Misplaced Pages

Second proposed interaction ban

Neither Racepacket nor Ryulong may remove or add quotation marks on existing references on ANY article. This whole issue is over the lamest edit war I've ever seen, and this proposal would a. stop this stupidity, and b. allow them both to edit any article they want to, aside from this restriction. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (proposer) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mutual end

Per the discussion that was taking place at WP:AN3#User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action) and User talk:EdJohnston#3RR/Racepacket, and I hope with Tbsdy lives's comments above, I would believe that this is done with. Unless anyone else thinks otherwise and still believes that a ban is necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not convinced that the underlying issues have/are been/being addressed in the long term. But I am very open to being convinced. I'd like to hear others views on this matter; and also, would letting you both edit together unsupervised (or without a mediator) be a good idea, given the history? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what the underlying issues are at this point. Racepacket has been adding content to/removing content from University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have it in my Watchlist and I see what he has done. I come in and perform grammatical fixes or as I state in my comments to Jayron32 that I move it to other pages or remove it due to triviality I perceived from the content. The "dispute" results from his stubbornness (which I attempted to bring up in the RFC) and my reaction to it. His goal for the article to be of a better quality is admirable. However he can't take "no" for an answer unless a consensus tells him he should stop. I know the quotation mark thing is incredibly lame, but he was ignoring me on his talk and accusing me of wrong doing. Again, at this point the issue seems to have ended and I don't see how preventing anyone from editing a single page is going to resolve matters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So can this mess be marked as closed?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Depends. If either one of you edit University of Miami from now, can I block you for a week? Meanwhile, support any interaction and topic ban for both parties. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket: copyright problems

I was doing my daily rounds at WP:SCV when I came across Robert B. McGinnis "by" Racepacket (talk · contribs). The article is a close paraphrase from , with two paragraphs almost copied verbatim (the ones beginning with "McGinnis's 1965 book" and "He founded"). Having a look at his talk page reveals a history of similar copyright problems spanning more than two years.

• Mary Margaret Whipple deleted twice as copyvio. I haven't checked the third creation.
• Sylvester Willard - copied from . The article remains a derivative work. (May be pd as the source sources something pd, but can't really tell.) Sent to WP:CP.
• Marguerite Ross Barnett, see . Essentially, from
• Jacksonville Developmental Center, see . Was sent to WP:CP and revised.
• William T. Miller see Talk:William T. Miller

At the very least, please revoke his autoreviewer permission. I've also requested a CCI (not opening it directly, would like feedback). MER-C 05:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. That article is a very close paraphrasing, any user who would do that shouldn't carry the autoreviewer flag. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) None of the McGinnis article is verbatim from any source, and the facts from the different sources are arranged in a meaningful order. Marguerite Ross Barnett was based on a public domain resume that was distributed with a conference. I have reviewed the history of the Mary Margaret Whipple article and am not aware of it being "deleted twice as copyvio," because it is still there. I took a one semester course in copyright law, passed the US Patent and Trademark Office admission to practice exam, and am familiar with what constitutes infringement. Again, the facts vs literary express distinction can be tricky and subjective. Based on this, I have identified and tagged a number of copyright violations, including Racepacket (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC):

• Sorry, but no - a quick check of the McGinnis article after your last edit against the apparent source shows two paragraphs that are substantially identical in each. Other paragraphs can be similarly traced to the other two sources. There does appear to be a significant problem. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Mary Margaret Whipple was deleted twice as a copyvio. You created it first here: "01:43, 26 September 2007 . . Racepacket (talk | contribs | block) (812 bytes) (start article)" Corensearchbot tagged it, you removed the copyright flag, and it was deleted by User:Butseriouslyfolks at 04:47, 26 September 2007. The next day, you created the article a second time: "21:50, 27 September 2007 . . Racepacket (talk | contribs | block) (986 bytes) (stated article)". It was deleted by the same admin as a reposted copyvio the following day. The current version dates to later that same day. I have been evaluating some of your recent contributions. I have reverted your edits to Worcester State College; see Talk:Worcester State College for an example of copied text. I have found additional issues (not yet cleaned) in the article Salem State College (content you added here duplicates text at , & )). Given that and the history above, there does seem to be need for further review at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations. You may not have intentionally violated copyright, but your handling of previously published texts in these articles has not accorded with copyright policy and non-free content guidelines. --Moonriddengirl 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• The CCI is open at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket. I will notify the appropriate projects in case they are interested in assisting with evaluation. --Moonriddengirl 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is a somewhat minor point, but Racepacket, what is with the "edit conflict" note on your initial post here? My post and your reply were hours and hours apart from one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect it was with my response - Racepacket left a message, I responded, then Racepacket expanded on the message. My guess was that the ec was due to the expansion. - Bilby (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Distruptive editing by User:Stemonitis

Administrator User:Stemonitis is doing long term (at least since 2007(!)) Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing: "edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive". He is adding for very long time a space (non-breaking space) before ref tag in very large number of articles. Although discussed his "proposal" 3 years ago, it was not implemented into guideline. This is exact example of Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. He inhibit standardization of articles. Standardization and proper way of such editing is described in Misplaced Pages:Footnotes. He did not stopped this behavior although he was informed about it at User talk:Stemonitis#Citing references and at Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard#User:Stemonitis and space in front of ref tag. Administrators "are expected to observe a high standard of conduct". His restive behavior is against the guidelines and spirit of wikipedia. I appeal to other wikipedians to solve this situation in effective way in the same way as vandalism is solved. --Snek01 (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is nowhere near needing admin action. As people at the Content noticeboard said, discuss it there but you're escalating this beyond proportion. And, I might add, going to WP:PLAXICO yourself if you push too hard. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the third place I've seen this. Snek01, you might get better results if you confine yourself to the one page and tone down some of your remarks. This is not a major issue and Stemonitis is doing no long term damage to Misplaced Pages. And in now way does this involve any use of his administrative powers so stop bringing that up. something lame from CBW 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is major issue. Stemonitis is continuing this every day including this day. All infomation I have written above is correct. When administrator does not accept policies and rules guidelines, then is is very alarming and it could devastate moral of wikipedians. When s single user is blocked for three reverts, then administrator Stemonitis can not be blocked for thousands of intentionally made errors? --Snek01 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he ask Jimbo Wales to comment on this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate which "policy or rule" he is not "accepting". Tan | 39 14:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing, Misplaced Pages:Footnotes, Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. For details see Content noticeboard. --Snek01 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The first and third are behavioral guidelines, the second is a style guideline. I'd like to point out that there is no "policy or rule" being violated. Tan | 39 14:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrected to "guidelines" and these guidelines are violated. "Never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point," is included in fundamental principles called Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. --Snek01 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing about this that's a WP:POINT violation. User:Stemonitis is making what appears to be good-faith changes, which you happen to disagree with. Seriously, you need to go back to discussion with him, rather than seeking to punish him. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Elize du Toit

Please see File:Elize du Toit at the BAFTA's.jpg The picture came from Flikr and states (and Consequently so too does the wiki article) that it was taken at the 62nd Baftas. I was suspicious because I recognised her "costume" from Material Girl - Episode 1. The "additional information" attached to the file shows the picture was taken in April 2009, not at the Baftas in Feb 2009. I do not know how best to stop this misinformation being promulgated. Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Says it was uploaded in April, not taken. Original Flikr also says it was from BAFTAS. Is there evidence it wasn't???? Gerardw (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the metadata (under the assumption it was not changed by hand) says that the picture was taken 26 April 2009. Of course, metadata is trivial to change, and some software overwrites it inappropriately, but assuming it was done correctly, the picture was indeed taken in April. However, there's not much that can be done here because this picture is on Commons. Perhaps you want to raise the discussion there? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Full picture, the second female is Beth Cordingly who also featured in the programme in that dress. For circumstantial evidence look at the scabby underpass & the casually dressed people they are with - hardly a Red carpet affair!. Finally anyone in England will attest that short sleeves & sunshine are more likely late April than early February.Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But a quick Google image search for "elize du toit bafta" will quickly bring up a bunch of pictures of both ladies in those exact outfits on the red carpet... MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And also, if you look at another picture from the same photographer's Flickr set, , you'll see a wider view of the same group with BAFTA mask logos there. MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Right. I guess they have reversed the Bafta footage into the TV programme. c/w the April date I added 2 plus 2 and got five. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Autofellatio

I just received a warning on my talk page, to by remove in the article Autofellatio, an image that can be very "grotesque" to many people and of sexually explicit content, which can mistakenly be seen by minors, therefore: is it necessary to add such images to articles related to sexual content?. Ccrazymann (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary, but entirely appropriate in the article space. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary, charting the article with such photos, therefore, propose to withdraw this photo from the article, you think?¿, opinions please. Ccrazymann (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a million times. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED and leave the image alone. Gah. → ROUX ₪ 18:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And you were looking at this article for what purpose? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? Quit trying to throw gas on every goddamn fire, Fred. Tan | 39 18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? My response was to have suggested that had he been looking to see what autofellatio meant, then the image would have explained it rather more rapidly than reading the article. No fires, no petrol, just an assumption of bad faith on your part. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Roux said, you should also read Talk:Autofellatio. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'd never frame it and hang the photo on my bedroom wall, I don't think the image should be removed; however, I might suggest protecting the page and image as both are bound to be vandalised in the near future as a result of this discussion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it an editor? I think he's been enhanced because I don't beleive it's possible.  Giano  18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is possible with the right combination of endowment and flexibility. A... umm... friend has seen it done with his own eyes. → ROUX ₪ 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! That must be handy.  Giano  18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No hands necessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently in his younger days Ron Jeremy was quite adept at it.... or so I have been told. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that an observation drawn from experience, Giano ;) Rockpocket 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, not.  Giano  18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it reminds me of a Greek picture I have representing the god Pan, although the latter is better-endowed. I still have it, but my husband forced me to remove it from our bedroom wall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly do you buy your art collection?  Giano  18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, where I used to work at Naval Air Station Sigonella. It was my job to sell the pictures and fend off the complaints from offended customers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was he depicted playing his own flute? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It appears as if you've seen the picture. I believe (as I used to inform the customers) that the god was an ancient fertility symbol.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Did the picture say what the tune was?  Giano  19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably 'I Wanna Fuck', though I can't see how that could be played on a flute. HalfShadow 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User CRAustralia

I am not sure this is the best place to report this, but there are several issues involved, and I can't see anywhere better.

User:CRAustralia has been involved in an edit wars on Talk:Simon Overland and Racism in Australia. Apart from the issue of edit warring there is a BLP issue, and also the material which CRAustralia has been repeatedly adding to these two pages is a copyright violation. The same text was previously repeatedly added to Simon Overland by an anonymous editor with various IP addresses in the range 71.135.*.* until the article was semiprotected on 30 January 2010. CRAustralia first started editing later the same day. CRAustralia is a single purpose account which is concerned only with this issue.

CRAustralia has been advised and warned numerous times about edit warring, NPOV, and copyright violation. Warnings have been given by Bilby, Ginsengbomb, HarlandQPitt, and myself. CRAustralia has removed the warnings from the user talk page.

Since this involves several issues (edit warring, BLP, NPOV, and copyright) I thought it could not be covered fully by a forum for any one of these, and AN/I was the one place I could think of which seemed general enough to deal with all aspects of this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons - epic backlog

I know that it already has a backlog tag and this may not be news to some of you but the nowcommons categories Category:Misplaced Pages files on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Misplaced Pages files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons have 18.000+ images cumulative its got to a point it needs admin attention.I tx you in advance and apologize if this is not the correct forum for this.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly this much, because Multichill recently ran his bot to tag all that. Actually doing the work of cleaning it up will take quite some time though. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The last time this happened, an admin used a bot or script to indiscriminately delete them all which is not the proper procedure (I still think that wasn't rectified?) - so please nobody go and do that again. –xeno 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been working through this steadily, but it's not just a job for one man I'm afraid. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User Lion211989, continuing vandalism of my talk page

I have tried to give User Lion211989 the benefit of the doubt but he/she insists on vandalizing my talk page. Just look at my talk page for any evidence what-so-ever. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this matter being taken seriously? Or am I not being patient? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Mcjakeqcool would you? I only ask because of your email address. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no eMail adress. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely something suspicious going on. I've blocked two accounts messing around on Jack's talk page, but I find it odd that 90% of a "new" editor's posts are on ANI. TNXMan 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at Simple Misplaced Pages, where Mcjakeqcool uses that same email address. I think we have some quacking going on here. Good find, DC. -- Atama頭 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and not to mention here, the email address is given. I had suspicions about this account from the first time I saw it at ANI, and it's interesting to note that they generally comment at sockpuppet discussions on this page. I think this editor has basically outed themselves, so I'm blocking per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Gibnews, frequenter of the Gibraltar article, often uses gibnews.net as a source in his arguments. I have said that this (privately owned, non-peer reviewed) website is not a reliable source as far as Misplaced Pages goes. In response, he has now twice made legal threats towards me. 1 2 Even though they were made on behalf of others, and even though I'm neither worried by them nor believe he really means it, I would appreciate some assistance, as my reading of WP:NPLT suggests it constitutes unacceptable harassment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, especially the second one. I have indefinitely blocked this user per WP:LEGAL. Tan | 39 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request ensues with "I didn't do anything, it was a setup", admin eyes requested - Tan | 39 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this was a legal threat, but further, fairly explicitly fails WP:RS. We cannot operate under any theory that such links have a "right" to remain on Misplaced Pages free of molestation, and so we cannot allow such filibustering even if it does not rise to the level of explicit legal threats. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out for the record that after the first threat, I replied saying that I would post here if he did it again. He then proceeded to repeat the threat. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I declined the unblock: first threat is quite clearly "post using your real name so that you can be sued" and the second is an attempt to quash discussion via the threat of legal action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• As someone with probably a reputation for thinking WP:LEGAL is severely overused on ANI, I agree that this is a perfect example of what it was meant for. Support block, support continuing block until the threat is very clearly recognized and retracted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The user's unblock request (viz. "I have not made any legal threat." and "I was not the party who would be involved") makes it clear that s/he is not threatening legal action. The comments in question were more a case of "Be careful, for those type of comments could land you in trouble " rather than "I will sue you if you continue". RedCoat10 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, their unblock is phrased quite differently than the two items (especially the first one) that led to the block. If they were to be so kind as to actually retract the originals, they might have a reduction of said block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really, really, really disheartened by all of this. I've been trying to help with the situation at the Gibraltar article, and related articles, and acted as mediator for a particular dispute and have given advice to various editors involved in the area. Just today one editor involved has left Misplaced Pages due to stress over editing the articles, and the other editor who generally takes that "side" is blocked. I have to agree, however, that the block is entirely appropriate; those legal threats are as unambiguous as it gets and since Gibnews is unwilling to retract them the block should stand. -- Atama頭 21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that the name looks like a username violation, since it tends to identify the user with the website he's trying to use as a source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes, but after editing Misplaced Pages for over 4 years and making 5,000 edits it's not something that an admin is liable to block someone for. -- Atama頭 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this can all be resolved by a ban on this editor from using gibnews.net, as this is a clear conflict of interest and an unreliable source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Waiting to see how he responds to my latest post on his talk page. Tan | 39 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall numerious similiarly named accounts being used at that article-in-question a few years ago. Could this be the same editor? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian blocked indefinitely on 16 December 2005, after initial block on 12 December 2005 . User:Gibnews created on 7 December 2005 , picking up exactly where Gibraltarian left off at Disputed status of Gibraltar. The style and language of talk page posts are remarkably similar . Make your own mind up... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's time to band a sock. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a sock please someone block it, or else file SPI? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of SPI is that if the IPs don't match it gets rejected. Anyone who has heard of the term "proxy server" knows how easy it is to get round that (and Gibnews himself has said he is a web programmer/site maintainer). Last year, I was arguing with Gibnews over an edit when a brand new user surfaced, again employing similar language to Gibnews, to make a revert that would have taken Gibnews over the 3RR rule, I filed a report. But it came back negative on the basis of the IP. So there is only circumstantial evidence, such as that I list above. Oh, and other stuff like this: Gibraltarian uses gibnet.com as references . That in itself is fairly similar to Gibnews using gibnews.net, but it gets more mysterious, because Gibnews himself tells us he is the registrant of gibnet.com on his user page . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just for checkuser, not all SPIs use checkuser. Many of them are done based on behavior alone. Actually, this one could easily be done as a WP:DUCK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - Gibnews is a sockpuppet, has a COI username and is a disruptive editor who now makes legal threats? Wow... I suggest that nobody unblock. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NO, Gibraltarian was a retard, an abusive editor with a very distinctive style. Gibnews is nothing like him. As regards Gibnews' username, he has his own domain name, Gibnews.com from memory and its commonly used on a number of Gibraltar related websites. What Red Hat has conveniently forgotten to mention is that he and Gibnews have a long and acrimonius history; they wind each other up. I don't disagree that legal threats are a basis to block Gibnews he shouldn't have done that but this is simply a more politically adroit editor using AN/I to settle old scores and it was less than 24 hrs after about the only other editor aware of the history ie me quit. He knows that Gibnews is not Gibraltarian, there have been several SPI checks and all failed. Block the both of them. Justin talk 10:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record everyone, I have no issue if Gibnews retracts his legal threats and rejoins the editing fold. I mentioned the sock matters because someone else raised it and the editing history is rather fishy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record after you repeated sock puppet accusations you 'KNOW are false, rather than explaining others have had simillar expressed similar suspicions, have investigated them previously and they are known to be false. You might also mention you never apologised for making groundless allegations either. Justin talk 10:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, definitely need to black list gibnews.net. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we definitely don't its simply an online resource for Gibraltar related documents and its very useful in that respect. Banning an innocent 3rd party website because of one editor's vendetta is ridiculous by even wikipedia drama standards. Justin talk 12:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

I propose that Gibnews be banned from using gibnews.net on Misplaced Pages.

• Support Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support better idea than a username block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support as this fellow has become pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The user is indef blocked, and is in fact a sock of an earlier user(or maybe it was later) who is also indef blocked. They refuse to retract their clear legal threats, so it seems that that(those) block(s) is(are) going to stay, so this entire thing is rather moot.

Also take note that gibnews does not have a wikipedia page. I ask all of you participating here, why not consider the blacklist?

However, if they are unblocked, then sure, I

• Support - Per the above, but only if they are unblocked.— Dædαlus 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support technically, but I agree with Daedalus that the gibnews.net domain ought to be blacklisted, which will resolve the issue of it being used here better than all the blockifications in the world. :-) Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting of site; that's the only way to keep this from reoccuring. :) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting the site. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I doubt the user will ever be unblocked, so we can consider it a defacto community ban. AniMate 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

c.c

So, you support a ban, a topic ban, or a blacklist addition?— Dædαlus 05:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the blacklist. Since I stated the community ban was defacto, I assumed you would get that I was supporting the blacklist. Next time I'll spell it out for you. AniMate 07:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting gibnews.net, if that's what this discussion is about. If allowing links there leads to this kind of behavior, we should avoid future iterations of the same behavior by not allowing links there. By the nature of the site, it doesn't appear there's anything lost by not linking there. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting gibnews.net. User:Zscout370 09:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Gibnews is not Gibraltarian, that accusation was already made and investigated and Gibnews was cleared. Red Hat is actually aware of this, so making the accusation yet again smacks of sticking the knife in while an editor can't defend themself. Red Hat and Gibnews have a long and acrimonius history, this is Red Hat working the system to pay back old scores.

Secondly Gibnews.net is simply a repository of documents released into the public domain, reproducing them verbatim, it is a reliable source. It links documents related to Gibraltar and is a useful online resources for documents that would only be available in paper form. Blacklisting it, means that a lot of PD Gibraltar related documents online are lost, since there is no other source. Thats what Red Hat's objective is here.

Thirdly as regards username Gibnews is commonly used on several Gibraltar related websites, Gibnews already had it for his own domain name. But Red Hat is also aware of this.

Now if you're blocking Gibnews for legal threats, Red Hat should also be blocked for a) winding him up and b) knowingly bringing false information to AN/I. In fact you could block half a dozen editors on Gibraltar related topios just to get rid of the utterly poisonous atmosphere there.

This is why I've quit wikipedia, I've had enough of it. Even when I've quit I'm being dragged back because what is happening on that article is simply poisonous. Please just ban the lot and you can include me in that if you like. Justin talk 09:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, stay away at least 24 hours from wikipedia if you intend to keep telling us that you've quit it. You could read this in the meantime. When this user complains about the poisonous atmosphere, he forgets to mention that his own personal attacks had a lot to do with it. No kidding, attacks such as these . 10:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.38.21 (talk)

Above is banned user PalestineRemembered, who I apparently upset but over something so minor I don't recall. In case you hadn't noticed I said include me in the blocks, I didn't claim my behavious was above reproach. Justin talk 10:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I say: stay! Even if you don't remove the farewell, keep contributing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Gibnews has now commented on this website , still obviously does not understand our policies and obviously will not voluntarily stop using it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional Block Proposal

Unblock Proposal

Legal threat withdrawn and I note the complaining editor forgot to mention that when he piled onto the attempt to block a useful site. Diff . Justin talk 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I support this. The editor has retracted any legal threats. Of course, he still doesn't understand why Gibnews is not a reliable source (or Justin, apparently, but that's neither here nor there), but with the blacklist proposal flying above, I don't think this will be a problem anymore regardless of whether or not he agrees. Since it's my block, does anyone have a glaring issue why I shouldn't unblock? Tan | 39 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If the legal threat is withdrawn then the block should be lifted. The other issues are peripheral. –xeno 14:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Jauerback/_dude. 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support, if the blacklist is implemented. It will be the only way to get it through to him, and besides, if it's just quoting other sources I'm sure we can go to the horse's mouth instead of this middleman website. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you guys, on a completley unrelated subject would anyone be able to tell me why Wikibreak Enforcer doesn't appear to work for me? Justin talk 15:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have javascript enabled? Have you bypassed your cache? –xeno 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I still say that Gibnews should be banned from using gibnews.net as a source. He should be able to ask on talk pages, but not use the link himself on the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's peripheral to the NLT block, and appears to be fairly well-supported in the above. –xeno 15:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note about gibnews.net

I don't know what the exact relationship is between gibnews and the site of the same name (Justin claims it was established there is none - I don't know how that was established or when) but (1) Gibnews had a hand in setting it up (by his own admission) even if its content is not coming from his own mouth (2) the site's lawyers are the same lawyers Gibnews refers to on another site which is definitely his (gibnet.com - see About Us, where we are assured "his lawyers are bigger than our lawyers") (3) the language used on the two sites is remarkably similar. (4) he chose a user name that was the same as the domain name. There is a definite connection between Gibnews and gibnews.net. (5) the site seems wiki-like in nature, if anyone can submit information, and there is no vetting or scrutiny of the content (the owners absolve themselves of responsibility) so it is not reliable anyway. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a verbose commemt, probably in the tl;dr category and probably one that doesn't go down too well at AN/I because it seems clear to me that I don't have the political skills needed here. Please do take the time to read it.

The block on Gibnews using Gibnews.net seems to be based on the erroneous assumption promoted by Red Hat that its his personal website. It isn't, though he has disclosed he worked for the owners doing some coding some time ago. The supporting comments seem to be a typical example of the way that editors can sometimes pile onto a a proposal sometimes and it really should not be enacted. There is an essay on that phenomenon but I'm buggered if I can find it. Its also separate from unblocking for the legal threats.

As a matter of disclosure, I said some things in the heat of the moment a few days ago that I regret and apologise publicly and unreservedly for. If the community thinks I should be blocked or banned for them, then fine I have no problem with that. I broke the rule and I'll take my punishment. I fully expect someone will be along soon to propose that anyway. I don't regret or apologise for commenting on the agenda of the editor concerned. I don't think I'm wrong about that and if the community wishes to block me for it, then fine because I don't really don't wish to be part of a community that allows itself to be manipulated to support his agenda.

I don't apologise for calling for Red Hat to be blocked, he has very skilfully fed the feeding frenzy prompted by Gibnews' stupid legal threat. Seems he has also achieved a long term agenda of his for having that site blacklisted, I can provide diffs if necessary. A while ago I made the decision to make my peace with him as given the good work he has done on British Empire I thought I had misunderstood him and his motives. Now I'm not too sure I was right about that. I really would appreciate someone looking at that and I really would appreciate someone taking the time to look at Talk:Gibraltar and doing something about the poisonous atmosphere there.

I am sincere in my desire to quit, call me a Diva if you like. I really don't think I have what it takes to edit in my areas of interest and thats why I'm quitting and only why. But on my way out if I can draw attention to what has been going on you can call if my swan song. Thank you to anyone with the integrity to listen and take action, I recognise that I just don't have what it takes. Justin talk 16:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini yoga - User:Fatehji

Fatehji (talk · contribs) This page got my attention some days ago as the result of an edit war between Fatehji and another user which resulted in page protection. I've since taken a closer look at the article and discovered that Fatehji has turned the page into a blatant WP:COATRACK for Yogi Bhajan and his 3HO movement. After I deleted the COATRACK section, Fatehji has been repeatedly restoring it based on the transparently POV and, I believe, demonstrably false assertion that Kundalini yoga and Yogi Bhajan's teachings are synonymous, when in fact there are countless writers and teachers on the topic (see Google books search results). Fatehji has also been editing the Kundalini syndrome article, trying to minimize the seriousness of the phenomenon (presumably because Yogi Bhajan has said kundalini yoga is perfectly safe), falsely claiming the article relies upon only one reference and even arguing for its deletion. (To refute this position, one need only do a search for the term on Google books).

In normal circumstances, I will try to work with other editors to establish NPOV, but in this case I cannot persuade myself there is a realistic chance of doing so. Unfortunately, spiritual topics tend to attract adherents of one or another spiritual group who attempt to use such articles as promotional vehicles for their own particular group, and in my experience there is little hope of dissuading such editors from their disruptive activities except through bans or blocks. I am therefore proposing that Fatehji be topic banned from all kundalini-related articles, with the possible exception of those pertaining to his particular group (namely Yogi Bhajan, 3HO and Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan). Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with the topic ban, as it appears that there is some considerable bias as regards the promoting and demoting of differing disciplines. As for an allowance on those topics relating solely to their interests, I am assuming Gatoclass has not detected any WP:OWNership issues and agree also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to be unduly harsh. My primary concern is to stop the COATRACKing, which is the immediate problem, and I think likely to be an ongoing one unless something is done to prevent it. My comment was not intended as an endorsement of his editing on the Yogi Bhajan pages, I just think that as he's only been editing for three weeks he is entitled to be given some time to adjust. If he's still causing problems down the track, that can always be looked at later. Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support the topic ban also. Since he created his account on 18 January, Fatehji has managed to receive warnings from two different admins, and his contributions include frequent reverts. The single most worrisome thing is his minimization of Kundalini syndrome, which has plenty of references. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

please block sock (NEEDED QUICK REACTION)

Crackajack_Mac (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs), and is performing disruptive edits at Kosovo-related articles, which are under probation. He has removed the sock tag without comment, so please just indef-block him and tag. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to Eric Naval. He if anything is the new mask of a well known sole user on Misplaced Pages who spreads Serb propaganda called Tadija who is also FKPCascaris. I am a new user who has been observing stuff a few weeks. Crackajack Mac (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx Enric Naval. I´ll know from now on that it is here that this sockpoppetry issues are solved. Just a remark, this user has been disruptive in a number of Serbian (Serbia itself, not Kosovo) articles, so it goes beyond. FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk to User:MuZemike, and former Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) blocking admins, he is WP:DE vandal. --Tadija (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New mask? Enric Naval has been here 5 1/2 years, "new mask" is ridiculous. Woogee (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I reverted his talk page access as well for abusing it. -- Atama頭 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dashbullder

Dashbullder (talk · contribs) has, among other things, added articles of his own creation to Current Events without discussion and added links to one such article to two unrelated pages apparently as a POINTy attempt at pushing Christian PoV.

Also seems to have issues with "getting" copyright after adding a decently long script CAP to an article -- Pakaran 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted a few of this user's edits, including his additions to the Current Events templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ANI is a bad bad place) 66.172.228.21 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked exactly how long a quote could be and I'm still waiting for an answer, and if adding articles about current events to the current events area with out a vote is a problem I am sorry I did not know this. --Dashbullder (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific answer, but it doesn't matter. The quotation doesn't belong for other reasons that you have already been told about. If you want the quotation to be in the article when others disagree with you, that's what the article talk page is for -- use it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Harlan wilkerson

Harlan wilkerson seems to be an "educated troll", namely a person with a lot of knowledge and access to academic sources, but he use them in the wrong way in order to promote his political views through en-wp.

1. Nearly all his contributions are related to article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
2. He has been engaged in several edit wars, usually because he could not accept his edits being rejected or modified by other users. For example: in the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: in the article: State of Palestine: in this case it was also a clear violation of a community decision Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/State of Palestine.
3. When the article State of Palestine was reinitiated, he quickly rephrased the article making it very POVized
4. Here and in several other occasions he tried to push the opinion of Francis A. Boyle, even though he knew it is a problematic source in this context, because Boyle, as written in his biographical details "serves as counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine." and "From 1991-92, Professor Boyle served as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations."
5. The bottom of this version of his talk page shows he has been involved in quite a few conflicts due to his edits, and his insistence on reverting other editors' modifications. He deleted these posts from his talk page and did not place them in any archive as usually done in such cases.
6. He removed this edit (of mine) on the pretext that it is POVized.

It seems that Harlan wilkerson is not here to improve en-wp, but rather to promote his political views. I can bring more evidences to that, but I think it is enough for the time being. I suggest that he be banned from editing articles related in any way to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His political motives are also revealed in his userpage's subpages, such as this User talk:Harlan wilkerson/Israel-Palestine ArticlesIt is a shame because with his vast knowledge and access to sources, he could have been a great contributor, and yet currently he does much more damage than good. DrorK (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to undo The Price is Right mistaken moves

Could an admin please undo the recent moves of User:Bgds involving The Price is Right, which along with its sister pages presently reside at the inaccurate The Price Is Correct et al. ? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:RYoung122

In essence, this is a content dispute which has escalated into edit-warring, incivility and a veiled legal threat.

RYoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor who concentrates on articles about centenarians and supercentenarians. It would seem that, pursuant to consensus achieved at WP:DATEPOLL, the vast majority of WP editors disagree with the linking of dates or years except in very exceptional circumstances, yet this de facto guardian of centenarians insists on linking years of birth. He principally argues that "year links appropriate for 'oldest persons'", and has refused to accept arguments from other editors (including Carcharoth) that there may be a better way of achieving the context which he believes year links may provide without linking to subjects not germane to the subject. Seeing that he had undone delinking and had been engaged in slow edit warring in relinking of years of birth across a number of articles, and for blindly reverting, twice, edits which contained other valid formatting changes, I issued a warning on 27 January.

He replied arguing somehow that the links were not technically 'reverts', that my warning was thus invalid. In the meantime, a discussion has been taking place at Talk:Jiroemon Kimura and WT:Linking]. Since my first warning, he has responded to messages on his talk page in a rather defensive and somewhat uncivil manner, accusing his respondents of 'bullying', 'conflict of interest', 'canvassing' and 'cabal'. He then found, instead of a clearly labelled 'birth year' of 1897, an instance of the year 1897 and linked it arguing that policy didn't apply because it wasn't a birth-year link.

Following a final warning on his talk page not to engage in slow edit warring, he accused me of conflict of interest on my talk page. He also responded by implying legal action. Ohconfucius 03:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RYoung122's actions in this sorry mess have been deplorable. He edited against community consensus; he deleted guidelines because they didn't suit him (that's right RYoung122: why delete parts of the guideline if you really believed you were editing within them?); he reverted bot edits (bots that he knew full-well were sanctioned, and would only run if they arose from community consensus); he warred over those edits; he accused people of canvassing, but did exactly the same thing; he shouted at people via his edits; he accused editors of cabal-like activity; etc. Outside scrutiny of this atrocious episode is required—please.  HWV258.  03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:NitehawkRec

There's a new user, Nitehawkrec, who apparently is making an article on their user page. It may be spam, it might not be, but WP:BITE applies here, at least for now.

I've reverted a few times with user:76.102.12.35, who's trying to find different csds to remove it, something he's been brought to AN/I to about before. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged probably hundreds of user pages as spam, every one of which has been deleted or blanked by admins or the page creator. Obviously it's not considered to be out of line if so many admins support such use of spam tags. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

G2, the current reasoning on there, doesn't even apply to user space per CSD, but to respond to your comment: more than likely because the users were new and felt intimidated and the admins thought the user didn't care. If the newbie moved that content from article space to user space, i'd certaintly agree that it's spam, but that's not the case here unless i'm missing something. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So you claim to know what motivates admins and new users? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This shows my point, this anon just engaged in WP:NPA on me, imagine the negative consequences on those "hundreds of users" on their view of the encyclopedia, particularly if they were new. Action needs to be taken here. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Asking you to clarify your statement is a personal attack? Interesting...

If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, new pages by new editors should never be tagged for deletion because it might intimidate them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see about where you are asking for a clarification on my statement, but rather making an incivil comment. Please try to keep on the topic of the user page itself instead of engaging in ad homimem personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, Doc, this IP doesn't give a shit what other people think, admins overwhelmingly support his/her stance. Move on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the consensus among other admins, i'll be glad to accept it, if not support it. Don't blame me though if that user, and others like them, decide to leave the encyclopedia due to actions like these. I'll check in later to see if this truly is the admin's consensus on this issue.Doc Quintana (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To the IP: Here's your shortcut, so you won't have to repeat yourself all the time: WP:F*CKYOU. You're welcome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Counterproductive sockpuppetry charges: Time to re-examine these witch hunts

User Jayron32 recently filed yet another one of these sockpuppet applications that some Wikipedians tend to file from time to time at the sockpuppet-handling board. Are we yet tired of this? I currently edit at Squidoo as NYPress scholar, at Citizendium under a real name, and maintain several Misplaced Pages articles. The continued surveillance of obscure articles, such as "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" or "Oath Keepers", for the potential appearance of a sockpuppet has been a remarkably harmful cancer on the encyclopedia. There are those who write articles and there are those who lock others out. Sometimes users do need to be locked out, but mostly it's the kind of thing going on with the "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" article where a witch hunt-mentality persists to the detriment of the article when no controversial edits are in fact being made. It's time to make more liberal use of the WP:IAR policy that Larry Sanger once proposed. I see far too much power in the hands of people well-versed in policy and far too little power in the hands of those who do the bulk of the writing around here. Uncover a few more of my accounts and you will see what I mean. I'm all over the encyclopedia making edits, trying to stay as far away from those who see the encyclopedia solely through the lens of policy. Will some level-headed individual please stand up and change the balance of power? The Audacious Mr. Ox (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well considering that you are a subject of this SPI, I can see why you would say that. Unfortunately no, we aren't getting tired of SPIs because they help legitimiZe the site. You are also advocating for people that you aren't really a part of as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you know all of this when you've only been here ten days is also suspicious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is blocked for sockpuppetry. A better example of WP:PLAXICO I have not seen. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PLAXICO seems to have been deleted. Probably a good thing, since it was basically a massive BLP violation. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How so? Are you saying he didn't actually shoot himself in the leg? Regardless, an even better metaphor is Haman (Bible). Ain't no BLP there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit surprised too, but it was probably a good decision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted today, in fact! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to use PLAXICO, is there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks by User:Wiggalama

by Wiggalama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Skepticism, Talk:Skepticism, etc..

I'm copying this from Sandstein's talk page because he's apparently busy elsewhere.

A relative newbie insists on deleting properly sourced material over the objections of other editors because he believes it isn't "true". I have explained our verifiability policy and the need to discuss INSTEAD of edit warring, but he has deleted yet again. The discussion is here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Skepticism#False_claims

The editor's edit history (note the edit summaries):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Wiggalama

Their talk page history (they have a habit of deleting and ignoring warnings):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wiggalama&action=history

The history of the Skepticism article (note IP edits supporting Wiggalama's deletions):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Skepticism&action=history

I don't want to be accused (like last time) of edit warring by restoring the improperly deleted material. I don't want to get blocked and I feel paralyzed and unable to defend Misplaced Pages against policy violators. What to do? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiggalama is continuing to delete properly sourced content over the objections of other editors, and is now insulting other editors. Please do something. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

More insults and yet another deletion. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is NOT a content issue, but one of edit warring and personal attacks. The content issue could be discussed if it weren't for the continual edit warring being carried on at the same time, and the personal attacks. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In spite of being advised, the user continues to label everything as a minor edit. There doesn't seem to be a collaborative bone in their body. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's too bad, but in spite of previous blocks and repeated warnings, they don't seem to think this project is important enough to behave civilly and follow policy. Let's hope they learn from this. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Is it possible that there's a connection between User:Wiggalama and indef blocked Macheetah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Both favor editing Mauricio Rua and Lyoto Machida , and Wiggalama's account was created 18 days after Macheetah was blocked. Wiggalama's very first edit was to Talk:Lyoto Machida , in which they jumped right into the discussion without any newby hesitation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Blocked for "a fortnight"? How quaint. But not unreasonable; it's unlikely the topic is going to change much during that interval, and two weeks reading up on the alphabet soup couldn't hurt the editor. PhGustaf (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess it doesn't matter now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, it does matter. Block evasion should lead to an indef block for the Wiggalama sock account. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way -> Toddst1 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cpofpakistan (Communist Party of Pakistan)

Cpofpakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which purports to belong to the Communist Party of Pakistan, had been using their user page User:Cpofpakistan to advertise their political campaigns and upcoming party events. That page was speedily deleted and the account blocked for violating the username policy. However, blocks don't prevent an account from editing its own talk page, and now the user is posting their political advertisements to User talk:Cpofpakistan. Either the account needs to be blocked from editing its own user talk page, or else the user talk page needs to be deleted/blanked and protected. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been blanked; we'll give him one more chance to go away and then disable own talk page editing if it shows up again. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Er... Cpofpakistan? That's an indefinite block for sure. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the account is already blocked for violating the username policy, which prohibits usernames implying that the account is associated with or controlled by a particular group or organization. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could an uninvolved administrator please take some time and look thoroughly into this issue here?

This editor Zencv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has repeatedly added controversial material into the BLP article of Ayaan Hirsi Ali without providing any reliable verifiable sources. The controversial & contentious material is a link to the Islamophobia article within the 'See also' section of the BLP article, which implies that the subject of the BLP article is islamophobic, a person who hates, fears or dreads Islam.

Misplaced Pages's rules state:

• ...unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.
• Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed.
• Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research.

This unsourced material should be removed from the article. I have already been unrightly accused of edit warring, simply because I reverted the unsourced addition, and therefore I am bringing the matter to AiN and BLPN, so that others will get the chance to have their say on this issue.

I am not a content contributor to the BLP article in question. My main objective for this article is to fight off vandalism on that page and to revert the usual unsourced additions. Zencv is known for his anti-Ayaan Hirsi Ali position, he is a major content contributor to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, and has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on the Fitna Film article. Zencv's first edit on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article is from 23 February 2008, and in that edit he placed the "Islamophobia" link for the first time into the article. This unsourced addition was unchallenged, and remained there till September 2008. The controversial link was changed by User:Tomixdf on 16 September 2008, who wrote in his edit summary: Changed biased link to "Islamophobia" to the "criticism of islam/islamism".

Checking through the history of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article will reveal that Zencv has been a regular source of disruption on that article. When Zencv re-added the Islamophobia link to the article on 4 February 2010, I reverted his edit, stating WP:NPOV. He then reverted my revert. After this revert, I stopped editing and to avoid edit-war I brought the issue to both RfP and AiV. The issue was brought to RfP because Zencv is a content contributor to the said article, and has been involved in several mini-edit wars on the same article in the past. The issue was brought to AiV because Misplaced Pages rule states that ...adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism; although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive. Reinserting the unsourced controversial personal opinion (the Islamophobia link) into the BLP article is disruptive editing and thus vandalism. I thus waited for an hour without editing the article to allow the admins to take over the issue. When they finally replied, administrator Fastily declined my request on AiV, stating that "User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report once the user has been warned sufficiently". I asked Fastily on his talk page to explain what he meant by this, asking if this is edit war, he then replied: "You are never violating the three revert rule if you're reverting vandalism". Only after this go-ahead from the admin, after this green light, I proceeded to revert the revert of Zencv on 5 February 01:05 am (UTC).

Recap:

• 4 February 2010, 23:27 (UTC), User:Zencv added a controversial link into the 'See also' section of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article.
• 4 February 2010, 23:47 (UTC), I reverted the edit, citing WP:NPOV
• 4 February 2010, 23:51 (UTC) Zencv reverted my revert.
• 4 February 2010, 23:58 (UTC), issue reported to AiV
• 5 February 2010, 00:00 (UTC), request for page protection
• 5 February 2010, 00:56 (UTC), Administrator Fastily replied on AiV. On his talk page he gave me the go-ahead to revert the disruptive edits.
• 5 February 2010, 01:05 (UTC) I reverted the revert of Zencv
• 5 Februar 2010, 01:22 (UTC), Administrator Explicit replied on RfP, accusing me of edit war.
• 10 February 22:43 (UTC), Zencv reinserted the controversial link into the article, claiming "per talk page" in his edit summary.

On the article's talk page, a discussion was started by Zenvc after Admin Explicit issued out edit-war warnings. Incidentally, this discussion, trying to get consensus, is what Zencv ought to have done in the first place, before adding the contentious material. Approximately 4 (four) editors have participated in that discussion. Zencv and User:Strausszek wrote in favour of adding the Islamophobic link, User:ChildofMidnight and myself were against the addition. User:ChildofMidnight suggested including the word Islamophobia "in the article than as an external link". Both Childofmidnight and I requested for reliable sources for the link. Consensus was not reached, and the requested reliable evidence for Ayaan Hirsi Ali being islamophoc has not been provided, yet Zencv went ahead to reinsert the contentious link into the BLP article.

It appears as if Zencv has concluded within himself that he has the right to continue to add this unsourced and contentious material into the article, thus continuing his disruptive editing on that BLP article.

Summary:

The inclusion of the Islamophobia link strongly suggests that the subject of the BLP hates Islam, fears Islam and dreads Islam (according to Misplaced Pages's definition of Islamophobia). Without citing reliable and verifiable sources, such a controversial statement should not be included into this article. If there are reliable verifiable source that prove this, then the link should be included and noone will challenge the inclusion. Since the added material is unsourced, it must be removed.

Lastly, this issue leads to these questions: if editors are permitted to add controversial and contentious links into the 'See also' section of BLP articles, without providing reliable and verifiable sources, then how would Misplaced Pages admins react, if, for instance, an internal link to the LGBT article is being placed in the 'See also' or 'External Links' section of BLP articles of contemperary well known persons (e.g. celebrities, politicians, religious persons like Paul Crouch)? How would wikipedia administrators react if someone, without providing any reliable sources, placed a link to the Pederasty article into the 'See also' section of the Michael Jackson article? Amsaim (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - this is a clear violation of BLP guidelines. I will warn the editor who is adding it, and I have removed it from the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the above. "See also" entries that attach negative connotations to living people generally ought to be removed. An alternative would be to require a sourced descriptive explanation that makes it clear who is making the association (i.e. "Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim prejudice, of which Hirsii Ali has been accused by left-wing critics").  Skomorokh  14:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the second case you give as an example, that should be in the main article, and sourced. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would note this issue has been raised in Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and here. Please don't do that. If it's necessary to raise an issue in multiple boards, choose one as the place for primary discussion and just link to it. I have removed your post to WP:BLP/N and linked here instead. However you should only do this when there's a significant wikipedia wide issue which requires far ranging attention not for a single dispute like this anyway. It'll also usually be okay if you've received insufficient feedback and waited a resonable period of time (probably several days at least). On to the actual issue, I agree that the best way to handle this would be to integrate the Islamophobia into the article, as we did with Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive71#Ian Plimer in Heaven and Earth (book) for example. On the more general issue, I would caution against calling Zencv's edits vandalism. It comes across as a content dispute to me. However as it was likely he/she was violationing BLP, this is a far more serious thing then vandalism anyway (and reverting BLP violations also provides an exemption against 3RR). Fastily has a point that you are normally expected to warn people they are violating policy and may be blocked, admins are generally fairly reluctant to block without any warnings. However Zencv has posted WP:DTTR on his page in response to a few warnings so I think this can be taken as a sign further warnings are not necessary. Bear in mind that in normal circumstances, if there's two people arguing and one person arguing the other, it's unwise to consider the matter closed or go around edit warring to get your POV in the article. Seek wide feedback quickly. P.S. Since external links were raised even though this doesn't concern external links, we already have a section at WP:BLP#External links dealing with that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Snek01

This user has a large issue with a minor point of style, see . He reported the subject of his complaint (and myself) for edit warring (also make a sock accusation) , which was declined, and he was told to stop his reverts. He has also made a complaint further up this page . He continues to engage in edit warring, and misuse of edit summaries, despite being asked to stop . Attempts to communicate have resulted in a vandalism notice on my user page. Can stronger action be taken as his actions are clearly disruptive? Thedarxide (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to seek for editor assistance because all three participants have broken 3 revert rule already http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Norway_lobster&action=history . Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting full protection on Norway Lobster at the moment, as it seems like there's a dispute going on around here. If there are any more articles that we have to get concerned about tell me. Thanks. Minimac94 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I may bow to wisdom of those more experienced than I, doesn't the 3 revert rule not apply to vandalism, which Snek's edits now count as? I've followed the discussions - entertaining as they are - and I'm pretty sure Snek was asked to refrain from any more reversions until discussion and a resolution had been found. But hey - what do I know? a_man_alone (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective as an outside, un-involved editor, this essentially looks like a content dispute over the interpretation of the MOS when it comes to formatting references. In the past two days,

• Thedarxide (talk · contribs) - reverted the article five times, including use of TW in the dispute to label his opponent's edits as "vandalism"
• Snek01 (talk · contribs) - changed the article back to his or her preferred version six (or seven, depending on how you count) times
• Stemonitis (talk · contribs) - changed the article back three times

While I see that a request at WP:ANEW was declined yesterday , since the two primary parties have only escalated the conflict today, it looks to me like they both need blocked for edit warring. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the fact that I have "escalated" the conflict - Snek01 has been spoken to nicely, then told by an admin that his actions are to stop. Based on the fact that he has been told this, I have been reverting his changes. I believe the vandalism tag is justified Thedarxide (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Snek01 and Thedarxide both have 48 hours to think about the stupidity of a lame edit war. I also locked the article for 24 hours to prevent other proponants in the rever warring from benefiting from the forced absence of the other two participants. Spartaz 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That may help calm things temporarily. There's still the question of whether placing nbsp's before all ref tags is appropriate, and they'll still have to deal with that once the blocks expire. I personally don't think that's a content dispute. If an editor is going to try to do this across all articles he edits, he should be plainly told whether or not that's appropriate, otherwise this will end up back here at ANI. My personal thought is that it's not appropriate. I've never seen it in a guideline, policy, or in practice. Refs generally follow text directly with no spaces. Equazcion 14:55, 11 Feb 2010 (UTC)

IP Making Massive Changes to Various List Guidelines

174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) appears to be on a crusade to remove most list related pages from the Misplaced Pages scope and to completely change various guidelines. He has made massive changes to several Misplaced Pages changes that completely change their meaning without any discussion. I have reverted them, but he comes back and reverts, throws a note on the talk page (usually with a header of "Collectonian reverts") and demands they be discussed while his version stands. I am not the only one who has reverted him in the past, and for now I have restored the community consensus based versions (again), but I feel administration attention should be given to this particular editor due to his seeming campaign of attack with some talk page "discussions" he has also started arguing that all lists should be deleted. This does not seem the sort of attitude that one should have when supposedly trying to "improve" guidelines. The ones he has editted include:

• Misplaced Pages:When to use tables (changes made; he claims there is "consensus" but all the discussions were started by him and almost exclusively are him and his proposals clearly had no consensus at all - most editors were correcting his wrong claims - and pretty much all discussion after that one are his))
• Misplaced Pages:Lists (changes made)
• Misplaced Pages:Embedded list (changes made)
• Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists (changes made; on this one he filed an ER saying I was edit warring for not allowing his random changes to stand)

Here is the discussion he started at the same time he messed up all of those pages, stating that we should get rid of all lists (on-going link) and the second he started at WP:NOT. He randomly made a talk page that no one sees noting he is going to change how WTUT, despite its focus being....when to use tables, and his post here seems to make it clear he intended "to make changes" not just propose them which would explain why he doesn't care if he has no consensus for them. He has userfied his preferred versions of the pages above at User_talk:174.3.98.236/a and User_talk:174.3.98.236/b. At this point, other than continuing to edit war, I don't know that he's broken any rules specifically, but it all just smacks of single-minded, and inappropriate, attempts to change styles and guidelines against consensus and for no other reason than his own apparent misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages terminology and editing practices. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 3 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking editor Wiki Greek Basketball

Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Please can he be allowed back in from the cold? He apologises for the past disruption and hopes that as its been a month since he was blocked, he can be allowed back in line with some of the more lenient suggestions at the previous discussion. He is very keen to go back to writing articles. Except for that he didn't want to wait a further 2 months as I advised, he has volunteered for harsher restrictions than was suggested. WGB says if he is allowed back:

• He will consider himself perma banned from RfA , not only from applying to be an admin but even from voting.
• He is happy for you to ban him from ANI if you wish.
• He is happy to be mentored if felt appropriate.

Hopefully you guys will have clemency here. If things go well we get back a good mainspace contributor, if not there is little downside risk as it seems unlikely many will speak up for him and he can be re-blocked at the first offence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Resounding oppose—he needs to come back after a significant period of time, per Misplaced Pages:Standard offer. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - he was to be given the standard offer, and chose to create a sockpuppet instead (or is it his cousin?). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: they're still bombarding random admins with email pleas to be unblocked. They would appear to have been doing so constantly since they were blocked. Doesn't suggest to me that they've learned what the problem was in the first place. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hell no, and reset the clock on the standard offer. Tan | 39 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This isnt a vote gentlemen. Per WP:No consensus it only requires one fair and independently minded admin to unblock WGB and then we gain a constructive editor and send a positive signal about our considerate treatment of volunteers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. If any admin unblocks in the face of this much opposition, it's clearly very inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, you asked. We replied. Tan | 39 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, admins don't act by fiat. If there is consensus against an unblock then that admin should not go against that consensus. Chillum 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—there was a clear consensus last time (before he created a sock) that he should be given the standard offer. If we're going to have this whole palaver once a fortnight until six months away, it's counterproductive. Let's completely ignore any of his constant appeals until a significant piece of time has elapsed. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose:Just because he has whined and whined like a five year old, doesn't mean that we have to act like his mum. Also, he's managed to get himself blocked in three other places since we blocked him. Do we want him back? I think not.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• His email access was blocked, and yet he has still been emailing admins (presumably from previous correspondence or finding their emails on their userpages) asking for an unblock. So it doesn't appear that he is respecting the terms of his block, even as recent as today. –xeno 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose To soon, and not really showing any sign of "getting it". Chillum 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. WGB has caused problems and hasn't shown any sign that the lesson has yet been learned. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• opposse anyone who causes that much drama gets my standard response of the door, and as always I don't remotely support standard offer.--Crossmr (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is the kind of eDrama we didn't need then, and don't need to see a return of now. And the news that he has been given the boot at three other wiki-projects during his block here kinda seals the deal, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McQueen

Recently died, loads of IP vandalism . A case for page protection? Rapido (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be looking for WP:RFPP. Tan | 39 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)