick's current husband wanted the mention removed, and that KMF's tendentious attempts to remove any mention, plus, once it was obvious that total removal wasn't going to fly, at least any reference where readers would find the former husband's name, was based on KMF's personal support for Quick's husband, here "I'm sure" is based on actual knowledge. KMF has a history of editing articles related to NBC. There may be a conflict of interest, or there may merely be a tenacious and uncivil editor who is going to push as hard as possible for what the editor wants, to the extent of edit warring and, now, filing this AN/I report. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, noticed days ago that Keltie edits nearly any article to do with NBC (programs,hosts etc) which left me feeling there could be a COI here. I just finished reading the drama caused by Keltie on the issue over Rebecca Quick having been married once before previously (she's now on her second marriage), despite the reliable sources that supports that former marriage, Keltie fought endlessly to have it removed from the article (that's fishy). I had had a feeling days ago that there was a possiblity he may be employed by NBC or at the very least is associated in some way. So due to the possiblity of a COI, I mentioned my concerns to an admin called Chzz. The discussion of that is on my own talk page under the section"Question". It sure is a relief that at least another editor noticed the bizarre editing on every NBC related article . Caden 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see much reason for assuming a COI. Not that there isn't necessarily one, but the early reverts were of unsourced personal information in a BLP, and you don't need a COI to want to remove material under those conditions. While it isn't exactly a big deal to have been divorced, a previous marriage was being mentioned without a source, and it is the responsibility of the editor re-adding the material to provide one. The later reverts (which I started) were to remove a self-published source (a newsletter) from the article, which is again in keeping with policy, and made sense given that Abd had provided a better source (New York Times) as well as the newsletter. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bilby, the New York Times source was there all along, all I did was make it a bit more obvious, by referring to the "computer programmer." It was the standing reference for the text that Quick "now lives in Haworth, New Jersey," the only thing that I did that was new was to read it -- besides researching the background of this, which includes coverage of the May edits to our article article, by a "gossip column." (That's cited in the Talk discussion.) The Times said that she was married to a computer programmer. The newsletter was not a "self published source," it is independent confirmation, and might be, in fact, the source for the New York Times comment. It was the newsletter of a local conservancy or the like. It has a photo of Rebecca Quick, as well as her parents and husband. Is it impossible that there was an error in this newsletter? Sure, anything is possible. Frankly, an error of that magnitude, that the organization had missed the name of their celebrity guest's husband, seems less likely to me than what I see in reliable sources quite frequently, wherever I know the subject of the article. And like a major error in a major source, it would have been corrected. I added the newsletter to cover the possibility that the NBC producer had been a computer programmer in 2006. The newsletter is a supporting source that provides information necessary to kill that: the name of the former husband. Since the article doesn't name the present husband, balance would suggest that the former husband not be named either, but the additional source was evidence that there wasn't a coincidence. There is also the gossip column, but it apparently depends on the newsletter as a source. A serious journalist would have checked with legal records, were there any doubt. I don't think there is any doubt.

KMF is a disruptive editor, uncivil and willing to edit war over trivia, and bears watching. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is far from a core issue here, so I'll be very quick. The WP:BLP policy is pleasantly clear: "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects;" and "... or that relies upon self-published sources". There was no source being provided for the claim that the subject had divorced in the article, thus it was reasonable for it to be removed. Personally, I would have tried to find a source and add it, but while that might be expected, it isn't required. Second, Misplaced Pages defines self published sources as including newsletters. Thus removing that as a source, when a better one was already being used, was perfectly reasonable. There is nothing in the newsletter valuable enough to warrant using a non-RS in a BLP. So while I can't comment on whether or not KeltieMartinFan has a COI, nothing in the editor's behaviour was unusual or speaks to that claim, as the reverts were firmly within BLP policy. If there is a concern, perhaps it is worth raising at WP:COI/N, although I doubt there will be much milage. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why there is such an obsession, by all concerned, over whether this woman was previously married. Why does it matter? And when did wikipedia become the Midnight Star? Baseball Bugs carrots 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a curious mystery. :) Although, it should be said, editors have been known to argue over some odd concerns. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's looking more and more like this one needs to be added to that list. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below). Actually, it's not odd at all, it only seems that way if possible COI isn't considered. In my various discussions of this, I repeatedly pointed out that admin and other response to this was reasonable, but reflected a lack of depth, which is normal. Most editors can't or won't put in the kind of time necessary to really understand what is going on. The information about a former marriage was sourced, but the reference was on the previous sentence, not the one re-inserted by the IP. Easy to overlook. I actually did at least two hours of research on this before seeing it. However,almost certainly KMF was aware. My hypothesis: one of the IP editors is the former husband, or possibly a friend of same. The former husband doesn't like being written out of history. And I can understand this, and if he was notable before, he still is. The IP editor who removed the reference to the article about the marriage, and the infobox reference to the marriages, was, almost certainly, the present husband, who understandably wants to preserve his wife's privacy, and who then registered and removed the infobox reference to the two marriages. KMF seems suspiciously aligned with the latter agenda, given the overall editing pattern. It is not a lame concern for those involved. However, if Quick wants reference to the marriage removed, the path would be through OTRS, not by edit warring to keep it out. My judgment, though, is that it belongs, it is adequately sourced; the wife is notable, a public figure, I don't think that can be undone. She was married before, so have been a lot of people, including me. It's no shame, and we know nothing about why that marriage ended, and, unless it appears in reliable source, I'm not going to even speculate. What was my concern here? It was about edit warring and a ready assumption that the problem was the IP editors, even to the point that it was assumed they were socks. That wasn't an unreasonable guess, but it may have been wrong. There was a problem with the IPs, for sure, but it wasn't what necessarily appeared, and there was more of a problem with KMF, who may remain active on other NBC-related articles. I'm not terribly concerned about the short IP blocks, they do little damage, and the IPs understand the problem and if they want to register an account, they can.

So, if there are no more problems, great, we are done here. I only brought up all this about KMF because of the aggressive filing of this report. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. What I'd really like to hear from you is a reason why her supposed previous marriage actually matters. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KeltieMartinFan has taken no further action to alter or change the Quick article. Thus KMF's word should be accepted that the matter is finished.

A Quick edit-war did occur, with incivility by the major parties involved. That appears to be done as well.

Whatever exists between User:Caden and User:KeltieMartinFan is a pre-existing condition Completely Unrelated to the Quick matter. Whatever brings any other kibitzers here other than User:Bilby and User:Abd is unclear as well.

That said, while User:Abd has been helpful in much of the Quick debate, Abd is repeatedly over-amped about potential conflicts-of-interest in the matter. It also serves little purpose at this time to recount exhaustively all of the Quick edit-war particulars.

Finally, and amusingly, only User:KeltieMartinFan would vouch for Carrie Prejean's dignity!  :)

162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the fixed IP most strongly suspected, by me, of being the former husband. It hasn't actually been denied, but, as long as the IP doesn't edit war or offend in other ways, it's moot, it merely is one of a number of alternate hypotheses that do, in fact, show why this was of such earth-shaking importance to several editors. This particular incident is finished, but I put the evidence here for future reference, if it is needed. If KMF is sincere, indeed, it's over. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Abd Please, please stop with the suspicions! :)

It may be hard to grasp, but edit-wars can occur without NBC employees or ex-husbands involved. And that is very much the case with the Quick matter!

162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that Keltie remains so interested on practically every single NBC related type of article. Having looked through his history shows that he edits nearly every single morning program imaginable on NBC as well as other NBC programs, NBC personalities, you name it it's all NBC related. A few months ago Keltie was involved in an edit war over Katie Couric. No surprise there which leads me to believe more and more that if Keltie isn't employed by NBC, then he must be associated in one way or another. Either way it's a COI and seems to make a lot of sense based on all the NBC type of articles he edits. Unless of course he's just an obsessed fan of NBC. Caden 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And what's your personal interest in this woman's marital history? Baseball Bugs carrots 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh Bugs, Caden wasn't writing about Quick's marital history, he was addressing KeltieMartinFan's editting behavior. Two different, & independent, topics. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KhatriNYC is not using Edit Summary properly.

In spite of being warned once the said user is not using Edit Summary properly and keeps on undoing other people's contribution without proper reasons. User Contribution evidently explains this. This behavior often leads to Edit war. Hitro talk 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• A note to perusing admins, the dozen or so "undo edits by XYZ" in the editor's contribution history aren't a sign that they have trampled over 3RR. The 13 'reversion's on Kshatriya are all performed by this editor in sequence. No comment on the rest of the issues, but my finger jumped for the block button and I thought some explanation might be needed in case someone else went further. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Inurhead incivility and edit warring

User:Inurhead was blocked on August 14th for 31 hours for edit warring and personal attacks regarding The Hurt Locker. For some backgroungd: the issues revolved around his extreme disagreement with some half dozen editors working on cleaning up and improving the article and his preferring his version. During his edit warring, he claimed everyone else was vandalizing the article and that he asked the half-dozen (or maybe more, did only a quick count) experienced editors not to edit war, but he was the only one edit warring. Looking at the article history, it seems like this actually went on for nearly 10 days before administrative action was taken after some editors, following proper dispute resolution process, posted a note at Films about the disagreement and asked for additional input. Inurhead was reported for his continued edit warring and personal attacks and blocked. He is now back from his block and posted a personal attack against some of the editors he disagreed with, accusing them of meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, and canvassing. The accusations are so obviously false its ludicrous and a warning was left for him. However, he also appears to intend to once again attempt to start edit war on the article, as he has again reverted part of the article] to his preferred version of the plot, basically restarting the same edit war he was blocked for. It seems prudent to raise a flag for administrative reviewing of these actions and keeping an eye on this situation for awhile as it seems clear Inurhead will not accept the actual consensus agreed to on the article talk page and I'm concerned that he is only going to restart the edit warring and continue making these kinds of attacks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with personal attacks and has made his second revert (as a note, my only interest here is in one of the Film members responding to the situation, reading through the discussion, and attempting to help resolve the problem and deal with what appears to be a disruptive editor. Have only reverted in response to the clear consensus on the article talk page and its edit history. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not an accurate assesment of the situation. It is unfortunate that Collectonian has fallen for the trick of the WP:MEAT puppets and sock puppets who have recently attacked The Hurt Locker page and tried to force me into a multiple revert. It should be noted in the event of a deletion discussion that if there is a user or multiple users who "suddenly" jump in and who normally do not participate in discussions, but who participate periodically in those of articles that were all created by a single user, but that s/he did not previously edit him/herself, this may be a sign of Meatpuppetry. As used by Misplaced Pages editors, refers to the recruitment of editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion.

When it is obvious that an account is being used for a single disruptive purpose, there may be reason in some cases to believe that its operator also has an account regularly used for productive editing, and its user does not want his/her regular account to be tarnished with the malicious behavior being performed by the second account. This may include vandalism, personal attacks, hoaxes, edit warring, POV pushing, or gaming the system. Ckatz has some limited administrator powers which prevent him from all out edit warring, and which likely have enticed him to potentialy create sock puppets or solicited (stealth and otherwise) meat puppets to do so.

I don't have the time to go back and document each and every instance of how his attacks started. But just look at the history of the page, and of the detractors Ckatz, Erik (who are meat puppets) and their likely sock puppets or meat puppets Ravensfire2002 and BovineBoy2008. Several of the meat puppets, especially Ravensfire2002 and BovineBoy2008, launched into disruptive canvassing and excessive cross-posting to bring other contributors to this page to augment their position with opinions (vote stacking) which match theirs.

Ckatz started this whole edit war with his malicious reverts. His first attack on the page was to repeatedly delete the name of Canadian actress Evangeline Lilly, a native of Vancouver. He did this multiple times for no reason. Despite being told that it was on her own blog and on IMDB:

• Here:

• Here:

• Here:

• Here:

He didn't question the inclusion of any other actor, yet repeatedly required sourced references for her inclusion. Again, she was listed on IMDB as well as on her own blog as being in the film. He refused to accept either of those as evidence. Then Ckatz spitefully began to revert any "Awards" and an Awards table that the film had, despite many other film pages having similar tables.

This he did Here:

• Here:

• Here:

• Here:

• Here:

He also reverted sourced plot material and quotes from actor Jeremy Renner, for some reason, repeatedly.

• Here:

• Here:

This has been going on for over a year! Ckatz never made any positive contributions to this page and repeatedly deleted and reverted material and then solicited others to do it with him. When Ckatz "disappears" from a discussion Erik mysteriously always appears to take his place! This establishes their meat puppet link.

Ckatz and his meat puppets have also tried repeatedly to revert the year of the film from 2009 to 2008, despite not having any logical reason to do this (except in an attempt to remove it from 2009 lists, to hinder the film's availability to those perusing current release lists). They also tried to remove the link to 2009 in film, which is the page that lists all the U.S. release dates of films in 2009, and where The Hurt Locker is listed. Recently, Erik eventually came to a pre-meat puppet consensus (a "straw man" argument) to make himself look "fair" that it should probably be a "2009" film. Then he used that faked "neutral" position and his self-appointed status as King of the Meat Puppets to procede to competely restructure the page adding tedious and redundant titles and deleting material and references along the way. This, when he and others were asked by administration not to edit war!

Now he and others are guess what? Proposing to delete Evangeline Lilly's name from the credits again!

Since then, a mysterious "new contributor", likely sock puppet or meat puppet SoSaysCappy, has added unsourced and against WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUM plot material, original writing without sources, and going into dialogue and tedious scene-by-scene breakdowns (again, against WP) which the meat puppet consensus has allowed (but which wouldn't allow any extensive plot material previously that I contributed which was more concise and which was sourced).

Ravensfire2002 is clearly a sock puppet or meat puppet of one of these two Ckatz or Erik, considering the precocious edit history. This person started contributing at a "pro" level this year showing considerable skill (a sign of a possible sock puppet), and doing malice with this account. This person also mysteriously jumped into the conversation, without prior contributions, making deletions and reverts. This person has been blocked for prior edit wars, specifically for his/her contributions to the Barack Obama birt certificate issue.

I don't have to tell you guys, because you see it everyday. But meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry gives a misleading impression of participation in the discussion, and of the support and opposition of a majority view, which would not otherwise exist. The recruitment of new editors to Misplaced Pages for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is highly inappropriate. I seriously suggest that any administrator who wants to block me again, look at this situation a little more logically. The things I have added to the page have been thoughtful, considerate and well sourced and backed up by references and have been attempted to show the film as it is -- a criticially-acclaimed film. The only reverts I have done has been when someone has erroneously or maliciously deleted important info or when they have attempted to make digs at the film through semantics and tedious changes. I also suggest that someone do a sock puppet investigation of these meat puppet tag teams, particularly Erik and Ckatz to see if an administrator is guilty of violating his duties, and thus should be stripped of his administrator limited powers. Thanks for your time. Inurhead (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't fallen for any tricks, thank you, and your continued asserstions and false accusations against multiple well-established, well-known editors is not helping our case at all. Erik is one of the Film project coordinators, is a crafter of several good articles, and has been editing at Misplaced Pages since 2005! Bovineboy2008 has been here since 2006 and is an active editor of film topics. SoSaysChappy has been here since early 2008 and is another editor with several good articles to his belt. All three are well known editors in the community, particularly around film articles, and are clearly unrelated. Ravensfire2002's account was registered in 2007, and he began more actively editing in 2009 working in a variety of topics. Considering you have been around since 2008 yourself, you should know better than to make these kinds of spurious accusations, certainly without any actual evidence, and against edit warring, calling other editors good faith edits "vandalism", and to continue making these personal attacks. There is no meet puppetry and there is no sockpuppetry going on here. Cease the attacks and accept that consensus is against you. Considering your length of time here, it seems likely you are interested in being a good editor, but your current actions are likely to cost you your editing privileges all together. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite another warning on his talk page, Inurhead is continuing to edit war, reverting anyone's changes to the article in question and completely ignoring the talk page consensus with his continued false accusations that everyone but him is a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. This is really becoming obnoxiously disruptive and causing a lot of problems for the editors who are actually working to improve The Hurt locker because of Inurhead's continued reverting and malicious remarks. He has also reiterated his false claims at the original 3RR report that got him block, after the fact.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 72 hours. I'd call this resolved, in the short term. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Feu Follet

Feu Follet (talk · contribs) is repeatedly posting the same page, Futurepop after an AfD closed as delete, in addition to edit warring over linking of the page, edit warring on the AfD and attempting to revert an admin's closure of it as well as engaging in gross incivility. Could an admin address this? THanks, Triplestop x3 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse reports help

Description of the matter or request and any relevant links or diffs

Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports is undergoing a major revamping to make the entire project more efficient, but while I was cleaning up the old reports, I found a protected report that needs to be unprotected so I can merge the contents from the talk page. Could someone remove all protection from Misplaced Pages:Abuse_reports/203.129.33.225? Thanks! Netalarmtalk 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone also remove the protection on Misplaced Pages:Abuse_reports/Melbourne_High_School? Netalarmtalk 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the formatting. I'm contemplating changing that edit notice. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Both pages unprotected. In the future please use Requests for page protection for non-urgent protection matters. Thanks for revamping Abuse reports, godspeed! Protonk (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaxby again, now possible sockpuppetry

This is a follow-up to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#User:Zaxby (previous evidence of sockpuppetry is listed there) which was allowed to be archived due to a lack of further response within 24 hours. There seems to be fairly conclusive evidence, based on the articles edited by Zaxby, the insertion of the name "Ryan O'Hara" into articles and the creation of imagined personas on user pages, as well as a general editing attitude of lying and making subtle but somewhat unnoticable changes to statistics for athletes, to believe that this user is another account of User:Thechroniclesofratman. There are at least four accounts for this user confirmed as sockpuppets since 2007, and possibly more (See Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman) that this is simply the latest in a long line of puppets. It seemed incorrect to me for nothing to be done about this and to simply let the previous discussion be archived so quickly.

Zaxby's behaviour in the previous AN/I report was blockable enough but was reversed after it was found that he did not have a recent final warning. However I believe his behaviour mixed with the fact that it is likely that he is a sockpuppet who previously vandalised and block evaded on multiple accounts makes it enough that something needs to be done. His efforts to "be a good editor" since the filing of the previous AN/I report are questionable at best, consisting mostly of warning others of vandalism, mostly overzealously or incorrectly, and making a few equally questionable statistics changes. The vandalism warnings are equally disturbing since one of Thechroniclesofratboy's potential socks was previously blocked for pretending to be an Admin while accusing other users of vandalism. V_IX (Talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Russavia again

I'd appreciate if an admin either close or make a call on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Russavia. the disruptive editing has continued again today. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's an archived thread, I would expect that the matter is closed/resolved. Please detail what "disruptive editing" by this user continued again. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases: proposed community ban from RFA and RFB

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

vandalism on Arindam_Chaudhuri page and not adhering to living person's autobiographies

dear editors, the page in question Arindam_Chaudhuri refers to a living person. kindly notice the page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arindam_Chaudhuri&oldid=306857190 which is the last saved page in the history list of the said article (before I reverted). the edited page was saved last by a user called http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Makrandjoshi. i am not sure whether makrand joshi is the vandal but he has not reverted the obvious vandalism on the said page and has in fact made further additions to an already vandalised page. i have reverted the same as the page does not adhere at all to a living person's autobiography. i request you to kindly look at the page history and block obvious vandals as many statements are libellous. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 04:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism mostly took place over a week ago; any blocks at this point for that article alone would be by definition punitive. -Jeremy 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse

• The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is a slight cause of concern for me, as the user does not have the signs that it is a new user. Although the contributions appear to be almost nothing at first, look closely and you'll notice they were all made on sysop user pages.. except for maybe one, and the responses after that. Could someone please explain to me how a new user finds sysop pages so easily?— Dædαlus 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 05:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I dealt with this user a bit earlier, and I think it's a sockpuppet. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The question however, is of who? I'm going to ask for a comment by the users the suspected sock bothered.— Dædαlus 05:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're giving this more attention than it needs. WP:RBI would suffice. Nakon 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to say RBI, at least offer an explanation for how those userpages were found in that order.— Dædαlus 05:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware she'd posted to my talk page, but thanks for the heads up. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably because I removed the message from your talk page. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. That's the I part. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well doesn't look like I can do anything here. Given that combo of contribs, I would wager that was a sockpuppet of User talk:UkFaith, I'm just spitballing here but they did threaten to return under a new account.......Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Int3rnaut / Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds

Int3rnaut has a history of periodically making inappropriate edits to the Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds article and has previously received warnings about vandalism. After taking a break of several months, he has again vandalised the article - I have reverted his edit. I have tried to approach him to discuss the problem with his edits in the past but, as you can see on my talk page, he accused me of a personal attack against him and did not respond to my attempts to make peace with him.

Could someone please review this user's contributions and see if there is appropriate action that can be taken to dissuade him from altering the Nexus article again? Eliahna (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jardinefan101

Jardinefan101 (talk · contribs) just uploaded File:BabaluKO.jpg which is a copyright violating of Saturdays Strikeforce: Carano vs. Cyborg TV-broadcast where Renato "Babalu" Sobral was knocked out by Gegard Mousasi. The user has uploaded similar copyvios of article-subjects getting knocked out and added it to their articles in the past, and I was thinking it's time for a block. Thanks, --aktsu  06:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I note a username similarity to User:Bambifan101. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than the use of 101, which is a pretty common number, I don't see anything else similar. One posts to MMA articles and has an MMA related username...and the other...well, doesn't. --Smashville 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed User block: Ser Amantio di Nicolao

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

Following on from the recent mass spamming of articles by AlbertHerring which was the subject of an incident last month regarding the Semi-automatedcreation of unreferenced stubs and their deletion in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, the same editor, this time under the name of Ser Amantio di Nicolao, has created hundreds of unreferenced stubs using automated tools without any regard for Misplaced Pages's content policies.

In accordance with WP:BLOCK which says that, I propose that this editor is blocked, as clearly he not paying any care or attention to quality control, and is recklessly creating stubs with no encyclopedic content:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely, i.e. bots operating without approval or outside their approval.

The mass creation of stubs which do not provide evidence of notability is undermining the whole of the Misplaced Pages project; for instance, it is impossible for Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol to carry out their work, and it is impossible for the various Wikiprojects to carry out their work if stubs are being created on a massive scale. My own concern is that the mass creation of articles which do not comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies is basically undermining the whole Misplaced Pages project where editors who operate automated tools do not make any effort to exercise any form of quality control.

It is not clear why he is enganged in article spamming on this scale, or why he is choosing such topics as German politicians such as Claus Peter Poppe or orchids such as Bulbophyllum abbreviatum, but and I feel this issue needs to be address urgently. I suspect mental health concerns may be an issue here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Undermining wikipedia". Utter Rubbish. The stubs are referenced, however short and can be reasonably expanded by anybody. We should have articles on these subjects if we are to attain our goals. Please stop this hostility and do something constructive Gavin, like myabe expand a few of them and do some article editing. More wikidrama is certainly not appropriate. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia where most people should be free to edit. All of the articles he starts are within requirements they need a lot of work to be expanded, that's all. Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor is adding article topics someone doesn't agree with, so someone comes to ANI and says there may be "mental health concerns"? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm I was thinking the same thing actually, but not about Ser Amantio.... Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will say that there seems to be some need that if people are going to run automated tools to create hundreds of articles of similar subjects that there should be a check to make sure that it makes sense to have those types of articles as standalones and instead whether other means of presenting the same information is possible, only based on past feedback when such runs have occurred. There's still disagreement whether all verifiable towns and villages around the world classify for articles, and the same could easily be said for rivers or all species of plants or animals. I'm not saying that the created articles are wrong, but when notability is pulled hard on other topics and yet these articles float by, it creates an apparent systematic bias. --MASEM (t) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is systemic bias of many and sundry kinds (and worse), this may indeed be an echo of systemic bias, but it's a content worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue that hasn't been properly addressed is the user's bot-like use of semi-automated tools to create large swaths of material. I believe he was previously admonished for running what was essentially an unapproved bot on his account when the German politician articles were created, but seems to be doing it again. Whether or not that warrants a block I am not certain - I have to find the previous discussion and get a better grip on what happened there - but the user's continuation to run what amounts to an unapproved bot on his account is troubling and does need to be addressed. Shereth 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The German politicians were an issue because of BLP. That was the reason. As for articles about rivers in Grenada and exotic plants "creating a systematic bias" that is laughable. Just look at the zillions of articles we have about American popular culture. The idea is quite the opposite, I'm certain. Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shereth that this issue has not been properly addressed - I think the administrators are not aware of what is going on, or perhaps I have not explained myself clearly. I will make a real world analogy to illustrate the situation:

Imagine that we are all editors working in the offices of Encyclopædia Britannica, and are paid to create articles for the next edition. The editor in chief walks into the office and asks an employee "What have you done this week?" The employee replies "I copied entries from German Misplaced Pages and Wikispecies and created hundreds of articles that comprise of one or two lines". The editor would probably say "What fracking use is that?" The employee answers "Well its my job to create articles", to which the editor responds "Your sacked. Go home and get some medical assistance, your clearly going mad"

I think we have to put the creation of these articles in context. I know that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, but it does have editorial rules. In the real world, complying with the editorial policy makes a real difference and has real consequences, but it would be a mistake to assume that is not the case in Misplaced Pages. Unless the administrators are going to take action to stop the indiscriminate use of automated tools, then sooner or later everyone will be using them with impunity. I think they have to take action now, or loose the initative altogether.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you've now slid into personal attacks. Please stop that. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Village pump thread you initiated is the best place for this type of discussion. Perhaps requiring semi-automated article creation >25 or >50 articles require BRFA? –xeno 14:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a village pump issue, and I don't think WP:AFD is the next step either. Either the administrators roll back the damage has been done and block (or at least warn) Ser Amantio di Nicolao, or we are faced with a fait accomplait. If we had to go to the village pump or AFD everytime articles are spammed, we will be spending the a lot of time doing this in the future. This has to be nipped in the bud now. It was not done last time, but action really needs to be taken now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser

The stubs were made with Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser. I wasn't aware this was thought of as a bot. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

AWB can be used both as a manual/semi-automatic tool and as an automatic bot. I've commented previously to Ser Ama that he should leave notes for the WikiProjects that oversee the articles he's planning to create, and I've now also suggested that running tasks through BRFA may assist in ensuring community consensus exists for these tasks. –xeno 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a bot. Given that Ser Amantio is on the auto-patrolled list, his new stubs shouldn't cause problems with new page patrollers. The content he starts is notable, even if very short. Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Patent nonsense pages

Euclidthegreek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is creating pages patently nonsensical. This is after numerous MfDs of his pages. Dr.K. logos 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give him a final warning. John Reaves 09:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While looking in the contribs, I found this subpage which is named "on wheels". I don't know, anything that says "on wheels" makes me think of Willy on Wheels. Checkuser? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. I doubt there is much good in this account, but we may as well give it a chance. I don't really think a CU necessary, probably just a copycat. John Reaves 09:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...I will let you all handle it from here. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Willy emailed one of the main mailing lists a good while back stating that he was 'retiring' (if you like) and regretted his actions, IIRC. Definitely comes off as a copycat, and a poor imitation at best. — neuro 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, we've already had a thread on him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The return of (the dreaded) User:AlexLevyOne?

Gudshead (talk · contribs) appears to have the same obsession for classifying people according to their real or supposed Jewish Alsacian ancestry as AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs), a banned master sock-puppeteer. Does anyone see a relation or could it just be a coincidence? --RCS (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Superficially (since I am not familiar with the original case) it does appear to be similar (edits regarding french topics, edits regarding jewish ancestry). I'd say its enough evidence to start a checkuser. Syrthiss (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And we now have Category:Scholars of antisemitism, Category:Authors about Antisemitism which is under Category:Authors about antisemitism -- 'authors' are different from 'scholars' in that "This category is semi-scholar about (not specialist, studier of Antisemitism), but author, fighter. and not Antisemitic author (Lither, Hitler, etc.". Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent incivility by User:Small Victory

We have a problem of persistent incivility by User:Small Victory. Civility issues are typically handled by WP:WQA, and a thread is posted there. However the persistence of this user's incivility may warrant an administrative assessment, as the incivility has become disruptive. A non exhaustive sample of some of the users uncivil comments is below.

I don't think any Wikipedian, who is acting in good faith deserves to be at the receiving end of such vitriol. This is all one way traffic, AFAIK, nobody has ever said anything mean to Small Victory. The isolated personal attack can be brushed aside. Some content disputes get heated and people say things, that they ordinarily wouldn't say. But Wikipedians shouldn't have to be at the receiving end of such abuse for months on end. I believe this user has met the criteria stated at Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing#How_disruptive_editors_evade_detection. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just notified User:Small Victory of this thread. Wknight94 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand how this will accomplish anything that the WQA and talkpage warnings to Small Victory wouldn't. He has been warned, and if he does not stop, he will be blocked. Those two should be enough, or else nothing will be. There is no immediate administrative assistance needed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed ... and the OP was also asked not to use the {{Quotation}} format ... that entry alone on WQA was huge! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was huge, that is because SV has been uncivil on several occasions. Even on WQA SV in a half hearted admission of his incivility, refers to me as a "unrepentant Afrocentrist". This after he was given a warning. He is fully aware, that I resent being referred to by any ...ist. Furthermore, these warnings have been taking place for a while, and SV has ignored them. Andrew Lancaster posted a complaint User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion, over a month ago, starting on the 4th of July, , expressing concerns about SV's incivility. This seems to have been ignored, as he has persisted. Many other users have expressed concern as well. SV's incivility is so disruptive, so much that it has made it very difficult to collaborate with anybody. We are not editing on wikipedia, to be persistently insulted, denigrated and humiliated as has been the case. The touchy-feely WQA approach is an option, but Andrew and others have already tried such approach ,as I have mentioned above, and it didn't work. Administrative action should also be another option. SV would immediately understand Misplaced Pages's core policy of civility. I don't think it is fair, at least 10 of these personal attacks have been directed at me, and I have never said anything mean to him. It is not fair to give him a slap on the wrist and say forget about it, everything will be fine. That would be encouraging this type of behavior. What if all of us were to be uncivil, all order would break down. SV doesn't have exclusive rights to be rude. This is why administrative action would be very effective. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was huge because you insist on posting using quotation tags, instead of just diffs. Someone cleaned up the mess on WQA, and I note someone has just top'n'tailed it here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree adding some formating does increase Kbs. If there was an easier way to communicate with editors who are unfamiliar with a specific incident, we would use it. Diffs are great, but they have their problems too. They are harder to read and sometimes there is an excess of text, so quotations help to zoom in on what is necessary. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent Incivility and Gaming by LaMome

I would like to report editor LaMome in the IBDP series. She has accused me of being "fraudulent" for posting links which contained information relevant to the article which for some reason, she was unable to locate on the linked documents. I have asked repeatedly for an apology and she just jumps around, trying to start new discussion topics and being generally disruptive. A simple apology from her would put this matter to rest. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Administrators are not responsible for extracting apologies to soothe your feelings. Try WP:WQA if you are so inclined. Tan | 39 14:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Abdelkafi

This AfD has been open for 13 days now, and hasn't been closed/relisted or anything like that. Dunno if this is the right place to post this, but either way, can an admin sort it out pleas? Thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. --Smashville 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3

One complicated one that's been there since this morning, another simple one (I think) but I've been editing the article, that's been there 5 hours. I can't get my head around the first or I would have handled it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If its been there for a VERY long time, and the edit war has since stopped in that time period, what disruption would be stopped by issuing blocks? If we are only blocking to stop an edit war, and the edit war stopped on its own, what further action need be taken? If the situation is a very complex one, then it should perhaps be moved here for a more thorough investigation. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is 5 hours a VERY long time? They continued to edit after that. They were warned, they carried on, they've edit warred before on the same article. If it were an IP that might have changed, I'd agree, but an account with a history, that shows no sign of stopping? The complex one is a different one. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. I was making more general comments on the wisdom of acting on old requests merely because they were old requests. If the edit war is continuing, then by all means, block away! --Jayron32 17:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It just hadn't been acted on because the OP at AN3 hadn't formatted the request very well. I've handled it, though. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:IronDuke and User:Iosefina

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

In the course of an ongoing dispute on Talk:Seven Jewish Children, IronDuke has repeatedly deleted comments by Iosefina, who he claims is a banned user. However, there is no indication on Iosefina's user page, talk page or contributions record of any such problem, nor to link him/her with any banned user. I accordingly restored Iosefinba's comments. IronDuke then accused me of "acting as a meatpuppet for a banned user", and threatened me with "the same remedies in effect for the banned user" (since I don't even know who that is, I have no idea what these remedies might be). If I again restore comments deleted without apparent good cause, in line with Wikipewdia policy, am I liable for any such penalty? Is IronDuke's behaviour acceptable? (As it happens, I agree more with IronDuke than with Iosefina in the actual content dispute). RolandR 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Inform IronDuke of this discussion so he can comment here as well.

2) IronDuke needs to put-up or shut-up. If this is a banned user, he needs to provide diffs to show WHICH banned user this is so they can be blocked as a sockpuppet, and then we can deal with their contributions. I do not necessarily disbelieve IronDuke's assertion, but he needs to consider that not everyone is familiar with the situation as he is, and he needs to clearly establish his case before reverting talk page comments, so other editors can be as familiar with the situation as he is.

3) IronDuke needs to stop the borderline personal attacks where he accuses other users of being meatpuppets without cause. A dose of WP:AGF could help, especially when dealing with established users.

Just my opinions. --Jayron32 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this. Do #1 and then ignore 2 and 3 until IronDuke has the chance to comment. You are prejudging the matter like anything, Jayron32. And without even notifying IronDuke. For shame.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did do the investigating before I commented, and IronDuke has been notified. However, you will carefully note that I backed up IronDuke in comment two where I state that if he were right, he would be justified in removing the comments. You will also carefully note that IronDuke calls a long established editor a meatpuppet in this dif: and someone should not make such personal attacks. --Jayron32 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayron: I most certainly did not call RolandR a meatpuppet, but made him aware that he was acting in a manner that could be so construed as similar to one, and that this could have serious consequences. I also note that not only did RolandR fail to treat me (who has edited here for years) and the obvious sockpuppet as equals (which would have been wrong), but actually privileged the socks actions over mine without bothering to discuss it. While I can appreciate RolandR’s unfettered glee in widening this problem for me, as he and I rarely see eye to eye (with the exception of the one issue he cleverly refers to on this page), I would appreciate it if others did not follow his lead in creating greater difficulties by providing a (perhaps inadvertent) megaphone for the sock of the banned user. I am dealing with this via email at the moment (with people who can actually do something about it), so please, everyone, know that the situation is being discussed and dealt with (albeit frustratingly slowly). Thanks, all. IronDuke 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC) And just to be clear: this involves real people in RL and their identities, thus the (present) need for not having it splashed all over WP. IronDuke 17:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a similar conflict between IronDuke and Iosefina on Ulysses S. Grant‎‎ which has nothing to do with BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think any of this has to do with BLP particularly. And it's not a "conflict," it's "stalking," which can be see merely by checking the sock's contribs against mine. IronDuke 17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's be really clear here. You need to file a WP:SPI or stop accusing others of being socks or meats. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would indeed like to be clear: if you took one look at the user's contribs, you can see it doesn't pass the WP:DUCK test. I've already said I'm dealing with this at a level where it can be adequately addressed -- it doesn't have to be at SPI, and in this case it can't be, for privacy reasons. Please be patient -- this will be my last comment on the matter until I get some kind of resolution. IronDuke 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments IronDuke. If this does involve RL problems, then some discretion may be in order. However, if this is clearly a sock of a blocked user, just give us all the name of the blocked user. If that is done, this whole issue becomes resolved. I have no prior knowledge of the situation, so I have no idea how to respond to these accusations. Just a name or a link to the SPI page or something like that, and we can close this thread, block the sock, and move on. --Jayron32 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome. I very much wish it was as easy as you suggest; however, this is an ongoing problem, and needs a more permanent solution than blocking one stray sock. IronDuke 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In short - that's not good enough. You need to share the information now either here or in a SPI (or an email to me or Jayron) and allow the administrators to have a look. Without that, we frankly don't believe you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, IronDuke is impugning my motives, asserting my "unfettered glee" in raising this issue, and implying that differing political views mean that I have been seeking a pretext to attack him. This is an unwarranred and unacceptable attack. A simple chjeck of my contributions will show that I did everything possible to avoid making an incident of this. It was only after a made a query at the article talk page, and IronDuke made a personal attack and issued threats against me, that I raised this officially.

If he is indeed being stalked, he has my full sympathy, As probably the most stalked and maligned editor on Misplaced Pages, I cannot accept such behaviour towards any other editor, whether or not I agree with their views. But a simple assertion, without any evidence or diffs, that an editor engaged in a dispute is a banned user, is not sufficient grounds to oblige other editors to accept IronDuke's edits. There is nothing objectionable in the specific edits under question, and my action in restoring them was perfectly acceptable.

I object most strongly to IronDuke's raising of the stakes in this matter, with his personal attacks, threats of unspecified "remedies" and unfounded implication that I have somehow instigated this crisis. RolandR 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, if you're willing to do all of this off-wiki, then you need to keep it off-wiki and tone down the rhetoric on-wiki. Maybe send RolandR, etc., an off-wiki e-mail about your allegation rather than dropping words like "meatpuppet" on-wiki. You can't act like we all know what you're talking about if you're going to keep it to yourself. Wknight94 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this gaming the system via an Argument from Special Knowledge and Argument of Protecting us from ourselves. He says he can't tell us, because it would be dangerous for Misplaced Pages, in some way, but that we should trust him because only he can see the pattern in the contribs that reveals the evil mastermind? Forget that happy manure. He makes it public, immediately, or he drops the entire matter. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and secrecy and distrust is alright a pox on this house. Be open and free with the problem, or, frankly, there isn't any problem at all beyond drahmuz. 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThuranX (talk • contribs)

I'm fine with things being secret and off-wiki - but don't let it have a negative effect on editors in good standing on-wiki. If someone is going to try to be half off and half on, then the onerous is on them to keep that balance, not the rest of us. Wknight94 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

According to other SPI clerks, this dispute has been passed on to the functionaries mailing list. The matter is being looked into. There is a wide range of issues involved in this case, and it will probably take some time for the checkusers to resolve things. I suggest that we calm things down in this venue and allow the case to run it's course. Further discussion here isn't going to be productive. — Jake Wartenberg 19:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Noloop

I came here to get this settled and I'm also tired of being called an f-ing troll. Noloop has a problem reconizing that he's/she's wrong. He/she keeps pursueing his/her perfered version of multiple articles, even after serveral established users and admins disagree. He/she has now resorted to name calling after he/she was temporary blocked for the behavior I have mentioned above. Let me get some diffs and I will show them.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

] ] Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusing a user of edit warring even though Noloop warred even more and very disruptivly on the same article.]Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The user is already blocked. --Smashville 18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporarly. But he/she is most likely to resume behavior after the block expires.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Most likely"????? WP:CRYSTAL and WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you even look at the diffs? Most were after the block. Noloop belives that he/she should not have been blocked, that it was all others fault.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed that you've continued to argue with him and provoke him on his talkpage after his block. Any reason you won't leave him alone? It's not a personal attack if it's a legitimate complaint. --Smashville 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am leaving Noloop alone now. And what I mean for something comes up is like a vandal attacks Noloops talk page or he/she just out of the blue does something extremly unnacceptable (100 percent that will not happen, but it's an example.)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I did something unnacceptable, and I am asking that I be punished if I deserve it.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason for that. We all know what it's like to get too caught up in something on Misplaced Pages. Sometimes you just need someone to point it out to you. --Smashville 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Thank goodness I'm leaving for a vacation today. I've got so much stress.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly ethnic-related disputes on Pakistani issues

I've stumbled into what appears to be an ethnic dispute related to members of Pakistan's Marwat clan. User:LineofWisdom has nominated some Marwat-related articles for deletion: please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarfaraz Khan Marwat. User:Marwat has opposed these deletions, apparently seeing them as an attempt to start an ethnic dispute. Moreover, User:Marwat786 (a new editor; I'll just call him/her 786 from now on) has participated in these discussions; his/her first few edits were to oppose deletion. Marwat (without numbers) has said that LineofWisdom is a sockpuppetteer, and Marwat has called 786 a sock. I'm one of several editors who participated at the AFD for Dil Jan Khan, and (probably like most of the others) I have no idea of these ethnic disputes. Further discussion has taken place at User talk:LineofWisdom (see the header "Your Edits In Article on Marwat"), User talk:Marwatt (headers "Why are you Editing the Administrators set page ?", "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan", and "Anwar Kamal Marwat"), and my talk page (header "Your Vote on Dil Jan Khan AFD"); I've also commented on 786's talk page. Marwat has asked for administrator intervention, and I really don't think that I'm qualified in this specific situation. Sorry that I can't give more information; I'm just confused by all that's going on, and we really need someone or someones who understand it better than I. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also note — unlike Marwat, 786 and LineofWisdom are clearly not native speakers of English, so I'm a little concerned that language issues might complicate things. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Extremely grateful I am extremely grateful to you talk for takin an appropriate action into this serious matter. I, once again as before, present myself accountable for using Sock. If Misplaced Pages even inquired that any other I.D than my own, User:LineofWisdom, has ever been used, I will honour a lifetime Blacklist against my I.D and even I.P address. Why should I be cursed for User:Marwat786's deed and actions? If User:Marwat786 looks like my other I.D why cannot we doubt that User:Marwatt might have created that I.D just to sabotage the Deletion process and to bring infamy to my name? Whatever the issue is, it is too far from the requirements of Deletion. I, hereby, request and plead to Administrators to conclude the Deletion process as per Wiki's Policy and on the other hand probe into the questions raised by me, User:Marwatt and User:Marwat786. I am sure, justice would be unveiled, as it is there but we cnnot see due to the mess-up my fellows has created to dull it. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have betterly understood the matter. I would have no objection, if you could decide the matter yourself, rather asking someone else. Your decission, whatever it may be, would be warmly and heartly accepted. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marwatt has no dispute and have not opposed the deletion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat but infact he voted in favour of his deletion and also commented in detail. So the above article be removed from the new category, please. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

useless stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld

wonderful, and good-buy to you all, Huldra (talk)

For the last couple of years, some of us have tried to clean up the http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestine_War. Now User:Dr. Blofeld has decied to make our task much harder, by creating tons of useless stubs. I have tries to talk to him, but he just removes my comments on his user.page. Could somebody PLEASE block that guy!! Now!Please! Huldra (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to dispute resolution. This is not the place to discuss disagreements over content (which is what this boils down to). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As a better idea, try talking with the guy first. I noticed that you haven't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See . –xeno 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have said above: he just removed my comments. Huldra (talk)

• Somewhat related: Misplaced Pages:VPP#Automated creation of stubs, see also the proposal beneath it. –xeno 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I have said on his talk-page: *You have just managed to do what no fanatical pro-Israeli editor has managed in 4 years: made me stop contributing to Wp. Congratulation, you #%//(&$%##$%. You must be proud. Huldra (talk)

It makes cleaning up lots and lots more difficult. I am going to ask for Adf for every single one of these stubs. I just cannot believe that anyone can be allowed to make such massive disruption! I feel I run against a tank, or something... jeeez. Huldra (talk)

Would you like a list of those articles that have not been edited by Blofeld? –xeno 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A case of WP:OWN. He puts an article on the main page, adds a list of red links revealing a lot of missing content and then he starts crying at ANI, what a baby. All of these starter stubs are referenced with your pea soup colored Palestinian infobox ready for expansion. You have no right to order people what or what they should create. If you didn't want the missing articles started then common sense don't red link them or make them appear in the template. We should have articles on these, a starter stub is a step in the right direction. There is only a set amount of articles, you are overreacting. Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. if tanks are so offensive, don't mention them. Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all: I am a *she* (read Huldra....) ...and the "articles" you have created are absolutely useless, as anyone can see. If you had done *any* work at all, with anyone of them, it would have been great! I have always *strongly* welcomed other editors to work with the 1948-villages. But you are, it looks to me, on some silly game of creating as many "articles" as possible(?), with no regard as to the *extra* work you create for others. As I have said above: now we cannot see which needs work, and which does not. Huldra (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a list of articles appearing on that template that do not appear in Blofeld's last 1000 edits. This should help you to sort the ones requiring cleanup from the ones requiring expansion: . And here filters out articles not edited by Huldra in last 1000. –xeno 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. I´m not very tecknical; can this help us with "undoing" the articles? Huldra (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That would require AFD. –xeno 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see; I should template them with {db-a3}? Huldra (talk)

I think these just barely scrape by the A3 criteria. –xeno 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deal with the new articles and move on. Just because something is not to your own liking you ar eillustrating a very selfish outlook on wikipedia Huldra. You don't WP:OWN these articles or set of articles. Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time: I almost jumping up and down with joy each time a new (or old!) editor helps us with the -48-villages, so to be accused of "owning" is strange, to say the least. But I would appriciate "help" that is actually "helpful"..that is: which reduce the work-load for the rest of us...And not the opposite.Huldra (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the source he is using. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Expressing dissatisfaction with your shotgun approach to editing doesn't mean one has ownership issues with articles, why don't we drop the heated rhetoric here. It would also help the situation if you did not treat users who leave messages on your talk page with dismissive contempt all the time, i.e. what a baby and oh do go away , which was a just simple request for you to recosndier some words here. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an expression of contempt towards the belligerent souls that hang out here and think they are in a position to judge and order other editors what to do on a daily basis. You rock ANI! What an awesome place. Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic above, why didn't you also create articles for the redlinked districts? Nathan 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with these stubs? Short, but a good start for expansion. For example it allows IP editors to edit and has the article name, infobox, categories etc. in place. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to what the hubbub is all about. These are valid subjects for articles, why someone would leave Misplaced Pages because they're here just amazes me. If you don't like them, ignore them, there's no way they should be AFD'd, and if they were, you'd need better reasoning than "there are too many of them", or "they're not sourced". AfD is not for cleanup. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Huldra has begun adding specious speedy delete tags on the Palestinian village articles she's upset about. I have removed the tags, as there is no speedy deletion criterion for places. I've also warned her that if she puts PROD tags on them, I'll remove those, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A3 could apply to a place. Whether it does or not in these instances is up for debate. (Probably not as it has some context) –xeno 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an absurd report. We don't block people for creating stubs! Huldra should be warned for making this sort of inappropriate report, and wasting the time of admins. AdjustShift (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted this comment at Huldra's talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P.s. my apologies to the guys above. There "are" decent guys here who don't spend all their time watching the wikidrama unfold on here, I was referring purely to those who seem to relish the drama and then scold editors who are trying to improve the encylopedia and make them feel like a vandal. I've expanded nearly ten of these article already like Arab al-Safa, I have never know anybody to cause so much fuss. This group of articles is manageable. All were started anyway with the appropriate infobox and reference to be expanded. I'm sorry but I'm not sure how I can apologise for doing what I thought was a good thing to help wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Cddoughty insisting to remove protection on high risk articles

Cddoughty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user I think maybe connected to 4chan or a similar anon group as he is insisting to remove protection to a couple high risk articles, Template:Anonymous and the Internet and Encyclopedia Dramatica. He has been denied once and denied again at WP:RPP to get Encyclopedia Dramatica unprotected. After that he goes to the template and requests that Anonymous and the Internet be unprotected. Once again got denied. Now he is resorting to trolling to prove a point when he has been told he is denied. I think a block is in order for disruption. Your input is greatly appreciated. Momo san 19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• For my part, I've been within a hair of blocking the user for obvious trolling (DUCK). IDHT, POINT, etc. However, I've been doing my best to extract decent edits from them, with limited success. –xeno 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would fully support a block for obvious trolling and a checkuser to see who this is. --Smashville 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Eh, slow down. I'm with xeno. This could be someone who came to wikipedia and the first thing they found was the ED article. They might be genuinely pissed. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also need to throw out that I deleted a slew of warnings off of his page. He received a warning for vandalism for adding something that was cited in the source, a warning for removing a speedy deletion template when he did not remove it and received a warning for adding uncited material when, as far as I can see, he has not done so. --Smashville 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• User is now trolling on his talk page, I think it's time to end this whole thing. Momo san 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. He does have appear to have one that's kind of poking him. --Smashville 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just unwatch their talk page. They don't seem too out of line to me. Protonk (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, trolls are only successful when people allow themselves to be trolled. Judging by his talk page, he's doing a spectacular job. –xeno 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one filling your talk page with accidental warnings, reverting your good edits and ending your discussions before they even get anywhere.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice I am the first to re-instate your good edits. Please keep those up. –xeno 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd do a lot more if I wasn't responding to the problems mentioned above all the time.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking at this time sounds highly inappropriate to me -- lets assume some good faith, it is one of our core values, after all. — neuro 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't assume I am being trolled. I am no idiot. I fail to see how his disruptive editing results and praising his ability to troll. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with that? –túrian 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards