Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:47, 14 February 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • 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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Admin taking it upon himself to veto IFD results and delete images himself

User:Wgfinley is going around making snap decisions on what constitutes fair use himself and removing and deleting images outright that he disagrees with, even ones that he unsuccessfully put through IFD and were kept because they did meet fair use guidelines. See User talk:Wgfinley for some discussion, where a number of users inclusing an admin on the IFD project all tried to talk to him without success. He is ingoring comments from people trying to explain the concept to him, treating anyone questioning his actions as "uncivil" behavior" and refusing to undo his deletions. Can we please get this person to stop playing cowboy and enforcing his own ideas of rules on the project?

Furthermore, we are seeing more and more cases where admins are just doing whatever the heck they want because they want to and not following any policy or listening to otehr editors or admins... It'd be nice if other admins and ArbCom members would actually stand up and show that this behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated. This is becoming more and more like the Wild West here, with people who are in the worst position to be making decisions going ahead and doing them and daring everyone else to do anything about it. DreamGuy 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately images can't be undeleted, which makes this sort of behaviour even more unacceptable. It certainly seems clear that Wgfinley has drifted into behaviour outside his remit as an admin. I've left him a message pointing this out, and asking him to put images through the appropriate channels in future. We're all human, and can all act over-hastily on occasion, but should try not to make a habit of it, as the discussions on his Talk page indicate that he is.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Given that the Foundation's lawyer has recently explicitly said that on en: admins should delete if in doubt (on foundation-l) — and that he refers you to what the Foundation's lawyer has said — I suspect it's possible he's right and you're not, and legal exposure is not really something that's up for a vote or straw poll. Don't let me hold you back, though - David Gerard 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Legaly any claim of fair use is in doubt until it has been through the courts. Since this is not the case with any wikipedia images we would have to delete every fair use image in order to follow that directive.Geni 19:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the discussion on User talk:Wgfinley referred to above, you will see examples such as AP photos being claimed "fair use" when the copyright holder has expressed actual pissed-offness about us claiming that, and that the Foundation would rather not do that unnecessarily. But again, don't let me talking about the case at hand hold you back from going from specific to general and back to a different specific as if it's related to what I said (strike undue snappiness) - David Gerard 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen every abuse of fair use you can think of. I know how bad things are. I was just pointing out the legal advice is pretty useless. Personaly I would have orphan the image (since it isn't fair use in this case). Re-educate anyone who objected and then wait for the normal deletion of orphan fairuse images to take place.Geni 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, sorry about me snapping at you like that - David Gerard 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Geni. Jtkiefer ---- 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Tempting as killing every fairuse image would be I can think of a few narrow areas in which they are legit.Geni 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

edit-conflict It looks like one of our articles about a porn star was using a DVD cover as an illustration of her, rather than to identify the film in question. We probably shouldn't do that. We certainly shouldn't vote on WP:IFD to allow that. As far as I can tell, the only interesting things here are why User:Wgfinley deleted this image and not the thousands of other images used in precisely the same wrong way, and why anyone is making a fuss about the deletion of an image of a DVD cover, which is surely replacable if we ever have a legitimate use of it. Jkelly 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also important to note that one set of complaints about the deletions is plainly inappropriate. This set of disputed deletions (example at Image_talk:Adele_Stevens.jpg) required the insertion of linkspam -- not simply a copyright credit -- as a condition for image use, and essentially required Misplaced Pages to accept advertising links. It's hard to see how any responsible editor would not have deleted all such images on sight, given the copyright holder's position. Monicasdude 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy that removal of fair-use images from articles where they're not used fairly is good parctice. I'm also happy that sometimes images are claimed to be fair use when they're not. I'm not happy about three points, though.

1. David Gerard seems to be saying that, because in some of the cases discussed on Wgfinley's Talk page he was in the right, therefore he's beyond criticism, full stop. That's such an obvious logical fallacy that I can't believe that he meant it, but I'm unsure what he did mean.
2. The existence of the image on Misplaced Pages can't be fair use or non-fair use in itself, because it's not being used. Fair use applies to the use being made of an image. If I up-load an image in preparation for genuinely fair use in an article, is Wgfinley entitled to leap in before I can go further and delete it on the grounds that it's not fair use yet, because it's not linked to an article?
3. Kim Bruning has followed my comment at User talk:Wgfinley by saying essentially that I'm wrong, and asking to talk privately about the matter because it's "political". OK, ignoring the last bit of characteristic ostentatious cloak and dagger stuff, his reason is that Misplaced Pages policy is: "if in doubt, zap it". Are we really supposed to accept that any admin can delete an image because of a feeling of doubt, even when a group of other editors have discussed the issue and decided that the image is OK? When did admins gain these god-like powers of discrimination, and why was I left out?

   I did not say that you were wrong. In fact, elsewhere I have been stating that I may well have to concede that you are correct. Kim Bruning 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Oh, a fourth point. We're supposed to put up with sarcastic attacks from one of the finger-waggers because we go against what some nameless faceless lawyer said on some forum of which many of us aren't members? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

not nameless, not faceless. --BradPatrick 12:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Use is a key part of fair use. You've got a week to get the image into an article (probably longer becuase it will take a while for people to find it).Geni 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine: we put a tag on the image, let the up-loader know, and after a week the image can be deleted if no objection is raised or consensus reached. We don't take a quick look and delete, especially after an IfD has been held and passed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wether or not an image listed as fair uses has been in an article for a week is an objective criteria. There are no posible objections that can be made.Geni 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we would get a lot further here if some of the inflammatory tones could be avoided, I won't cite chapter and verse, it's pretty obvious and there's major contributor on my user page already. I have explanations on what I did on each of these pages. Why did I delete them out of process? Because the process is broke. IFD is a broken, it's a cesspool of stuff that sits there and gets deleted. If someone has a gripe about their image they post it there and their image is spared because the vast majority of images on IFD have little or no input. That's not a good sign of community support, it's a sign of indifference.

Frankly, I don't know why copyvio isn't a speedy category and it should be. But, I'll admit it, I saw the email on Foundation and I chose to make a stand with those images -- two were as blatant copyvios as they come, had no fair use rationale provided, were link spam and incorrectly tagged several time before Fair Use was the fallback option. The other I was making a point that these images are frequently being abused and, as frequently happens, someone goes to fix the abuse only to get reverted. I removed the image being abused.

The two other images, again, blatant obvious copyvios and should be framed as examples of such -- I have yet to hear any argument here that states these images are not copyvios, just that what I did was out of process. So, what's more important, the process or the fact that copyvios get removed and protect Misplaced Pages from exposure to litigation? If the answer is that avoiding litigation is more important than great, let's do something about fixing the process. I don't wish to set a precedent that any admin can delete such images on site (although I think two of these are incredibly obvious), I was trying to correct something that's broken. --Wgfinley 08:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't like IFD? That ok we have WP:CP instead. Want to speedy copvios? You can CSD A8.Geni 16:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I considered that but since A8 applies to articles I didn't think that would work. The problem with WP:CP is that there's not much image traffic there, everything seems to go to IFD. Maybe that's a correction that would work here but the page is usually in need of admin attention. If you look at the very top of WP:CP right now you'll see what drew my attention to this in the first place. --Wgfinley 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then start putting together a consensus for A8 to be expanded beyond the article space. WP:CP deals with images quite frequently.Geni 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer?

I wonder if it would be helpful to prominently place a disclaimer like the following:

If your contribution to Misplaced Pages is material under a non-free license, and you claim that it is "fair use", please accept that it may be removed or even permanently deleted at any time for reasons that may appear capricious or nonsensical to you, and that you may never receive a compelling explanation.

If we are really moving to a "If in doubt, delete" position on copyright infringements defended by a "fair use" claim, we can't rely either upon a somewhat difficult-to-parse remark on a mailing list very few editors read, nor upon WP:OWN, nor upon the diplomatic or consensus-building skills of those people who are volunteering to deal with image policy, nor upon every logged-in user understanding WP:FU. This issue has been generating an enormous amount of ill-will. We should invest the time in thinking about a way to reduce the level of antagonism. Jkelly 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a warning sounds good to me. It might stem the flood of non-free images. --Carnildo 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would generally be in favour of a warning something like that. I think that the problem is that a lot of users don't really understand copyright law. Even experienced users don't always know when something is fair use (fair use is a very tricky concept) or in the public domain. A lot of users don't really understand that Misplaced Pages is a free encyclopedia, and that copyvios are a major risk to that idea. I think that we definitely need to emphasise more the importance of copyright compliance to the project. JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating CSD

I have been bold and updated CSD I5 to reflect the new policies that the Foundation apparently wants. I know David Gerard thinks that process killed his puppy dog, but maybe next time he could take the 3 minutes it takes him to think up witty barbs of well-meaning editors and admins and update the policy or talk pages, instead. Nandesuka 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories for Speedy Deletion overrides all else again eh? specifically Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems, and Misplaced Pages:Fair use today, I see :-)

This is in fact the official CSD "owners'" position, see: , where the explicit statement was removed as rejected.

Ah well, good luck getting it to stick by the way. I hope it works, because that will save me some sleepless nights. Thanks. :-) Kim Bruning 13:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled it. The current version is fine since all it requires you to do is orphan the image then wait for a week. Patience is an important traint in an admin. Even in it's current version it is still far more liberal than A8.Geni 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to wait for a week to delete copyvios. --Ryan Delaney 16:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, policies describe what it is that we do. It is clear that there is a Foundation mandate to delete images for which bogus fair use claims are made. Given that, it should be in the policy. Nandesuka 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the number of mistakes that have been made (will people please remeber that mirrors exist) I think it is reasonable to have to wait a week. Remeber A8 exists for obvious cases.Geni 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Having trouble blocking a user?

I don't know why this is, but there is a vandal who I have attempted to block completely, yet they seem to still be able to edit quite often. If you look at User talk:Odin of Valhalla, it lists all of the IPs this user uses, all of which have indefinite blocks on them at this point. And yet, even today the user seems to have been able to go through and vandalize the same page again (they insist on inserting erroneous and out of date information into List of countries with nuclear weapons, despite having been talked to about this for a number of weeks now and given about a thousand warnings). What gives? Am I doing something wrong here with the blocking? Why are they are able to still edit pages? --Fastfission 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Specifically, 69.218.202.201 (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked indefinitely on 9 Feb 2006 but was able to vandalize up a storm on 10 Feb 2006. --Fastfission 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  The shortest active block takes precedence and overrides all longer ones. (You also should almost never indef block an IP: knock them out for 1 month, 3 months or something, but not forever.) -Splash 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You should really only block an IP for 24 hours. Secretlondon 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's an open proxy, of course, which can be blocked indefinitely. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've converted most of those IP blocks to a month, I hadn't realized that they shouldn't be blocked indef but I can see why. So, is the answer here to my general question: I should "unblock" the other blocks and then "re-block" with the one I really want? --Fastfission 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't block a range of IP addresses for a month as per policy because of the collateral damage. 24 hours please. Secretlondon 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't a range, it is a set of a few addresses this one fellow seems to use, and nobody else seems to use. Two of them in particular seem to be his primary IP and it seems relatively fixed (at least one is a public terminal at a library, a few of the others are probably things of this nature). The fellow returns every day to vandalize and does little else, and I think the IPs that look static could easily be justified as blocked for over 24 hours, though I'm happy with reducing the blocks in the other cases (though again without any evidence of collateral damage I'm hard pressed to see it as a bigger problem than a repeat vandalizer, but I digress). In any event, my main question is still unanswered about the technical nature of it, not the policy of it. --Fastfission 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy on IP blocks is clear - I am really politely asking you to stick to it - or I will have no choice to revert you. Secretlondon 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • There are always choices. kmccoy (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the tech aspect in this instance either: there was an expired (24 hr) block from 4 Feb, then several indef/1 month blocks on 10/11 Feb starting at 01:20 on 10 Feb. No unblocking or shorter blocks logged until 19:10 on 11 Feb, yet a bunch of contributions from the IP in the intervening period. What gives? Rd232 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Forking Underway

Not sure where to broach this issue. If this isn't the correct place, please let me know.

The naked short selling page was semi-protected after vandalism. Users were requested to go to the talk page before making any changes.

Recently, a disgruntled user and others have engaged in POV Forking by creating an article entitled Failure to Deliver Stock. This article has not yet been Wikified, but can be located, via external link, here. One of the principal authors of this article is User:Bobobrien, who is Bob O'Brien, head of the coalition against naked short selling (NCANS).

This article combs out one aspect of the naked shorting controversy and builds an entire article around it. Most of this article is a discussion of naked short-selling from the point of view of the anti-shorting camp. It is a textbook case of POV Forking, if ever there was one. --Mantanmoreland 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention fairly horrendously written. What is all that Pro, Con clutter? If this is not a POV fork it is at least a mangled article. One puppy's opinion. Nom it for deletion, POV fork. KillerChihuahua 22:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's because this is essentially a duplicate naked short selling page, substituting "FTD" for "naked short selling" and skewing the whole thing from an anti-shorting perspective.

I think this is such an egregious copycat that it might be a candidate for speedy deletion. However, since it has not been wikified, it has no internal link and I am not sure the mechanics of proposing for either type of deletion.--Mantanmoreland 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

List on Afd, stating that it is a POV fork of naked short selling. Btw, the NSS article is better, but the FTD title is better, IMHO. KillerChihuahua 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Muhamed (All contribs)

Can someone please process/sort this rather problematic user. --Cool Cat 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's report

1. Category:Kurdistan tagging.
   • Problematic edit summaries and edits (appears numerous times): "Removing Pro Türkish-Mongolian propaganda" while adding Category:Kurdistan at random articles.
   • The only "real" response I got to my inqueries regarding the mass taging of articles was "Bozmongols do not have in Wikipedi to searches!!!! I mean you". I am not sure what that supposed to mean, I do not think it was intended to enligten me.
   • My attempts to comunicate with him ultimately resulted with: "ach siktir Lan" . As my language skills in Turkish are less than perfect, I asked the meaning of "ach siktir Lan". I am told "siktir Lan" translates to "Fuck off" in Turkish although people are puzzled on the meaning of "ach".
2. User uploaded Image:IraqiKurdistan DeFacto.jpg with randomly drawn borders with random red markings also supposively locates him. (I seriously doubt image is GNU compatible).
   • Also modified Iraqi Kurdistan including his image over the rather standard wikipedia one.
   • This is the same image as de:Bild:Die derzeitige Demarkationslinie Kurdische Autonome Region.jpg, which has more details on copyright status. The GFDL claim may well be valid. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
     • The de one was probably uploaded by the same user, though. So it doesn't really answer anything except that he/she probably speaks German. --Fastfission 02:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
       • Well, the German image description says it was created using public domain map sources. See the links in the license box. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
3. My RFA (Trolling?)
   • Voted oppose (which alone is fine as everyone entitled to their opinion) with "I please you Pleas, Cool Cat is an Turkish Nationalis is not got Administrator"
   • And the posted a simmilar "comment" on following pages: Misplaced Pages talk:Esperanza , User talk:Aranda56 , User talk:Dynamo ace
   • German User talk:Banes , User talk:Dmn
4. User:MARMOT?
   • Conviniant apperance of MARMOT sockpuppet (User:Austim boy ) implies user may be a MARMOT sock... However my checkuser request has so far been unanswred and hence this is mere speculation at this stage.

   --Cool Cat 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is presumable the same user as de:Benutzer:Muhamed, who seems to be a perfectly legitimate contributor on the German Misplaced Pages. Their English doesn't seem too good, which may partially explain the communication difficulties here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What leads you to conclude that they're the same user, may I ask? 86.133.53.58 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that a) they have the same username, b) they edit similar articles, c) they have uploaded the same images, d) they have similar user pages, e) they both claim to be Kurdish, and e) they both write fluent German (and not so fluent English). Either they're the same user, or the one here is a very good imposter. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Skull 'n' Femurs sockpuppeting again

Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs) is at it again, this time as Darth Dalek (talk · contribs). I blocked him for 72 hours this time and left a "Stop it." message on his talk page. Here's to better behaviour in future - David Gerard 23:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3O dispute

I've recently been cleaning out the backlog at WP:3O. It finally got cleared a couple days ago. I noticed a new entry in there today, gave my 3rd Opinion and deleted it from the log, clearing the list. One of the two users did not agree with my intervention, saying that I was not neutral, as I had been in a dispute with that user before, and called them a vandal. The user reverted my deletion of the listing on WP:3O, and disputed my actual opinion that I gave. As I'm now a party to the dispute, there are now more than precisely two people involved, and thus the listing does not meet the guidelines for listing on WP:3O: specifically

"This page is meant only for disagreements involving precisely two people. If more are involved, try convincing—or coming to a compromise with—the other people. If that fails, try other Misplaced Pages dispute-solving procedures."

and

"If a third opinion has been provided in a disagreement, please remove it from the list below (regardless of whether you listed it in the first place). If you provide a third opinion in any disagreement below, please remove it from the list."

I cannot continue removing the listing without violating the 3 revert rule. Furthermore, I'm very upset with this users conduct. I was trying to help out, and I was treated with bad faith, and personally attacked. My wikistress level is very high right now from all this. I'm requesting that an adminstrator delete the listing at WP:3O, and furthermore come in as a mediator over the actual dispute on the page itself (Talk:Crime against humanity.) ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is the first time I have ever heard of WP:3O. --Golbez 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I found out about it by accident while looking through the backlog template. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 03:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I thought it was some sort of oblique reference to C-3PO. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:PistolPower

Abusive taunts on several talk pages including mine. Wyss 02:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And mine, and User talk:Ashibaka's too. AnAn 03:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

and, the worst one of all (which I deleted), . There are many more. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They're all vios, but that last one is... way beyond any open-minded stretch of acceptability. Wyss 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours for his absolutely blatant incivility. Jtkiefer ---- 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As per a request from another editor who has been helping PistolPower I have reduced the block to 31 hours. Jtkiefer ---- 07:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kengineer (talk • contribs)

As I recall from a few incidents during hurricane katrina, wikipedia *might* have a block-on-sight policy for blantent white supremacists, somebody look into this--152.163.100.65 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a block on sight semi-policy for vandals who vandalize high-traffic pages with racist crap; being a white supremacist (if he is) is not in itself a blockable offense. Any more than being a pedophile is. *chuckle* --Golbez 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is that funny?--152.163.100.65 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, a recent wheel war over some templates. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. (I actually think someone should create Misplaced Pages:Lamest wheel wars ever to discuss this and other admin-level conflicts. --Blu Aardvark | 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Request Urgent Help

Note: This post was archived a few hours after it was posted on Feb 11. I have just now copied and pasted it here, complete with the original date and time stamp. The other posts in Archive 72 have no activity since Feb. 4 or 5. Is this the way archiving works? S Scott 08:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

User 209.215.39.5 has this page attacking the Shiloh Shepherd ] and now attacking on the actually Shiloh Shepherd talk pages. This user is also known as Wolfin_42 ] ] (also signed post as Lisa Trendler) posted a message on Shiloh Shepherd Dog Talk Page ] revealing personal information of other editors and numerous personal attacks on them. While it is understood that this editor has a personal vendetta, it is felt that the revert by Dixen is a different matter.

Edit was rv’d by ShenandoahShilohs for violation of Wiki WP:PA and WP:Harrassment policy.

Post was rv’d back by editor Dixen with comment “too late to get self-righteous now”.

Dixen has never previously posted on Shiloh Shepherd talk page/article. I checked Dixen’s other contrbs and found the majority have been made to article “Joomla” ]]] .

Found administrator Jareth to be common and frequent mediator/administrator/contributor for both Joomla and Shiloh Shepherd and to have previously communicated with Dixen.

Please note: And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page or heck, poke me and I'll answer. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC ]

Please note: "re:Hey" on Jareth's talk page: Jareth: "One of my major mediation feats was completely behind the scenes - when Joomla! split off of Mambo, someone thought Misplaced Pages needed an entry on the new CMS. I did a lot of coaching..." ]

Please see: Jareth's Request for Admin: ] "One of my favorite mediation feats actually occurred entirely off-wiki -- the community supporting the Joomla! fork of Mambo wrote a page, which was afd'd shortly thereafter for its ad-like quality."

Please note, Admin Jareth recently resigned as mediator on Shiloh article, due to conflicts/controversy with other Shiloh editors, and is involved in RFA against them. ] We find this coincidence, extremely concerning.

Please consider block/ban of users 209.215.39.5(aka Wolfin42). Please perform check user for http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dixen and http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jareth. Please monitor Shiloh Shepherd Dog article/talk page for further WP:PA, WP:Harrassment, and and hostile reverts. Please take any/all other necessary actions as warranted.

Thank you. |||Miles.D.|||

Jareth has now posted to my talk page MilesD. that this Admin Incident Board request for a user:check of Jareth and Dixen is "For the record, you're accusing my husband and I of being sockpuppets -- if you'd like, I can provide my phone number so you can personally verify." In referring to what she has written, I am assuming she is revealing "Dixen" to be her husband's Wiki account, since we had no idea who "Dixen" might be when we filed this Incident report. If this is the case and her husband's account (Dixen) was used to revert back a post with edit summary "too late to get self-righteous now", which contains numerous PAs and the revealing of Personal Info about an editor, this is really troubling. Also, the fact that this request was "archived" within hours of it being posted and before other admins had a chance to review or comment about it, is also troubling. Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| 15:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I smell sockpuppetry afoot; other admins, beware. MilesD originally added this comment, but it was edited wantonly by ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs) (, , ). Then after Crypticbot (talk · contribs) archived the page, it was S Scott (talk · contribs) who restored this message. () I smell a rat. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am hardly a sockpuppet. MilesD asked me to help fix the internal links as the way it was done were not working. While doing so, I was asked to clarify some wording. I am an interested and concerned party in this notice as the post that was written by User 209.215.39.5, and then revert back by Dixen revealed personal information about me. ShenandoahShilohs 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but you really should clarify this. It's not good to edit others' comments without explaining why. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and will be more careful.ShenandoahShilohs 16:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk, would it be possible then for you and other admins to look into our request for assistance with this situation we have brought to this incident board? Perhaps you may find some other reasons to "smell a rat". Further investigation on your part would be most appreciated. Thanx much. |||Miles.D.||| 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any wrong-doing; partners in relationships often have vast differences in behaviour (compare arbitrator Mindspillage (talk · contribs) and her partner, Gmaxwell (talk · contribs)). It wouldn't be surprising if Dixen was in the wrong and Jareth had nothing to do with his actions. Your initial post is also lacking a lot of context, which makes it very difficult to probe. Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The questions don't involve "partners" opinions. The questions involve 1) a user "209.215.39.5", who posted the personal info about another user (definite evidence of Wiki wrong-doing), which has never been revealed by that targeted user on Wiki nor on his/her kennel website. 2)After removal, this post was rv'd in its entirety (including personal info) by a user (Dixen) who has never posted to this talk page/article before. This editor's (Dixen's) only "tie" to this talk page/article is then revealed by the very administrator (Jareth), who is heavily and controversially involved in this talk page/article, and is the initiator of an RFA against other editors (including one whose personal info was revealed in the post), as being her "husband". 3)then, when removed again for violation of WP:Harrassment, that administrator (Jareth) refactors it, claiming no personal info was included and no personal attacks against editors are included. Please review:

So, a post involving and revealing PA's/Personal Info about editors is rv'd/refactored twice, once by an editor (Dixen), who has never in any way posted/contributed before to this talk page/article and who Jareth has now identified as her "husband" and then once by an administrator (Jareth) who is pursuing an RFA she has filed against some of the very editors targeted by this post. It should also be noted that it appears the original poster 209.215.39.5 was neither warned nor blocked by admin Jareth for this post and the serious Wiki violation it committed with its WP:PA/WP:Harrassment content and this personal information is still visible for everyone to read in history.

If you see no potential problems or violations here, I respect your opinion, but I do not agree. Thanx much. |||Miles.D.||| 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, either. My contributions indicate my participation in the Shiloh Shepherd discussion since late Dec., '05. My apologies for the confusion. It's confusing to us, too. MilesD. was puzzled about why their message disappeared from this page only a few hours after it was posted. I found it in the most recent archive and put it back on this page, since this is an urgent matter, and Administrators had so little time to respond before it was archived. Regards, S Scott 16:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

The participants in this dispute seem to be all involved in sustained disputes regarding the breeding and marketing of Shiloh Shepherds. They know each other by name already. Use of first names on the talk page of the article is of minimal significance. When and if the Arbitration Commitee hears this case I will almost certainly advocate that no one involved in the current controversy over the breeding and selling of Shiloh Shepards should be allowed to edit the article. Your quarrels belong elsewhere, not here, Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground Fred Bauder 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Background information

I have every reason to believe that MilesD., S Scott, and ShenandoahShilohs are not sockpuppets. They have three very different email addresses. They are not meatpuppets either. Meatpuppets are new editors who are asked to be involved in a dispute to provide a false consensus. These have all been ongoing editors of the article in dispute. The ArbCom has accepted this case. Robert McClenon 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Clients: Please do not quarrel here while keeping me out of the loop. You asked me to advocate for you before the ArbCom. I am trying to do that. If you must request emergency action, the ArbCom can issue temporary injunctions. It is disruptive to be arguing the same behavior both here and in arbitration. Robert McClenon 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

There seems to have been lots of editing lately on his article, with entire sections having been taken out, and redone, possibly from copyvio content, or something. It seems like there's been lots of unsupervised editing lately, but I don't know enough about him to really tell if the edits in the past ~5-10 days seem legitimate. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Designatedhitter

I would like all of his contributions to be deleted, as they involve slandering me. I've blocked him indefinitley (sp?), but I would not like the contributions there. Sceptre 10:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean removing them from the history, there's no reason to do that. It's just slander. Now, if it were personal information, then that would be a case, but just blank/delete them and move on. --Golbez 11:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo has made it pretty clear that it's preferable to delete libelous material from page histories, particularly if the aggrieved party wishes it to be done. · Katefan0/poll 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... after looking at the contribs, it seems more like juvenile vandalism than anything else. · Katefan0/poll 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. Admins needs to simply ignote this kind of sillyness. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Libel makes it quite clear: It is Misplaced Pages policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history. However, I haven't read the contributions to see if they actually are slanderous. --Aaron 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked the contributions, all two of them. There is neither libel nor slander involved. One is childish vandalism on the George P. Bush page, the other is mildly insulting on Sceptre's user page. No need to act, in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz 16:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with no need to act - also should not have been given indefinite ban - with 2 contributions probably shouldn't even have been given 24 hours. Secretlondon 17:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, a permanent block was quite an overreaction. I would expect admins to be mature enough to being insulted by trolls without getting bent out of shape about it. Friday (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I deleted his/her user page, so some of the edits are not visible. BrokenSegue 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any further action needs to be taken, but I do agree with the indefinite ban: seeing the user page that was deleted (I initially just blanked it, but I fully support its deletion), there was no possible way to assume good faith, it was a whole lot less 'mildly insulting' than the rest of those contributions. --JoanneB 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:My Cat Made Me Do It

I indefinitely blocked My_Cat_Made_Me_Do_It (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being a vandalism-only account (both the account name and the first edit are references to a recent slashdot article). Since it's a rather strong block for someone with a single warning, I would like for other admins to take a look. --cesarb 16:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero non-vandalizing contributions; mostly inserting goatse links. If they want to reform, it would reasonably seem to be to their benefit to do it under another name anyway. Shouldn't you say something on their talk page about the block, though? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if their cat made them get blocked as well. Jtkiefer ---- 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Jskinner003 and James Skinner

User:Jskinner003 is adding himself to the above article (about a military figure), also added his website to David Davies (politician), David Davis, Monmouth School, Conservatism, David Cameron and Conservative Party (UK). Reverted all on first occurance, however user continues to add himself to James Skinner, I'm a bit unsure of the situation and concerned about 3RR. It seems that contributions by User:86.128.119.112, User:86.128.114.210 and User:86.128.175.213 are the same individual. I'm quite happy to continue dealing myself but would appreciate some guidance. Many thanks Ian3055 20:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this is quite amusing. I also attend Monmouth School. Point him my way if you want to. I have just removed him from James Skinner. Sam Korn 21:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Request to block User:209.215.39.5

Can someone please block 209.215.39.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It has been previously warned for vandalism, and more recently posted a personal attack. This is related to the Shiloh Shepherd Dog dispute, which is an ArbCom case, but this address appears to have made no good-faith edits. Robert McClenon 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert, without an ongoing vandalism issue (i.e. continuous vandalism), blocking this IP probably wouldn't be a good idea, since it resolves to BellSouth and is likely dynamic. · Katefan0/poll 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking for opinion on my block

I was blocked a few days ago for 3RR violation. The admin who blocked me was directly involved in the disagreement. I was removing a statement that I believed to be a personal attack. --It was a comment about how certain groups of people would have trouble getting into heaven.

If you have time to look into this, I would be grateful.

• Block log:
• Article history:
• My talk page: Block Comments

Thanks,--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to look into the situation. I see that you were removing another person's comments from a talk page. You violated the 3RR. An admin came along and restored the comments of another user that you removed - this does not make him involved in the disagreement. I agree with the admin's actions and would have also applied a block in the circumstances. My advice to you is to learn from the situation and never break the 3RR again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That is rather harsh. I want to know if that comment was a personal attack, and if so, if I was right in removing it. Also, I have heard many times from administrators that reverting in a revert war you are mediating constitutes being involved! How can I "learn from the situation" when I still have questions? I don't appreciate being treated like dirt... I don't want to know how wrong, I was, I need to know why you "agree with the admins actions." Please don't lash out at me. --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The comment was far from a personal attack, and you shouldn't be going around removing other peoples' comments anyway. Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks is an extremely disputed guideline, only generally acceptable in the most egregious of circumstances (one in which there would be no doubt about whether something was or was not a "personal attack.") · Katefan0/poll 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry if I came across harsh. Sometimes my straight talking comes across more abruptly than i intend it too. Please beleive me - I was not lashing out.

I agree with the admin because removing other's comments is always considered controversial. That's not to say that you should never do it. I've done it myself many times. However you should do it very carefully. Revert warring over removing someone elses comments is very dodgy. Revert warring with an admin as well as the person who wrote the comments is disruptive. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are free from the block now, so that's good. I don't think she means that as an attack; it's just rather impersonal because she may answer a lot of such questions. I'm sorry you feel hurt by the situation, but try to learn and let go of it. If someone is there strictly to mediate, they are not really involved. I have to admit I haven't read it all. But just shrug it off, and know that you've likely learned things here that will make you stronger and more prepared when you meet such situations in the future. Good luck. --DanielCD 00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be disruptive. Thank you for your comments--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names

My first rouge action. I've deleted the redirect despite it not being a speedy deletion candidate. I've also (slightly more provocativly) protected it against recreation

• First AfD
• Deletion review
• Second pseudo-afd

Verifiability and neutral point of view are not negotiable, and the article exists in a location where it can happily stay until these problems are corrected. Cross-namespace redirects are allowed if they are "useful" and this one is not.

brenneman 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to mention that the outcome of the deletion review (c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and 14 for endorse) was noted at User_talk:R._fiend#Deletion_review and not contested by User:R. fiend, prior to the relisting as per Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed. -- User:Docu

Please put this up for deletion at MfD, rather than speedying it. I had restored the redirect after finding two different users who had been searching for its current location (after seeing the AfD result) but hadn't found it. Usefulness includes having existing external links to the page, which this years-old list certainly has. Verifying or neutralizing statements about what is or is not unusual or list-worth is a recurring problem, and not a reason to move article content into another namespace; that's not what namespaces are for. +sj + 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

They'll just have to get used to the new URL. Jeez, typing 11 more characters is hardly going to kill anyone. FCYTravis 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

*cackles maniacally at Brenneman's journey to the dark side*--Sean Black 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOIOUPN anyone?Geni 10:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Analogdemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users have added clearly inappropriate content to their user pages in imitation of SPUI (talk · contribs). It is clear that as a project we aren't going to permit this sort of material on user pages; c.f. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war. I have removed the material in question and left notes on talk pages and have been reverted and accused of vandalism in both cases. I believe at a minimum these user pages should be protected but would support additional measures as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. If we ignore them they will get board.Geni 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an upside to escalating this. Actioning their userpages only draws further attention and perpetuates this cycle. I'm pretty sure that, if left alone, it'd dissipate. User:Adrian/zap2.js 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Threats from Amorrow/Emact/Fplay/whatever name he's using now

, . User:Zoe| 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Contributor on Irritable Bowel Syndrome article that is using personal attacks and threats

We need some help in dealing with a a new contributor on the Irritable bowel syndrome article. I have been called a nazi, having bias and being a vandal because their contribution was reverted even though I explained why the insertion was being reverted in the edit note. There was some discussion about this, much of it pure fabrication in the character assassination of myself, and now they have added threats to not revert their addition to the article or else. Can you please assist in how to deal with this. Ibsgroup 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of known sockpuppet User:Brian Brockmeyer

User:Brian Brockmeyer, User:Flavius Aetius and two IPs were checkuser'ed as sockpuppets of User:Almeidaisgod; all accounts have been used to POV push/edit war and evade 3RR's on similar articles (Ken Mehlman and University of Miami in particular). checkuser After noticing that User:Brian Brockmeyer had begun removing the sockpuppet notices on his userpage (aided by User:Juicedpalmeiro, who perhaps needs to be checkuser'ed as well), I added the sock tags back and asked him not to remove them unless he wants to use that account permanently and ditch the others. The response was: JuicedPalmeiro again removed the tags (replacing them with a barnstar) and Brian Brockmeyer left a message on my talk page calling me a cunt. His userpage is now protected with the sock tags intact, and I have blocked the Brian Brockmeyer account for a week for edit warring to scrub the sock tags and for his unsavory comment about me. I leave this here for other administrators to review, since the attack was made against me. · Katefan0/poll 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lopperz

I blocked Lopperz (talk · contribs) because of edits to the now-deleted "article" U suck, which read:

I will keep writing nonsense, if u want wikipedia to be saved then maybe u should stop the war in iraq.

u have 48 hours to decide, the fate of wikipedia rests wit u guys now

hahahahahahahhahahah...ahahhahahha....ahahahhah.hahah.ehh, not funny

Via email, Lopperz claims that his/her account was hacked and they have now changed the password. I have unblocked the account. Please keep an eye out. User:Zoe| 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Brainhell unblocked

I have unblocked Brainhell (talk · contribs), upon request received via info-en. A review of the circumstances of the block, conducted by myself and Antandrus could find no reason for Lucky 6.9's original accusations of personal attack, and the response by Lucky 6.9, including three blocks of Brainhell appears to me to have been disproportionate, if not wholly unjustified. The parties are being notified. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

false vandalism charges

I have been blocked for apparent repeated vandalism, but I have never vandalized a page. How does something like this happen? What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cave troll (talk • contribs)

There's nothing in the block log for you, so you do not appear to be blocked--and if you are able to post here, you can't be blocked. What exactly is the problem? Antandrus (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was probably an autoblock or a rolling IP block; those often prevent editors from editing the main article namespace while allowing them to edit the other namespaces. As to why, I have no clue, but I've seen it happen enough to think of it first when I see something like this. Essjay 10:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tactik and Tactik's IP erasing comments

As evidenced below, Tactik and his IP have been erasing my comments on pages, and in some cases creatively editing other user's comments to be less critical. Also, User:Muzboz User:Tobler1 and User:Andy hoffman have all been recently created and their only edits have been to vote in a poll in support of tactik, a poll in which Tactik himself has openly voted twice (once with registered, and once with IP). Clearly these are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

User:Tactik Erasing my comments: Tactic's IP erasing my comment at the bottom (as part of "cleaning up"):

Knowledge management

Dmezei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that removing citations to his own publications means that we can no longer use "his" text in this article. He tells me that if I try to use "his" text, I will be blocked for violating his copyright. Knowing how seriously we take copyright, I think you'd better know about it. And you might want to check whether his edits constitute vandalism, and whether he's violated WP:3RR. Just zis  Guy, you know? / 18:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

< defuse defuse defuse > I would like to try and calm Dmezei down a bit, and would like to take a long look at the edits and references now deleted. I have some moderate familiarity with KM. Though I don't think you're in the wrong, JzG, it might help if you left him alone for a bit while I take a look. < / defuse defuse defuse > Georgewilliamherbert 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential Troll

I just recently removed a slanderous comment from an article talkpage , and I am bothered by this user's comments on his user and talkpage as well. However, I decided to assume good faith and leave a welcome and small warning regarding this; I'm requesting an administator keep an eye on his contributions and dealings with wikipedia just to be on the safe side. -Zero 18:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hrm... looking at his user page gives that impression too. Your warning was tactful: nice work. Anyway, I'll be happy to do my part keeping my eyes on him. Thanks for the heads up. – ClockworkSoul 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • He seems to have not-so-fuzzy-feelings towards User:MegamanZero. Perhaps he is yet another "Wikiterrorist" incarnation? – ClockworkSoul 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kikodawgzz

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

This user has recently uploaded a number of images that have been "gleaned" from various USENET postings. Because these sort of postings have absolutely have no copyright information whatsoever, I am seriously considering speedy deleting them as blatant copyvios. Comments? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, unknown copyright is not any different from copyrighted. – ClockworkSoul 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The other problem is that this user has been removing a few "no source" tags on images that (s)he has uploaded without giving any reason . Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I notice that he has also been adding source tags to images that he doesn't have the right to add them to (GNU tags, for example, to images that he claims to have taken from some USENET post). He needs to be warned sternly but fairly that this is inappropriate. If he does not or cannot shape up, a block is in order. Can somebody with a more thorough understanding of our IP policies than I do it? – ClockworkSoul 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • He's been blanking his talk page of warnings about the images. I support speedy deleting them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• "You may fire when ready, Gridley." --Carnildo 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images have been added to Kingstonjr (talk · contribs)'s non-worksafe gallery at User:Kingstonjr. Jkelly 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

KAJ/Johnski

I blocked KAJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock/meatpuppet of Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has emailed me a couple of times asking me to reconsider. I mention it here so someone can review my decision if they want to. Tom Harrison 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Goatse vandal

A vandal has been creating new accounts rapidly and changing links to goatse.ca, as well as other vandalism. He has edited many warning/welcome/etc templates. He uses deceptive edit summaries like "rv vandalism" (while adding vandalism). IMO any account with this pattern should be blocked indefinitely on sight. Quarl 2006-02-14 00:13Z

• Indeed it should, if it appears that it was created for the sole reason of vandalizing. – ClockworkSoul 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

• User:Hall Monitor has taken it upon himself to undelete Brian Peppers despite the fact that a deletion review found no grounds to do so, and in fact was closed with a decision to delete and salt the earth. This repeated undeletion is simply designed to vote over and over and over and over again until someone gets the result they want, which is patently a manipulation of policy and an abuse of process. FCYTravis 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  On the contrary, there was no consensus to delete this article (which was speedy deleted outside the bounds of process). In light of recent discoveries, namely that there are a group of rogue individuals who are misrepresenting themselves as members of the Peppers family and trying to poison information related to him on the internet, I felt bound to bring this to WP:AFD in an attempt to achieve consensus. We do not delete articles when there is no consensus, not the other way around, please let this sixth nomination take its course. Best regards, Hall Monitor 01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  In the interest of transparency, the renomination is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination). Hall Monitor 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've redeleted the article and closed the afd. Split and repetitive discussions are harmful, and if there is consensus to undelete then we can do so. - brenneman 01:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  Hi Aaron, can you give a diff or a link to this previously agreed upon status quo? Thanks! Arkon 04:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good call, poor reason. This page should die because it's about an insignificant person and there has been a complaint. Pure and simple. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem, if I understand it correctly, is that the person who sent the complaint to UC was a hoaxer, so it sadlay isn't as simple as that. Titoxd 02:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree with both of the above, I'd like to make it clear that I acted only to restore the previously agreed upon status quo and not out of an attempt to enforce my personal opinon. - brenneman 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to be unaware of the evidence that UC's correspondent misrepresented him/herself. Might someone kindly provide a diff, please? Regards ENCEPHALON 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There is at least on confirmed attempt to impersonate a family memeber that conincides with the timeframe of the email to UC (cheack through this list note the cronology and be prepared to wait a bit on the last one). There is a clear parth from that attempt to wikipedia. Other than that there are very few logical ways to find the article.Geni 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Geni. ENCEPHALON 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't clear to me whether the complaint was genuine or not. I've shared my reservations about it since I acted upon it. I have asked the author of the complaint to substantiate their identity and they have not yet done so to my satisfaction. Whether or not the complaint is genuine, the fact remains that the content once again at Brian Peppers is an unlawful invasion of privacy even if factual. I have forwarded the original emails and a summary of the matter to the board for legal review, since a community consensus to delete appears elusive. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, UC. I'm aware of assertions that a spate of emails have been sent to several individuals by persons dishonestly claiming to be related to Mr. Peppers, but had no knowledge of any evidence concerning the reliability of your correspondent. I share your view on the matter of the article itself. ENCEPHALON 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck? Another page censored on an editwarrior's say-so? And the discussion closed down by the editwarriors? Why are we even bothering to pretend that we're a community that discusses things? Grace Note 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And what is the goal of this community? According to Jimbo, it's to educate. What educational value does the article have? --Nlu (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the massive, massive deletion review discussion? That discussion terminated and the article was not restored. If you wish to restore the article, then begin another discussion, on WP:DRV or here on ANI. Don't expect that a unilateral undeletion and after-the-fact "discussion" is going to be supported. FCYTravis 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, god forbid that you should support discussion. Grace Note 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wanted to open up another discussion about whether something should be undeleted, I'd be fine with that. FCYTravis 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an AfD. It didn't form a consensus to delete, so you guys acted unilaterally, "fucked process" and killed the article. You want the discussion in DRV so that you can ignore that you had no consensus to delete and can't get one, but when we discussed it in DRV, there was a fairly even split. The presumption is to keep, not delete articles. Well, I mean Misplaced Pages's presumption is. Clearly, YMMV. Grace Note 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is much that I agree with in both your opinions (ie. your's & Travis'). The purpose of Deletion Review is to review decisions about the status of a page with an eye to ensuring that the preceding xFD discussion on that page arrived at a decision consistent with article policy. The threshold for re-examining an issue at the relevant xFD is deliberately set very low, so that any fair objection held by a reasonable number of people has an excellent chance of being acted on: even if just 50% of participants feel that the original decision was in some way inappropriate, the close is stayed and the page sent back to xFD for re-examination. In the Brian Peppers review, 22 users asked for a relist; however, 27 didn't—hence Aaron's close. Nevertheless, I understand your view, and indeed agree with you that claiming a delete consensus in this case is certainly out of the question: it simply doesn't exist. The article ended up at the Review not because it had been been deleted following a consensus, but because someone disagreed with UC's speedy deletion of the page over legal concerns. I happen to share that legal concern, and I think the page should not stay on WP, but I would not say that there is a consensus for the article's deletion. The corollary of course is that I think legal questions should not be decided via xFD style discussions; the day that we send copyright infringements and other legal concerns to an xFD style discussion for a decision is the day WP will be in deep shit. ENCEPHALON 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What "legal concern"? Why wouldn't that "concern" apply to other people who don't want articles about themselves on the wiki? Grace Note 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You know with this recent upsurge in sopport for out of policy deletion perhaps it is time to reopen the schools issue.Geni 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever to stop you from deleting schools on your own say-so whenever you choose, bar your own conscience. That's what the deletion policy now seems to be. Grace Note 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete this out of process. The last existing consensus decision was to keep this article deleted. Despite the facts that this decision may have been wrong and I agreed with it, I would have acted in the same way had I felt the opposite. One person doesn't get to decide for everyone.
brenneman 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• What process did you follow again? It seems like we're making up the rules as we go along here, can you please cite something so we can all be aware of what the new deletion policies are? From what I read, there was a near consensus to keep the article during the fifth AFD (with 2:1 in favor of keeping), it was deleted due to a hoax, then brought to WP:DRV where it was split down the middle with no consensus either way. IMHO, Hall Monitor did the right thing by reposting it to AFD in an attempt to establish a true consensus. Show me right now where "the last existing consensus decision was to keep this article deleted.", because I'm just not seeing it. Silensor 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I think we have a serious problem if an admin thinks that a 33% vote is a consensus to rid us of an article he personally doesn't like. Grace Note 06:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• As I said on the deletion review and the 6th AFD, no one here is an attorney. (Please correct me if you are, you might be able to provide some insight.) I am strongly opposed to a page deletion based upon legal discussions with a Misplaced Pages editor. Any lawyer worth his/her J.D. would NEVER contact a random editor directly and demand that changes to be made to Misplaced Pages, they would contact Jimbo Wales or the board directly. Unless someone here is intimately familiar enough with the law to back up any claims of wrong-doing, and based on the lack of anyone citing exact statutes being broken I would say no one involved does; please don't play lawyer. It is a very dangerous game to play. If UninvitedCompany would have referred the person(s) sending the email to the appropriate channels, then s/he would not have been taken in by what are most likely hoaxsters. The page should be restored until word from the board says otherwise. —A 07:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that everyone who has participated on both sides have acted in good faith, the issue boils down to the fact that the two sides on this issue have different ideas of what should be included in Misplaced Pages, as there is no policy on internet memes. I think we need a policy on this before the issue will be settled. VegaDark 07:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What is it with this unhealthy obsession with deleting and undeleting sex offenders? As far as I can see, it was deleted for a bad reason, but DRV decided not to relist it anyway. Surely that's their call to make? Is there a WP:DRVRV? Apparently not, in which case this should surely be the end of the matter, for better or for worse. --Malthusian (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

I am being harrassed by three editors (two are admin). Harrassment includes (repeated) targeted personal attacks, threats (to disrupt work on Misplaced Pages) and posting of personal information (regardless of correct/incorrectness) by FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch. Part of Jim's offence might be from ignorance of the policy more than intentional flouting of it, while FM is an admin whose commentary and choice of wording indicates intentional action which continued even after I pointed out he was violating policy. Furthermore, in what appears to be a tagteam effort of targeted personal attacks, Guettarda is repeatedly trolling my user talk page even after I asked for it to stop. agapetos_angel 03:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence in posting false statement about me, refusal to retract them, and attacking edit summaries are unacceptable. It isn't harrassment to insist that you retract these false allegations, and it isn't harrassment to remind you that attacks in edit summaries are not acceptable either. You have been blocked three times in two weeks for 3rr violations on an article which policy and arbcomm precident say you should not be editing. You denied that you were editing articles to which you had a close personal connection. All FM did was present evidence to you showing the connection. While it is generally unacceptable to "out" an editor, this has to be balanced by a need to enforce policy and arbcomm precident and protect the integrity of the project. Your constant playing to the gallery and refactoring of your talk page to preserve your attacks but not the context and rebuttals do nothing to build credibility. Guettarda 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't harrassment when people are trying to get you to follow the rules. agapetos_angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was caught in a lie today; she is a party with a very intimate real-world involvement to the topics of Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in_Genesis. Agapetos_angel tried to pull a fast one on all of us here by heavily editing these articles, often violating WP:NPOV, WP:CON and then WP:3RR, all while very publicly denying she had any relationship or involvement to the topics.

I'd suspected she was an involved party 2 weeks ago and so I warned her that as a matter of policy and arbcomm precedent editors who are personally involved in a topic generally should not edit on those topics. She'd implied time and again that she wasn't an involved party and instead accused others of misdeeds. Per WP:AGF I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

Today I found incontrovertible evidence indicating that she is indeed a very involved party and had intentionally deceived us. That evidence consists of an internet post to an alumni group in which agapetos_angel reveals her real-world identity as the wife of one of the parties detailed in the articles in question. Anyone who wishes to see that evidence can google it up just as I did. Being that involved in a topic as well as a constant source of disruption means that agapetos angel is precluded from editing on these topics by policy and arbcomm precedent. If she hadn't been so blatantly pov and disruptive she'd likely been able to argue an exception here, but her multiple 3RR vios and NPA vios against Guettarda, taken with the intentional deceit implicit in her hiding her relationship to Jonathan Sarfati are all the evidence we need that she cannot participate neutrally on these topics. FeloniousMonk 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I too have had problems with FeloniousMonk in the past, but that Xe basically left me alone after Xe was confronted about it pickelbarrel 06:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've only ever commented to you twice and blocked you once . In actuality you haven't heard from me since because you stopped posting abusive comments on others talk pages. Either way, I'm glad you're following the rules now. FeloniousMonk 06:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Inadmissable evidence gathered outside of wikipedia. No such preclusion exists. Kim Bruning 06:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a preclusion does indeed exist. Arbcomm has made a number of findings and rulings that editors should not participate on topics in which they are personally involved. Here's two off the top of my head: There's also WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself and WP:BLP#Malicious_editing which are analogous. FeloniousMonk 06:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

When FM 'ask for credible third-party published sources', in every instance I supplied them, so WP:BLP#Malicious_editing does not apply. Furthermore, this filing is about continued harrassment, of which the defence that the evidence might or might not be true is invalid . agapetos_angel 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a court of law; claiming that evidence might not be admissible is laughable. I'm not personally so enthusiastic about just banning people from editing articles about things they are involved in, but if you do so, and you introduce NPOV problem, and lie about who you are when queried... I don't know if that's what happened here, but if the case can be made, you're asking for admin action by doing all that. Georgewilliamherbert 09:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah no sorry, but basically we don't go around asking what people have been doing outside wikipedia. We look at what they've done on wikipedia itself. Also, if this goes to arbitration, none of what FeloniousMonk has said will hold much weight. Kim Bruning 10:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review thisagapetos_angel 10:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So... Are you, or are you not, Sherry Sarfati, Agapetos angel? Georgewilliamherbert 10:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI

It seems to me that SPUI, banned for ten days, is still using his talk page to fan the flames of the pedophilia userbox dispute. He has reproduced the userbox on his talk page yet again. I have removed this and I recommend that the page be protected yet again to stop his unwelcome trolling. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you having some sort of vendetta against SPUI? Instead of trying further to upset a well-regarded content contributor, perhaps you might be better advised to beg him to come back? Grace Note 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I't neither polite nor truthful to suggest that I'm engaged in a vendetta. I like SPUI, I think his road edits are great. But he's trolling and that isn't permitted here, and he knows that. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a question, Tony, not a suggestion. Grace Note 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is the best option, this hurts other people who want to contact him more than it hurts him. He's going on Misplaced Pages:Probation, per tha Arb decision. Each time he reproduces the userbox, inform him that he'll be blocked an additional day each time. Log it on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Once he sees that his ban length is entirely within his control, I think he'll get the point. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what makes me ask the question, because it's far from reasonable to continue blocking someone for something so negligible. It certainly doesn't help. Why not just leave it and him be and allow it all to blow over? Grace Note 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it should be a minimum of 24 hours for each offense. Because it's to the point where he's just trolling, and I'm personally getting sick and tired of it. He's a great contributor, there's no question about that. But if he can't be even slightly civil about this whole thing, then it's time to question our reasons for letting him be here in the first place. Editing is a privilege, not a right. Ral315 (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon 24.69.14.159 personal attacks

Abusive comments by 24.69.14.159 (talk · contribs)

• Diff

This person has been abusive in the past using other IP addresses and usernames:

• 24.64.223.203 (talk · contribs)
• Jim Heller (talk · contribs)

User has verbally abused me in the past see:

I cannot ban him as I am involved in editing that article. Can another admin take a look. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards