Revision as of 14:05, 28 July 2006

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons and Overpopulated categories

General

Request to undelete articles per OTRS permission confirmations

Hello there, I'm now going through the permission queue of OTRS, and there's quite a lot of pages which were deleted |after| anyone noticed the permission was given. I think it would be fair to undelete them. Anyone with access to OTRS can check the tickets numbers to see the permissions. I'll list them here:

• Explorium: a Gold Rush game per Ticket#: 2006052510009541

no AFD is busy enough already.Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delphian Records per Ticket#: 2006060510012858

Apears to have problems with a number of wikipedia policies.Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Eco diving per Ticket#: 2006052610012909

As a generaly rule articles should not be writen in a question and answer format. Notice a patturn here?Geni 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Skip Williamson per Ticket#: 2006061010011438
• Bruff R.F.C. per Ticket#: 2006061410017854
• International Peace Operations Association per Ticket#: 2006061510013945
• Tees'n more per Ticket#: 2006062110011257
• Virginia Home for Boys and Girls per Ticket#: 2006062510002812
• URENIO per Ticket#: 2006062510009093
• GOLDEN per Ticket#: 2006062610000769

More to come later :) Thank you! --Timichal _{(I hope this is the right place...)}

I looked at a few of those and they're missing the all important release under the GFDL. Someone can say they're the copyright holder, but they need to clearly state their permission to release under our license or we cannot use the material. The "More specific statement of permission" template is used for these cases. Shell 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles that were deleted due to copyright violations may simply be re-created. However material copied straight from another website is unlikely to be NPOV or have the right tone. Even if permission is given the material may need to be rewritten. -Will Beback 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't see the deleted article content, that's why I request the undeletion here. As for "more specific statement of permission", I'll recheck these tickets and send mails where needed. --Timichal 10:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I can see the content and as a result there is no way I will be undeleteing it.Geni 09:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Usernames consisting of email addresses

I brought this up on Misplaced Pages talk:Username, where I got two responses. However, since administrators are the ones who do the blocking, I'm bringing it here for more discussion.

It is my perception that editors with email addresses for usernames are always blocked, eventually. Such usernames are often blocked before they make a single edit, but all of the rest are blocked once an admin who blocks for this reason notices it.

The username policy currently just discourages the creation of usernames that are email addresses. I propose that such usernames be prohibited so that the username policy matches blocking practice. I think that it is misleading to suggest that such usernames are a bad idea, but that they will not be blocked. Editors who feel misled may leave the project rather than signing up with a new username, since they just joined and have no strong attachment to it yet. The current wording may also create additional work if the account has made some contributions before being blocked and the editor wants to transfer the edits to their new account.

One way of preventing email addresses from being used as usernames would be to technically prohibit @ from being used in usernames. I think that this is the best solution, especially since not all editors read the username policy before choosing a username. However, this would prevent users from using @ in non-email address usernames, like matt@new york. Also, editors may try to use "at" in the place of @ for usernames containing email addresses, like "matt at yahoo.com". If they do this, there is also the question of whether such usernames should be blocked. I think that these problems are relatively minor, though. This technical solution may take a while to implement, if it can be done at all. For now, I suggest that the username policy simply be modified. -- Kjkolb 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds pretty fair. We have warned people in the past about not using email addresses for their usernames, and I can see several times a day people doing this very thing. While I have not blocked any of those names in recent memory, it would be a good idea too. As for the edit reassignment, I have no idea how it would work. User:Zscout370 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the need to block them, it seems to be for their own protection rather than any particular WP issue. However I do think whatever we do we should amend MediaWiki:Signupend to make it clearer that either they aren't allowed or are not a good idea. (They text is way at the bottom and I guess not visible for most unless they scroll down on the signup screen). --pgk 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need to protect users from themselves by blocking them. Leave them a note or an e-mail, make sure they're aware of possible issues, and let them make up their mind to switch if they so desire. I don't believe policy prohibits people from having bad ideas, yet. Preventing new registrations of such is fine; existing ones should be grandfathered.

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia and other places by User:Kramden4700

Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) seems to have decided that the longstanding redirect Philadelphia (with over 4000 links to it) should be changed from pointing to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia (disambiguation). Several users (including me) have reverted the edits and attempted to reason with the user. The result has been to expand his/her edits to do the same thing to all the articles that have been used as examples, with no attempt to clean up the thousands of articles that did point (via redirect) to the right article, but would now point to a disambig instead. I have reverted many of these, but seek confirmation if I'm doing the right thing, and what more should be done (by me or others) if it continues. I think the user did not start with intent to vandalise or disrupt, but does not seem to accept reasoned discussion. --Scott Davis 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The user definitely has an axe to grind with the USA for some reason. I have watchlisted all the redirects mentioned and will revert until a consensus against their current redirect is reached. --mboverload@ 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I got involved trying to reason with him before I discovered the extent of the issue. --Scott Davis 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has also been putting speedy deletion tags on articles to which they obviously don't apply. It's a bit of a grey area, though, because some of them do seem to be used appropriately. Ardric47 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The changing of links is continuing at a rapid-fire pace. Also, his or her talk page has been moved to User talk:Kramden4700/1, and a new one started. Ardric47 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• You may want to enlist the help of the WikiProject_Philadelphia. --evrik 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had learned about this post sooner. At Talk:Philadelphia, I suggested the links that he should look at, to try to get him to look at the consequences of changing those links, and to get him to think that it's a bigger issue than he thought. He saw the consequences with his editing, and thought that others were vandalizing his edits (in my view), so the edit war escalated. Because I saw similar behavior from another user, User:Wrath of Roth, I (wrongfully) opened a sockpuppet case against him (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kramden4700). It apparently scared him enough that he stopped editing for a while. Then I offered an apology, and he accepted. (his response) I think he's acting in good faith now, but only time will tell if I feel that way in the future. I'm not happy with my own behavior in this incident, but I want to put this issue to rest. Tinlinkin 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem to login

Hello, I am registered in other Misplaced Pages portals using WikipediaMaster as user name and thought I used the same name in the English portal before, but I don't remember the password, so I tried to get it back by email, but I never get an email with the password and I can't find any other article using this name. What's the reason, and can I or how can I get back into this account? user:WikipediaMaster--217.228.56.168 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can a admin please check and give me an answer here? Thanks in advance! --217.228.30.190 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no email account specified for this username. (see here). Unfortunately if you cannot remember your password, the only thing that can be done is to create a new account. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The username arguably falls foul of the username policy in giving the impression of an official capacity, probably best to choose another. --pgk 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But why is it possible to use this name in other Misplaced Pages portals then? ] --217.228.47.171 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy varies from wiki to wiki, they aren't uniform. --pgk 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only does policy vary, so does the level of enforcement. ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Open complaint about administrators' rollback tool

I just have an open, informal complaint over the apparent use of the rollback feature. Accoridng to Misplaced Pages:Administrators, it should only be used in cases of simple vandalism and nothing else. But...however...I've recently begun noticing a misuse of the rollback feature, where the case is not simple vandalism, and which the result leads to more confusion and wasted time.

• On May 29, 2006, an anon added four userboxes to WP:DRV. Three administrators deleted them three different times, each one using the sterile "reverted by...to this version..." Now, two of those admins had deleted the four userboxes in question, so I was actually tempted to revert as there was no clear reason why they were removed. I asked on T1 and T2 debates and I got the answer, but why didn't they just mention it in the edit summary, so it would be absolutely clear?

• I added something that I thought was funny to WP:BJAODN. It was reverted by an admin, once again with the sterile rollback summary. When I asked him on his user page, I was told that doing manual rollback took more time and that, because most people didn't ever question his deletions, that it was a waste of time. Right. It takes like, 15 seconds to write a summary? I think we both wasted more time using the talk page to explain exactly why the edit was removed than if the admin had just taken a few seconds to explain why he didn't think it was funny.

• {{Mario characters}} was the subject of a brief 3RR war between Xeno-Lord (talk · contribs · count) amd A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count). From Xeno-Lord's (and mine, I suppose) point, the template was suddenly and unfairly halved wholesale. Now that I look into it a bit deeper, I see that somebody else deleted it and there was relevent discussion on the CVG talk page, but there was nothing in that talk discussion to indicate that the characters had been dispersed - just deleted. Had AMIB simply pointed to the direct CVG debate in the edit summary, or started a talk page discussion pertaining to why the template was so radically changed, the 3RR would have stopped, or at least AMIB would have been more justified in his use of the rollback tool.

• And finally, the ArbCom decision on Guanco and MarkSweep, a vandalism rollback tool revert war, in which Guanco was desysopped and MarkSweeep "strongly cautioned" to only use the rollback on vandalism.

Hbdragon88 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Only use the default edit summary on vandalism. Anything more and you just need to write a few words saying why. It's simple and very useful for when people look back at the history of an article. Edit summaries are not just some stupid process thing - it actually helps everyone. --mboverload@ 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best if there were an intermediate step which asked for an edit summary, with a default. It's not always that easy to define simple in the context of vandalism, a bit more explanation would never go amis. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to the pop-up tool - which can be set to ask for a editsummary. Maybe make that the default behaviour? Agathoclea 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of an intermediate step. If I'm trying to wipe out a prolific vandal's edits, I already am going to have 30 tabs open with rollbacks in them. We just need to make sure that admins use the tool in the right situations...or leave a note on the rollbackee's page. Unlike some editors, I don't place any negative connotation when seeing the rollback summary. Syrthiss 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've been asked about the lack of summaries more than once; maybe there should be additional text (like "using popups", but "using rollback") which links to a description of the feature and why it leaves no summary? Or maybe not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the rollback summary is just like a blank summmary - it has no information. The rollback signifies that something was so bad or messed up (like vandalism) that the admin can simply hit a button to roll back. By looking at the diff it should be self-explanatory why the rollback was used. The situations I listed were not as simple to deduce. Hbdragon88 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the rollback summary comment. I used to manually type it before I had a rollback button and I still do if I'm reverting further than the rollback button can. If someone took away the button away I would just go back to manually typing it all the time. It's not inflammatory and it's informative: it tells everyone exactly how far back a reversion goes. The same can't always be said for a custom comment. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FurryiamIAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hardvice accidentally gave away his sock FurryiamIAM, who seems to have been engaged in building up an edit count by null edits (and had been warned about this). I've blocked the sock indefinitely and have blocked Hardvice for forty-eight hours, to be lifted if he discloses other socks and promises not to use socks again. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at User:Hardvice's latest edits now that the Encyclopædia Dramatica article has been deleted, he seems to be following the same "null edit" behavior that his sockpuppet User:FurryiamIAM has been demonstrating. Is 48 hours enough? (→Netscott) 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question should the AfDs that his sockpuppet started be left to continue? See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This lends creedence to the notiion that user Rptng03509345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who so heavily spammed Misplaced Pages admins and editors about User:MONGO and the ED article deletion may indeed be a sockpuppet of Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion, but that guy has a truckload of sockpuppets, so it could be, yeah. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mostly topics discussed and writing pattern that indicates the sockpuppetry nature of the relationship between the spammer account and Hardvice. One can see that User:Hardvice decided to submit all of those Wiki's for deletion under a sockpuppet as a result of this WP:ANI thread. (→Netscott) 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Hardvice's recent edits, it is clear that he was, as Netscott says, using the same null-edit technique as his sock. I surmise that this was so as to inflate his edit count for unknown reasons--which I think we can safely presume to be nefarious. I suggest that a community ban at this stage would be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And while we're at it, Donteatmycat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) looks fishy, too. --Conti|✉ 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an obvious Dramatica troll. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Tony Sidaway's community ban proposal. This user is very clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. (→Netscott) 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardvice appears to support his own banning. (→Netscott) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to block this user indefinitely. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

None. Okay I'm blocking as a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I debated an image he had posted on his userpage earlier, and never agreed with the evidence, though I let it go when Raul stated the image wasn't a copyvio. It seemed implausible that someone who got out of jail would rush home the same day or even the next day to upload their own image (a mugshot) on wikipedia. Don't expect this will be the last you see of him though. Oh, and yeah, I support the block...no surprise.--MONGO 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Support the ban, subject to review if Hardvice ever climbs back off the ceiling over the deletion of ED. Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this product or service. Accidentally signing his sockpuppet's talk page was hilarious. I loved his edit summary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh!--MONGO 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Will McBride (candidate)

Someone is looking to make Misplaced Pages a soapbox for their candidate - User:Pcaruso originally put information on this candidate at Will McBride, over-writing without discussion an existing article on a clearly notable award-winning photographer by that name. After I moved what was verifiable and NPOV of this information to a separate article (Will McBride (candidate)), User:Pcaruso quickly restored the POV pro-candidate spin (removing the sourced, verifiable information in the process). The subject of this article, as a serious candidate for a major party Senate nomination, is notable. His poll numbers are above single digits, his leading competitor for the nomination appears to be faltering, and the articles to which I added links indicate that he has some potentially valuable connections. However, I would like to see an informative NPOV article maintained in this space, and not a campaign ad. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Note - User:Pcaruso responded to my admonition with respect to the above with a threat to "end" me. I've blocked him for 24, but I am quite concerned about his tone. bd2412 T 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Wikistalking (User:Anomicene and User:IronDuke)

I (User:anomicene) have been accused by admin User:SlimVirgin of wikistalking User:IronDuke, and threatened with being blocked. This is partly based on an alleged incident which occurred over two months ago. However, the "wikistalking" edits have been to only two pages (Mike Hawash and Global Relief Foundation), and the edits have not been challenged as NPOV, nor have there been any allegations of personal attacks, and the pattern of edits has not been heavy: on Mike Hawash, one spate of edits every 10-12 days, and on Global Relief Foundation, only one set of edits, uncontested and uncommented-upon. As an aside, User:IronDuke is supporting User:SlimVirgin in the current ArbCom case against her (and others), and thus it might be suggested that SlimVirgin is not unbiased in this case. My question is whether this pattern of editing really meets the definition of "wikistalking". Please comment. -- Anomicene 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioned here is Anomicene's vote here against my position on an article he'd had nothing to do with previously. Also not mentioned here is Anomicene's sock puppet that was used to harass me. IronDuke 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed on this page before, so I'll try to find the previous one rather than rehash the details. In brief, Ironduke has been stalked by User:Gnetwerker, User:Anomicene, User:Gomi-no-sensei, and possibly User:BlindVenetian, who are either the same person or (as one of them told me by e-mail) an employer and employee(s). One of them posted some personal details about Ironduke, others created attack accounts, and there have been various shenanigans like constantly reverting his edits, changing his user page, and so on, all very immature behavior. The Gomi-no-sensei and BlindVenetian accounts are currently blocked, and the Gnetwerker account has stayed away from the disputed articles, so the only problem left is Anomicene. I asked him a few weeks ago to stay away from articles he can see Ironduke has recently edited, but he recently followed ID to an article the latter had created, so I've told him if he doesn't stay away from ID, this account will be blocked too. SlimVirgin 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Check user confirmed that Anomicene and Gomi-no-sensei appeared to be the same person. Some details here and at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Gomi-no-sensei. SlimVirgin 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always been curious about this: There was never a checkuser request (or answer) on WP:RFCU. So there is actually no record of this. While I've stipulated that User:Gomi-no-sensei and I work for the same company, behind the same firewall, so it could easily show the same ip, but that situation smacks of the same lack of process as this one. Also, that situation ocurred months ago, and there is no evidence of any harrasment by me since then.

This, however, obscures the basic issue: look at my edits. Is there anything wrong with them? Do they add or detract from Misplaced Pages? Are IronDuke's automatic reverts (accompanied by screams of harassment) in good faith? Is SlimVirgin's block threat a good faith attempt to solve an actual problem, or wreak some punishment for alleged activities two months ago? -- Anomicene 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you stay away from articles edited by ID, there will be no problem. Please just stop being so interested in him, then he'll stop commenting on your behavior, then I can stop leaving you warnings, then we'll all be a lot happier. SlimVirgin 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I couldn't be less interested in IronDuke. As I've pointed out, you're claiming "wikistalking" when I've edited exactly two of his many, many articles. -- Anomicene 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, can you show some examples of problem edits? There shouldn't be a probelm if Amonicene and IronDuke are just editing some of the same articles as long as the contents of the edits isn't abusive.130.15.164.81 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim is claiming wikistalking on the basis of the edits a group of accounts that have been harassing me, including User:Gnetwerker, User:BlindVenetian and User:Gomi-no-sensei (not to mention countless edits from anonymous IPs all originating from the same area). These are, according to you, your boss and colleagues, respectively. And then you picked up where the anonymous IP's left off after Mike Hawash was sprotected. I really would count yourself lucky there's not been a ban on all those accounts yet. You say you aren't interested in me, and yet you keep following me. It's not hard to avoid articles I'm working on. It really isn't. IronDuke 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, out of the past 119 edits or so you've made over the last two months, roughly 110 of them have been to articles I've been editing (before you), articles I have created, talk I have participated in (in which you had no interest previously), or you've left messages urging sanctions against me or concerning me. In this time period, you've done little with this account other than harass me with it, roughly %93 of your edits. IronDuke 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous comment is a malicious lie, and should be evidence of IronDuke's vendetta against me, not the other way around. I have made 191 edits since I've been on Misplaced Pages, involving 51 different pages, 41 of them in the main article space, and only 10 in Talk, User, and Misplaced Pages. 45 edits have been made to Mike Hawash, 24 to Talk:Mike Hawash, and 5 edits to Global Relief Foundation, the only pages under question here. The balance of non-article space edits have simply been responding to IronDuke's constant whining to admins about the non-existant "stalking". Get your numbers right. -- Anomicene 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my post again, please. "Last two months." IronDuke 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then let's be accurate. Since June 15, I have edited Mike Hawash, with only minor exceptions, none of them involving you, until July 18, when I made one set of edits to Global Relief Foundation, on which you had not been active for some time. The edits in question are NPOV, and have been retained. The remaining small number of edits were a request for mediation (you refused) and responses to your scurrilous accusations. -- Anomicene 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "accurate." I wasn't talking about June 15, I was using your edits starting with May 14, when you first left a message on the Gnetwerker account's talk page apprising him that he had "a problem." But fine, let's take June 15. Starting from your date and going to the time I wrote the above numbers, and using my criteria above (all of your edits that stalked/followed/complained about me), the ratio remains the same, this time 106 edits, 8 of which having nothing to do with me: roughly 93% of your edits are focused on me or the work I've done. This is a very, very bad percentage. Even half this number would be cause for grave concern. I also notice that you keep glossing over a telltale edit you made, perhaps you can say what it was that drove you to vote in this renaming poll (with which you had nothing previously to do), and to vote against me? IronDuke 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have an aversion to criticism that you wrap in claims of stalking. Your endless commentary continues to try to mask one clear fact: I edited two articles involving you during the period in question. My edits were NPOV, WP:RS, and have withstood scrutiny. Your corresponding edits were mostly blind reverts, with the tag "rv stalker". Your main objection seems to be that I haven't allowed you to WP:OWN those two articles. That you have an admin going along with your outrageous "stalking" claim is what is really absurd. -- Anomicene 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anomicene, please stop posting about this. ID, it's also a good idea for you not to respond. The point, Anomicene, is that two edits to articles by someone else are not the same as two edits by you. You've been accused of being part of a campaign of harassment. By rights, you shouldn't still be editing. I believe that any innocent editor would stay away from Ironduke in order to make sure they weren't viewed as part of the nonsense. That you keep thrusting yourself into it does not speak well of you. Please stop thinking about, talking about, writing about, and editing with Ironduke. If you think the allegations are unfair and ridiculous, fine, but stay away from him anyway. The longer you stay away, the more people might end up agreeing with you. But the more you go on about it, the more it looks as though are you, indeed, obsessed, so you're shooting yourself in the foot somewhat. SlimVirgin 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since my name was drug into this above: SlimVirgin, it is one thing to issue a unilateral admin edict that I stay away from "IronDuke's pages" (whatever that means). I have and will do so (for a reasonable period of time, not necessarily defined by you). However, trying to prevent me from seeking the community's (and other admins') opinion on the matter goes too far. I have not been party to harassment of IronDuke, and I'm not interested in your (biased) opinion of what an "innocent editor" would do. At this point I am less interested in IronDuke than in your unilateral and out-of-process actions in support of him (and of course his support of you in the current ArbCom case). -- Gnetwerker 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that Anomicene has just posted above as Gnetwerker by mistake. 'Nuff said. SlimVirgin 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And quickly added "Since my name was drug into this above ..." when he realized his mistake. SlimVirgin 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that editing 2 articles with non-abusive edits isn't wiki-stalking. The sockpuppetry used to harrass another user clearly isn't acceptable. He should stay away from IronDuke, but he also shouldn't be called a stalker either, there just isn't enough of a pattern or behaviour in the edits to warrant it unless there is more evidence somewhere. I'd point out that all edits to articles are articles that involve someone else unless you create it.--Crossmr 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See above for the evidence. Gnetwerker/Anomicene just made the classic sockpuppet mistake of forgetting who he was logged in as. SlimVirgin 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I think he should stay away from him. But is there actual evidence that he's following him to articles and undoing his edits or otherwise damaging the articles? There is a difference. And if you suspect Gnetworker is a sockpuppet, please follow the proper procedure for verifying it, rather than just making the claim here. I'm not saying he's not. I'd just feel more comfortable with a check user to be sure. And if that is the case, then perhaps some further action may be warranted here.--Crossmr 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Check user has already confirmed that they appear to be the same person, but Gnetwerker insisted that Anomicene was his employee, which explained the IP evidence. However, see above, where one posted as the other by mistake; there's no explaining that away too. This has been going on for months, Crossmr, with multiple accounts and anon IPs and it has to stop. I've blocked Anomicene as a sockpuppet, and Gnetwerker for a violation of WP:SOCK by pretending to be two people. See User_talk:Anomicene#Blocked. SlimVirgin 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah okay, yes that is rather obvious then. While it may have been on going for months this discussion was new and there seemed to be a lot of information being left out which was why I asked for more information here. --Crossmr 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. SlimVirgin 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Circeus and Ghirlandajo, again

I'd like to get some external input on Talk:Pella Palace. The dispute has to do with his insistent removal of an image caption, as ridiculous as it may sound. I am suspecting that Ghirla is either reverting me out of pure spite for the block I gave him back on July 7 or due to his complete inability to accept that he doesn't have editorial fiat over articles. Note that with this revert (without any given justification whatsoever, too), he has violated the 3RR, too, after reverting my edit 3 times, which has been duely reported. His insistance that I justify my edit with policy is laughable at best, as it is the reverter's duty to provide justification other than the "whimsicality" of the edit. Circeus 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there was no 3RR violation, let's just get the facts straight to begin with. Circeus in his "3RR report" lumped up the edits from 4 days to come up with four reverts. While, any number of reverts over any period of time is ideally too many, care is need as each case is different

Besides, Circeus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)' summary above is not complete and one-sided. First of all, Ghirla's argument is not laughable, even if Circeus claims so. Second, Circeus forgets to give a full context of their previous skirmish, the edit conflict (not flawless by both parties) which Circeus "won" in the end of the day by simply blocking an opponent. The nearest to the detailed description of that conflict could be found in the archive of this board at:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive52#Hasty Blocking by Some Administrators
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive50#Third opinion please. --

--Irpen 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the caption that Circeus wants to add and Ghirlandajo wants to remove is a comment Ghirlandajo added when he uploaded the image in the first place. It is completely beyond me why a text he wrote in the first place would now be unacceptable as a caption, and I think Ghirlandajo is the one that should give a good reason not to include it and not the other way around. Fram 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have admited that the 3RR report was mistakenly done: Ghirla's first revert occured on July 21, although most of the reverting occured today. I will continue tostand by my July 7 block. That Ghirla's attitude can be sanctionned by his edits (the quality and quantity of which I certainly won't deny) is beyond me. He is regurlarly uncivil (when not threading near personal attacks) and constantly maintain strict dogwatch over articles he works on, in adition to his general confrontational attitude. Those are the gripes I have with him, and I am not the only one to have found his a stressful editor to deal with. Circeus 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might be better to submit such things to a review first. Like Irpen rightfully pointed out in one of his threads, that was considered a good reading by some people, such kind of actions must be reviewed first, preferably by a third party, instead of making a hasty 3RR report that turns out (in good faith of course) to be a simple revert.

Incidentally, even if the block you're mentioning about is old, it still created a precedent, because it raises the utility of a review. Maybe a review would prevent all this story... :( -- Grafikm 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think I am seeking third opinions in this matter before it escalates further? Circeus 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"This is a good thing" (tm) :) -- Grafikm 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahrarara = Panairjdde

User:Panairjdde has returned now in the form of User:Ahrarara. He or she is stalking every single article from my contribs list right now and deleting AD anywhere and everywhere. Please stop or warn him or her. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:151.44.81.169, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Misplaced Pages, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Politician editing entry

Gil_Gutknecht edits, Gutknecht01 (talk · contribs) last edit comment "Edited on the authority of Congressman Gil Gutknecht's Office". Oviosuly POV edits, I don't wanna touch this issue with a 10 ft pole. Can someone step in and revert and leave this guy a good message? -Ravedave 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jonathunder (talk · contribs) reverted but left no message. Anyone wanna handle that part? I think this matter should be handled with care. -Ravedave 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message. User:Zscout370 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really want to take the word of a newbie that they are whom they claim to be? What if it's Gutknecht's opponents trying to make him and his staff look bad? User:Zoe| 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, also it can't hurt to treat the person with respect lest they decide they want to sue WP. -Ravedave 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Harassing Anonyous IP

I have an harassing anonymous IP. It is 152.163.100.72. I have tried to be polite and patient. It has not worked. My patience runs thin. The user has vandalized my talkpage by pictures of penises and anuses. The user is abusive. The user makes false claims that I am an addict. In the interest of not biting the newbies, I tried to engage the user in civil discourse to no avail. The histories of the last week speak for themselves:

• -
• -

¡Thanks!

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to this editor's appeal. Help in dealing with the personal attacks on him would be welcome. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

This arbitration case is closed, and the final decision has been published at the link above.

• Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from editing Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and its talk page and related articles for one year.
• Raphael1 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1#Log of blocks and bans.
• Raphael1 is placed on general Probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Misplaced Pages for an appropriate period of time. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:T:DYK

Could an experienced admin update Did You Know? within the next 2 hours, since it is currently 10 hours since the last update? Cheers, Highway 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. BTW, HighwayCello, thanks for helping keeping T:DYKT clean, it's really quite appreciated -- Samir धर्म 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, I have nothing better to do. ;) Highway 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

poke poke. I would, but I've never done it before and my "you'll screw it up" paranoia is kicking my ass. Syrthiss 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, it's the middle of the night, no one will notice. ;) BTW, can someone FIupdate DYK again? (Give Samir a break ;) Highway 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Already done. And please... don't feel bad about updating. That's what WP:ERROR is for. Things can always be tweaked or fixed later. Just follow the guide and the instructions at the top of the suggestion page and you'll do fine. :-) --LV 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is anybody in charge here?

User:Ferick I need someone to clear my account and unblock me once and for all. I am getting sick and tired of this. Nobody seems to care. I have no been blocked for over a week for no apparent reason pleading my case with administrator after administrator. Is anybody in charge here?24.31.228.254 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is "in charge". It doesn't work that way. You could try to appeal to User:Jimbo Wales is you would like. --Woohookitty 10:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it would be better to appeal to the arbitration committee, but since you're unblocked now it seems that the issue is resolved. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Extended block for User:Justforasecond

I have placed an extended (one month) block on Justforasecond (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for his continued disruption on Kwanzaa and other articles. This user's behavior was first reported at the end of last year on AN/I, and he has continued a low-grade campaign of edit warring and disruption since, incurring regular blocks. In this most recent round, I gave him a clear, blunt warning that continued edit warring would result in an extended block. He continued, and I blocked him for a month. I realize this is a very long block, but this user has shown little to no willingness to cease disrupting the encyclopedia. I am hoping a break will convince him that our rules are not optional.

I waffled between giving him a shorter block, such as two weeks, and the monthlong block, but finally decided to try to drive the point home sharply once before taking this to Arbcom. I will not reverse any administrator who changes or shortens the block, but I do urge you to look carefully at this user's edit history before doing so. Nandesuka 12:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with block. - FrancisTyers · 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, this user is highly disruptive. KillerChihuahua 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering Justforasecond's repeated harrassment of User:Deeceevoice, one may want to question his agenda. User:Zoe| 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been unblocked by CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after promising to avoid Kwanzaa, but for the looks of this it doesn't look like the block taught him a damned thing. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. I, for one, am tired of JFAS's antics. IMO, he richly deserved the one-month block. It's amazing that in an exchange w/another admin he portrays himself as the victim of a conspiracy, somehow persecuted by my "supporters" -- when it is quite clear he's the one who stalked me around the website. What's even more amazing is that the admin bought it. deeceevoice 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm sure that you,Nandesuka and the other editors who are supporting JFS block also agree that you "richly deserve" a block for a couple of months for your "disruption", "vandalism" and "slow edit warring" at several articles, among them Thomas Jefferson, Great Sphinx of Giza, Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians and Blackface -- unless of course you agree to stay away from these articles. CoYep 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, none of that played any part in my action. What I 'bought' was that he said he would stay away from the Kwanzaa article. Since the block was ostensibly made to protect that page his agreement not to edit it removed any concern in that regard and ended any 'preventative' basis for the block. That said, I probably would have unblocked anyway as the original claim of the block being for 'vandalism' was clearly false and even the revised claim of 'disruption' on that page seemed to me a considerable stretch... certainly slow motion edit warring is not sufficient 'disruption' to justify a block of an entire month. That said, I thank JFAS for agreeing to stay away from the page as it is clear that tempers have frayed and it is best to let the disagreement go. --CBD 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond contacted me via email and asked that his block be lifted, because it was interfering with all of the other employees at his place of work. He pledged in that email that, if he was unblocked, he would abide by the month's block and not edit during that time. I see that, now that he's unblocked, he's editing again and attacking the admin who blocked him. So much for good faith. User:Zoe| 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the block or unblock, I just wanted to say, for the umpteenth time: Criticism is not the same as an attack. Treating criticisms like attacks is the cause of much disagreement and undesirable drama. We all need to be very careful to cleanly distinguish these two different concepts in our own minds. Friday (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I asked you to unblock me and you didn't do it. If you had unblocked me I would have gone on a break but, in spite of my truly desperate pleas, you didn't. Thankfully another admin did unblock me, but without those conditions. So no, this is not a violation of good faith, but maybe a lack of assuming it. I am perfectly within my rights here to question what I see as an overly long, illegitimate block and you are welcome to comment on why it was the correct length, called for. I'm not an admin here so I don't have as much experience in these matters, but the cases I have seen, unquestionably nasty users have not received blocks anywhere near that long. I also put a very clear "spoiler" notice on my page saying not to read the request for an advocate it if you were concerned about incivility, etc. Justforasecond 21:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to settle a content dispute with an unjustified block and admins who are doing this are clearly abusing their power. CoYep 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Socafan

I have no idea why but Socafan (talk · contribs) is waging a one-man war to spin the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong in the most damaging light possible. He's also intent on stating in David Walsh (sports reporter) that Armstrong lost an appeal to have the Sunday Times publish a rebuttal of the source of an article which the court found to be libellous because it implied that the sources were true. I don't see that appeal as having any relevance unless it would be usual for such a remedy to be granted by the courts; I know of no instance where it has even been asked for but I guess it must be - I know that an apology in the paper is usually as much as you get, as a long-time follower of Private Eye. As stated, it makes it sound as if Armstrong lost the case (and Socafan apparently believes that the case substantially vindicates Walsh, despite his losing the libel suit, see Talk:David Walsh (sports reporter)).

I am now involved in this, having originally come to it purely as a WP:BLP problem, and I might just be taking against Socafan because he is so relentless in pushing his personal views, including guilt-by-association and other innuendo in the article. Socafan clearly believes that there is only one neutral version: his. I don't think it is neutral, and Armstrong has already successfully sued the Sunday Times for implying that Armstrong is guilty, which worries me quite a bit. SOme extra eyes would be appreciated. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching the article for quite awhile, you're not alone. --mboverload@ 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to come down on this one and say that the people who first identified this editor as a sock were correct. His endless trolling bears this out and he needs to be terminated. I propose that we block him indefinitely. I don't see useful output that would justify the time we spend on this guy's troublesome behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am greatly relieved to hear it - I was beginning to think it was just me being paranoid. I support whatever action terminates his disruption, but of course by now I am not neutral so I don't think it would be right to block him myself. Perhaps I should have just applied the nuclear option to start with, but I got in enough trouble as it was. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, we now have me, Tom Harrison and Phil Sandifer all trying to keep the article neutral, and Socafan continually reverting with summaries suggesting we need to achieve consensus on Talk before moving away from Socafan's preferred version. This is disruptive, and also means that several of us are constantly having to monitor a WP:BLP to guard against potentially libellous material. If anyone feels like blocking Socafan for a short while at least I would be happy to have a break :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have a bad feeling about this. I just blocked Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for 24h for 3RR violation on Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi all, CAT:CSD is badly backlogged (200+ items), could a few people take a look? Stifle (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like we don't need more admins... =( --mboverload@ 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright backlogs are awful. CSD is nothing in comparison. We need more admins badly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well admins willing to do the shitwork. My RfA failed so you're screwed =D --mboverload@ 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got a simple way to clear copyright backlogs ... just delete the copyvios on sight. That's what I've started to do. Rather than going through the rigamarole of tagging it and then waiting seven days, I just delete them immediately. --Cyde↔Weys 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

mboverload@ gives Cyde a Hero button

Rather than using the copyvio tag I just put it up for speedy saying it's a copyvio. It works. --mboverload@ 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A8 limtis you to 48 hours for doing that.Geni 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in the same situation as Mboverload, I'm willing to do that kind of work but with no adminship (and currently nobody volunteering to renom me) I guess you guys are out of luck. Pegasus1138 ---- 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe =D. I know someone will renominate me, but right now the last thing I want to go through is another RfA slap-a-thon. --mboverload@ 05:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I think a willingness to do CSD type tasks should definitely be considered a plus on an admin candidate but that's just one user's opinion. Pegasus1138 ---- 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned editors still using email for harassment

I got an email sent through RogerHorne that was pure harassment. Is there any way to disable the email ability for abusive sockpuppets or other community banned recognized editors?--MONGO 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested, but has yet to be implemented. Can you block his emails from getting through to you, or, failing that (and even if you succeed at that), contact his service provider about harrassment? Be sure to include all of the headers in the email so they'll listen to you. User:Zoe| 18:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I simply didn't reply to protect my email address from being reveiled to that person. Maybe I should submit another request with the developers. The email was sent through an anonymous email that can be set up by anyone, but my guess is that since the RogerHorne name was in the email address, it's just willy doing his thing.--MONGO 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed

Hello! Would another admin please review my closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion (2nd nomination) per concerns by User:Kusma expressed here? Feel free to revert/undeleted/unprotect my actions without notice. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kusma; a {{deletedpage}} is about the worst possible solution to this, replacing a useful selfref with an arcane and confusing selfref. Delete, fine, if that was the consensus, but leave as a redlink (and watchlist, if you're worried about it coming back). I can't conceive of any use for protecting a deleted redirect that isn't speediable (i.e. it's an attack redirect, like nigger music). -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could just redlink it and use something like User:Cyde/XNR to track it. But if it keeps getting repeatedly recreated, at some point, it's just a huge waste of time to keep deleting it and the {{deleted page}} needs to come out again. --Cyde↔Weys 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now re-deleted {{deleted}} per request made at WP:DRV. Thanks to all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! If consensus is against CNRs (seems it's going that way), listing the more popular ones on a central page where it's easy to make sure they stay deleted (and warning the people re-creating them) is a good idea. I don't think it will be too much work, and (especially if there is a clear policy to point to) it will die down over time. Kusma (討論) 07:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Watchlists

Ok, I remember someone saying that there is some way for admins to tell if an article is on no watch lists. However, I've attempted to figure out how to do this, and have to say I've stumped. I've looked over the admin reading and can't find it there either. Is this a case of stupidity or delusion? If stupidity, I would appreciate being told how to do it. If delusion, then, well, feel free to make fun of me. JoshuaZ 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

<points and laughs> Special:Unwatchedpages </pointing and laughing> I don't believe it supports searching, however, and only lists 1000 pages. The devs could probably be encouraged to make it searchable with a sufficient amount of cookies, however. Essjay (Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. JoshuaZ 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cookies, barnstars, and monetary inducement... oh my. Pegasus1138 ---- 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a page that has recent changes on unwatched pages might be useful. There are so many unwatched articles that the list is not very helpful. Also, it has pages that are redirects and articles that have just been created and then listed on AfD. Finally, I cannot get past more than 1,000 pages on the list, so you can only see the articles that start with parentheses, quotes and numbers. Another tool that might be helpful is if there were a list of pages with frequent edits or a large number of edits that are unwatched. I do not know if that is feasible, though. -- Kjkolb 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of the article "Joe Wood"

I am an avid contemporary art collector, and also work for the St. Louis Art Museum. One of my late colleages, Ramsey K. Kohlfinger--created the original article entitled "Joe Wood"--which gave a brief and unbiased summary of the Artist/Author Joe Wood, a native of St. Louis, Missouri.

The article was accurate, informative, and a must for those whom wish to have a general reference on this particular artist, whom has sold his work abroad as far as Sydney, Austrailia, and has his work in galleries from New York to his native St. Louis. As a collector, I too can appreciate the need for in the very least--a short biographical summary for individuals who are not only popular or successful, but create new tangents in the history of art.

Wood created a new style (a word artists usually hate) by mixing elements of retro 40s Deco, 80s graffiti, and 30s regionalism and incorporating it into a new abstract expressionist AND impressionist STYLE, yet all original.

A recent statement by a fellow collector/art critic in Brooklyn NY says it all, "Woods art is both homey and intelligent; it says truthful things, and asks hard questions we dont want to ask."

At the very least, the content of my late friend's article should also compel you of the noteworthiness by its additional and equally valid warrant of Mr. Wood's work in the world of books/African-American Revisionist History. Mr. Wood is also a writer, who has written pieces locally as a freelance editorial columnist, and has brought attention to the subject of lynching in his work, UGLY WATER, 2006--which sheds light on a forgotten lynching in St. Louis, MO, and questions the validity of traditionally taught Afro-American history.

Mr. Kohlfinger could and probably did do a better job of summing up the subject of the article that was deleted recently from wiki; JOE WOOD. But I am asking that this article be restored, and given proper respect as a valid and credible entry of a contemporary person of considerable merit. Although I don't personally own any of Mr. Wood's pieces, I know that Guy Tozzoli, of the World Trade Center Assoc. and Larry Silverstein Properties--is currently considering pieces from Mr. Wood to be installed in the new WTC site FREEDOM TOWER. I know of many other high-end art dealers who would vouch for this artists ability and note.

All in all, I ask that the article "Joe Wood" be restored, and if edits need to be done to improve the quality of the article, I can assure you that it will be done, if given the possibility.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Qiana Feemster St. Louis Ars Poetica Society

This is quite confusing indeed. Parisianartcollector (talk · contribs) is the editor who added the following text to the article when it was recreated:

Joe Wood

Inventor of the Wiki Administrator

Born: 1977

George Bush is a Great President.

I fail to understand what is the point of the above comment, given Parisianartcollector (talk · contribs)'s above edit to the article. --Ragib 06:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Qiana Feemster? The only Google hits for "Qiana Feemster" are in association with reviews of "Joe Wood"'s self-published book. And there are zero Google hits for "Ars Poetica Society", St. Louis or otherwise. All Google hits for '"Luna Studios" "joe wood"' are its own site, or self-publicity sites. All Google hits for "Futuro-Regionalism" are Misplaced Pages mirrors. Even the Joe Wood flack articles don't mention it. User:Zoe| 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of my User page by WegianWarrior

This user continues to place notices on my user page that I am a suspected impersonator of another user. He also makes derogatory comments in violation of wikipedia guidelines against making personal attacks against other users, in the edit descriptions.

• 1st - Makes comment '(hello sock!)'
• 2nd - Makes comment '(hello again, sock.)'
• 3rd - Makes comment '(socks can run, but not hide)'

User has also been blocked for 3rr and other similar abuse infractions on a number of other occasions.

Request this user be blocked from making any further edits to my user page. Thank-you.Kjlee 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Request that Lightbringer's latest WP:RFCU be expedited so he can start picking his next open proxy username.--SarekOfVulcan 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll second SarekOfVulcan's recuest, and would like to add the following:

• Kjlee is a suspected sockpuppet of the banned user Lightbringer - his MO fits the description on Lightbringers subpage on WP:LTA to a tee.
• Kjlee convinienly forgets to mention his 'edit' (near vandalism or vandalism) to my userpage...
• As anyone who can check my block log can see, I've been blocked for a 3RR violation excatly once - and that was for loosing my head in a revert war (I know, me bad) with a previous sockpuppet of Lightbringer on, AFAIR, the Freemasonry article.

But then, bending the truth and straight out lies are things we have come to expect of Lightbringer and his socks... WegianWarrior 18:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You still shouldn't have made those edits IMO. I don't see how they contribute positively in any way. If he's a sock, wait for RFCU to identify it as so or ask an admin to block it... No need to feed the trolls. Sasquatch t|c 19:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... then what's the point of having the {{sockpuppet}} template at all, if you're not supposed to use it? It does provide a positive service: it lets other editors know that these contributions might be questionable -- especially since Lightbringer has been banned for a year and shouldn't be editing at all.--SarekOfVulcan 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove page

Please remove the page Provincial emergency program. It is a duplicate from the Provincial Emergency Program site.

I have made a redirect from the former to the latter. However, is this really the only program by the name - what are the other provinces corresponding programs called? Morwen - Talk 09:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll Close

Is there a closing date for the poll on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło? The thing has been going for ages (since June) with pretty much the same result and no-one has come to close it. I asked this on the appropriate page, but no-one answered Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I closed the poll, moved the article and am in the process of fixing the double redirects. There is a ton of them. -- Kjkolb 12:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Diana Bianchi

Should Diana Bianchi be deleted? WAS 4.250 12:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, it should be deleted. However, it survived an AfD nomination that just closed. I suggest renominating it after a few months, with a refined argument based upon the experience of the first nomination, or when there is a new development that has a significant chance of affecting the outcome. -- Kjkolb 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD I3

Those admins handling speedy deletions these days have probably noticed a lot of pages tagged with {{db-noncom}} and {{Permission from license selector}}. I just wanted to say, in case anyone wasn't checking, these pages should not be deleted too quickly after they're uploaded: new users uploading an image for the first time will probably take a little while to figure out what to replace the bad license tag with and how to do that. Mangojuice 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a note about this to the heading text of CAT:CSD, please check it to make sure it is accurate. —Centrx→talk • 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Lloyd Monserratt

Could someone tell me how to deal with the anonymous edits on this page Lloyd Monserratt. --evrik 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's been documented. Both of you need to watch 3RR though. Sasquatch t|c 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• SarekofVulcan and I were not in any danger of a 3RR. I was referring to the anonymous edits and the lack of response to my comments on the talk page.

At 10:48 this morning I made the above request. I was really disappointed to see Zoe nominate the article for deletion six minutes later. This really leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and reaffirms my opinion about how poorly things work on wikipedia. I asked for help, and got an afd and a 3rr notice. Wow. --evrik 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• It wouldn't have come to my attention if you hadn't brought it up here, but a non-notable bio is a non-notable bio, no matter where someone might encounter it. Should I have left what is, in my opinion, a speedy deletion candidate just because you talked about it here? User:Zoe| 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly, I came to the admins board to ask for help against an anonymous vandal, and got the afd. Having lived in Los Angeles during the events in question, I think that this person was notable - despite what the afd comments may say. Before answering your question about whether or not you should have left the article, let me ask you this, in the six minutes it took you to tag the article, what research did you do? --evrik
  • It is the responsibility of the author of the article, or those who are claiming notability, to prove it. Nothing in the article passes our WP:BIO guideline, and therefore I listed it. Technically, I could have speedy deleted it, as it doesn't pass our notability guidelines. User:Zoe| 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shiny Shoe Music

The nomination at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shiny Shoe Music has been withdrawn; can someone please close the issue? Thanks! (But please don't delete the VFD page: the discussion is needed.)—msh210℠ 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done by Mangojuice. --Sam Blanning 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks.—msh210℠ 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx

Blocked recently (by me) for disruptive behavior including attempting to rebuild a deleted article on his user page, this editor continues to generate serious reports concerning his bad behavior. I've given him a seven-day holiday. Would a longer block be more appropriate? --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He has a long history of disruption and incivility (at least). I would not object to a longer block. Tom Harrison 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of this complaint I've reduced the block period to 24 hours. I still think this editor may not be good for Misplaced Pages. All comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What deleted article did he try to rebuild? Could we get an example or recent problem edits?--Crossmr 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be this (note the final comment), which I'm basing on this. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed AfD notice

Per CrazyRussian's request, I am posting this here as well as Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. I am proposing that we post a notice directly at the top of the AfD page that informs and educates editors about their other options. The current iteration of the notice is here, and I have opened a discussion about it. The primary reasons are that:

• AfD is getting too many listings that can and should be elsewhere.
• The excess of listings are not being efficiently or thoroughly discussed, resulting in re-listings and other problems.

I believe we can alleviate the situation by educating editors. For consolidation's sake, please comment here if you are so-inlined. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

I think FURSECUTION 4EVA! is a vandalism/abuse only account to attack people associating as "furries". Has blanked Raccoon Fox's userpage once already. Viridae 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef, thanks Naconkantari 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Viridae 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Suspected sockpuppet tag" removal - Panairjdde.

User:Codex Sinaiticus removed twice (diff 1, diff 2) the suspected sockpuppet tag from his talk page. After the first time, (s)he was warned.--151.47.119.2 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The above post was made by yet another IP sock of User:Panairjdde, who also created the User:CodexVaticanus sock and is skirting a block on edit warring. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition to stalking all my recent contribs and edit warring them to totally remove all AD's, Panairjdde, who was blocked and has switched to using 151.47 IP's, has repeatedly placed a spurious notice to his sockpuppet User:CodexVaticanus on my talk page. Please help! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:!

Based on this edit, one of three after a break of almost six months, I have indef-blocked this user as a sockpuppet of Marytrott. See users' contribs and here for evidence, and please feel free to review. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an inappropriate username, anyway. User:Zoe| 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indirect personal attack?

Hi, I've got an anon user who seems to enjoy making repeated allegations that I've insulted them or others in some fashion (diffs: , , ), despite my never having done anything of the kind (the closest was a comment "what is it with guys and gay jokes?" :). Does this false attribution constitute a personal attack by implication? And given that their address seems to be a roaming IP (dialup?) is there anything to be done about it? Thanks in advance, Ziggurat 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the most recent one for trolling... not much we can do on dynamic IPs though. Sasquatch t|c 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that User talk:88.110.25.215 is the current IP being used. Just to satisfy my curiosity, *is* this a personal attack? Something else? S/he seems to be currently pulling something similar with User:JD_UK. Ziggurat 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help

Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.

The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.

Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.

Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.

Johnny has a very famous testimony and has been on multiple TV shows like Oprah, Donahue, Jerry Springer, etc, and even recently when he preached in our town he made front page news, a double spread on his life, and the local ABC interviewed him live, which is not bad for our town (LISMORE NSW Australia) See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history .

When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.

Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites, John Clary Wade Watts and Operation Colorblind - the name of Johnny's Ministry. These have been fine until yesterday. I cannot understand why these sites are just issued a deletion notice? Just because they mention JLC? I was hoping to discuss these things but they are just deleted. The one on Wade Watts is about a black gospel preacher who was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement in the US and was good friends with Martin Luther King. He took Johnny Clary under his wing and even ordained Johnny as a minister (to this day Johnny is the only white man ordained in the All Black Baptist Church). But his article is up for deletion because I mentioned Clary and had a link.

That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush.

My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.

I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.

Here are some links that might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wade_Watts

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TheKingOfDixie

http://en.wikipedia.org/Operation_Colorblind

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Threeafterthree

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Antaeus_Feldspar

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush. Perhaps the bias is political and not racial?

The link for page: John Clary has already been deleted!

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Alabamaboy

Please notice that his link was taken from the KKK site the same day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=65690238

then

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=65690238

Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edit.

Sorry for spamming you all earlier, I didn't know this page existed! Cheers. Potters house 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

Your accusations of racism are highly inappropriate, and you would do yourself and your "cause" a big favor by retracting the allegations. Only administrators can delete articles, and administrators get their positions because they have the full trust of the Misplaced Pages community. The admin who deleted the article is User:Tawker, with whom you may wish to discuss the matter, but in point of fact, the deletion was done because of a virtually unanimous consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary, which is the procedure we use to discuss whether or not the community feels an article should be kept. All of this discussion doesn't belong here, and any rate. The place to discuss undeletion of articles is at WP:DRV, but I reiterate that the previous deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. User:Zoe| 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not the content or even so much the intent of Mr. Clary's additions that drew attention and disapproval, it was his behavior. Because of him, I have Tom Metzger on my watchlist. Having to defend the content of such an article is distasteful to me, but Mr. Clary's vandalism made that necessary. You need not, indeed you should not, look for any deeper reason for Wikipedians objecting to Mr. Clary than checking out his past actions on articles at Misplaced Pages. Again, not his outspokenness, but his underhandedness. Resorting to the old standby of demonizing those acting against you ignores that most important possibility - you just might be wrong. Shenme 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN

Should we block indefinitely, as username inappropriate? User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like your question has been answered. Yanksox 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, Pilotguy. User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Specifically,

• 02:44, July 27, 2006 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs) blocked "DDDDDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)

Haha. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hrm. is ‎A1% an appropriate username? I thought usernames weren't supposed to contain special characters. Also, it looks like User:ASM123456 is a vandalism account (see A Spy's Mission 4, 3, 2, and 1 or check the deletion log if pages don't exist). User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 02:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They're definitely strongly discourged and it might be a good idea if nothing else to nicely ask the person to change their nick but I'm not sure if they're specifically not allowed. Pegasus1138 ---- 03:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I hate long goodbyes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder, inappropriate username reports are best as WP:AIV --pgk 06:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously inappropriate usernames can go to AIV - usernames that won't justify an immediate block (because they're borderline and/or the user has good-faith edits and should be asked nicely first) can be posted at WP:RFC/NAME.</nitpick> --Sam Blanning 08:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

<Syntax error: </nitpick> tag without <nitpick>> --Lord Deskana (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoax material

I have twice reverted/removed material that is quite obviously fake from Mini Mammoth, only to have it replaced within minutes. The material is quite obviously fake and according to WP:VAND insertion of material that belongs in BJAODN is vandalism. I need advice as to wether I will be in violation of 3RR if i keep removing the obviously fake material - and if another user is in violation of 3RR for replacing it. This seems to be a grey area... Viridae 06:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism does not count towards 3RR, but the whole article is bollocks, so what does it matter? --Sam Blanning 08:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there is that. Viridae 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. Hoax, vandal magnet, snowball. —Quarl 2006-07-28 13:31Z

You missed an image. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Need some help right now

Editwar on Sanhedrin. See User talk:Daniel575 and User talk:Historian2 also. I request to have it reverted last version and to have User:Historian2 officially warned and if necessary blocked (and it looks like that will be necessary). --Daniel575 09:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do include my full version, please. If not, please remove the protection. I will have User:Crzrussian, our Jewish administrator, take a look when he gets back. Right now, please restore my last version. --Daniel575 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version, and administrators are not supposed to take a side in an editing dispute. You should discuss the issue on the article's talk page and not just revert (many times). In fact, both you and your opponent have broken the three-revert rule. Please stop edit warring. Kusma (討論) 09:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This guy cannot be discussed with. I have not edited his article at all. You have now removed my entire addition and protected the page according to his version. Please restore my last version, which is accurate and provides more than 5 external links. --Daniel575 09:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort. AmiDaniel protected the article in the version he found when he came across the article, which is the correct behavior in an edit war. Kusma (討論) 11:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the version by the person who caused this whole war. He wrote a very biased piece. I left his version intact the way it was and added a sub-section titled 'Criticism'. He deleted that sub-section up to 10 times and accused me of vandalism. Now it is protected and the sub-section 'Criticism' which I wrote was deleted. I very strongly object to this. --Daniel575 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking banned for two weeks, restrictions extended

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following new motion in the Everyking case.

1. Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
2. Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended for one year, until November 2007.
3. Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
4. Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one.

Passed 6-0 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - Tony, could you explain this in a bit more detail? The page pointed to seems to be some sort of threaded discussion where the arbitrators are raising several different possibilities. Did they reach a conclusion elsewhere and tell you? Or is this your interpretation of that thread? Haukur 11:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It says "Passed 6-0", which means that they voted on this. As far as I know, that is sufficient. This link has more detail. --Woohookitty 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose the key edit is this: Haukur 11:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked by an arbitrator to make the decision enforceable. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Link: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Everyking. --kingboyk 10:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That link is now stale because I've moved all the material to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 and its talk page so we'll have an easily accessible permanent record. --Tony Sidaway 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I request that this not be implemented until the arbitrators agree to hear my evidence, or at least respond to me in some way. (And yeah, I'm allowed to post here if it's relevant to myself.) Everyking 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Tony has now blocked Everyking for two weeks. Haukur 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, if you look at the threaded discussion, EK has actually been arguing his case since 15th July and responses were indeed forthcoming, so he can hardly pretend that this is a bolt out of the blue. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking has been doing very valuable work in expanding and referencing our articles on African politicians, an important and underrepresented field; here are some of the most recent examples: He's also continued doing solid work on his favourite historical subjects and worked tirelessly on reverting vandalism. All-in-all he's an extremely valuable editor. Whether or not the block ban is justified I think it is a very sad thing. Haukur 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the block itself is justified since the ArbCom banned him, and that's how bans are necessarily implemented. -Splash - tk 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The pedant attacks! :) Okay, I'll change my words. Haukur 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking may or may not be valuable, but he's not indispensable, irreplaceable, or unique qualified -- he ought not to be getting any special dispensation. --Calton | Talk 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking's message on Tony Sidaway's talk page says, in part, I don't see how that can possibly be the case when the ArbCom hasn't even heard my side of the story yet..., but I count, conservatively, 1200 words of "his side of the story" already posted on the Request for Arbitration page, and if he had anything ELSE to say, any "evidence to add", no one was standing in his way of doing so. It's this sort of thing that makes me wonder how he can possibly believe the things he claims, given how at odds they are with reality and all. --Calton | Talk 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking has been told that he has "exhausted the committee's patience" . They have heard his arguments, his attacks on them, and his self-justifications. And they have decided to ban him briefly. He can appeal to Jimbo Wales who may modify or remove any remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK update

Could someone update Did you know? It hasn't been updated for 21 hours. Cheers, Highway 11:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999 restricted from editing

CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to the arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999 pending its resolution.

Enacted at 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator user:Alex Bakharev and his semi-protection spree

Does this edit warrant a block of the article just to please user:Ghirlandajo, who has WP:OWN problems (for which he was blocked), when I first corrected false information and inserted a proper caption? Also, is it fair to be called a sock to discredit an anonymous IP's edits? Same thing at Nevsky Prospect, where Ghirla's two uploaded photos are untouchable despite both of them being vintage, for which another user got bullied, and only my intervention brought about a discussion, at the cost of my edit? Any administrators willing to intervene without being afraid of being pounced on and demeaned, as other admins who have stood up to him have?? 83.5.249.155 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, you are blocked for a year and not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages in this period. The IP range from which you operate points to Warsaw. I see that you recently returned to your old tactics of stalking myself and reverting almost every other edit I make. For a partial list, see here, but also this and this and this... I could go on for ages. Also, contrary to your assertions, I was never blocked for violating WP:OWN. Take care when spreading falsehoods and lies, Ghirla 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Same old rant, "sock", "spreading lies". What got you blocked was your incivility following another editor's harmless edit and you having a hissy-fit (links provided), even demanding a formal apology after it was you who smeared a number of established contributors. Rest of my contributions speak for themselves, and your newspeak wont change that. 83.5.249.155 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check WP:AN/I#Administrator user:Alex Bakharev and his semi-protection spree. I am almost sure that the anon is not Molobo. As a proof you can look into the following edit of our anon. I doubt that Molobo would talk with himself in such a manner. Besides I got an e-mail from the real Molobo that insists that he has no relations to the anon, never stalks or cheats. As the proof Molobo is ready to risk permabanning by posting here, just to show that his E-mail is different. I have all the reasons to believe him. BTW I also believe that our anonym deliberately impersonated Molobo and could indeed put Molobo into serious troubles abakharev 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Reviewing the history of affected articles I think both IP user(s) and Ghirla (and in some instances as on Soviet partisans other reqistered users) are equally guilty of contributing to the revert war. Therefore the articles should not be semi-protected but rather normally protected; semi-protection was designed to prevent vandalism, not exclude one party (unregistered editors) from revert war while allowing the others (registered) free reign (unless I missed some anon edits that indeed classify as vandalism?). That said, semi-protecting 3 or 4 articles is hardly a spree and I would caution anon to be careful with WP:PA and assuming bad-faith in actions of an experienced admin like Alex. I would encourage interested anon(s) to simply create an account. Anonimous users who display advanced knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies are bound to create some suspicion, which whether justified or not is not creating a friendly enviroment. Finally I would like to add that Misplaced Pages admins have a long history of catching users trying to circumvene their block and extending their block as additional penalty. While I don't think we have evidence that this is indeed User:Molobo doing (and his contrib pattern is strange, to my knowledge Molobo was not interested in purely Russian articles, only those relevant to Polish-Russian history), I thought I would stress that just in case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, barring edit wars, this user(s) already made some comments bordering on personal attacks here, and got a warning from an admin on one of his talk pages. -- Grafikm 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. If there are any further transgressions of WP:CIV/WP:PA, I would recommend a block, especially as warning has been given.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Two lists needing categorisation

The AfD log for 18th July is almost complete save for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of straight edge groups and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of pop punk bands, which appear to have resulted in a consensus to categorise the lists and delete them. Is this a job for someone with AWB? --Sam Blanning 12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think in the case of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of straight edge groups this was closed incorrectly. The "Keeps" made the very valid point that this list is full of red links. Red links are a very long-standing reason to have a list instead of an category. Consensus isn't just counting up "votes", it is making sense of them, and this may be one of those cases where the closer should add their own judgement even if it is contrary to the majority. -- Samuel Wantman 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Very funny

ok, you've had your laughs--AOL account 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, it's not a joke, it just seems like one, my mistake--AOL account 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's ok, we all make them. --Sam Blanning 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

it works now

that means you can leave it alone205.188.116.200 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Move of Jogaila

Hi. User:Balcer has moved Jogaila to Władysław II Jagiełło, while editing the new redirect page Jogaila to prevent a revert from a non-admin. The move comes after a multi-option poll had found that the name Jogaila was the most popular name and which resulted in the admin User:Kjkolb moving the page to Jogaila. Balcer personally supports Władysław II Jagiełło, and has used his admin powers to reverse the community's decision. He now has opened a two-option poll suggesting moving Władysław II Jagiełło to Jogaila His obvious intention is to use the supermajority move requirement to guarantee his favored option. This action is quite frankly disgraceful. It is even more shocking considering that he completed the move and opened a vote while there was another vote ongoing. I ask an admin to intervene. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We've had scores of votes forced on us by Piotrus, Balcer and Co and the result was always the same. Enough is enough. The morbid polonization of Misplaced Pages should be stopped, with Balcer cautioned or blocked for having discarded the consensus. --Ghirla 16:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

People are trying to pollinate wikipedia? ew, that sounds gross--64.12.116.200 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really so shocked by this. I doubt even Piotrus would endorse this kind of behaviour. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it shows Balcer's utter disregard for other editors' opinion. The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes (as usual). --Ghirla 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, are you shocked? After all you were aware that The Poles are pretty tenacious, and doubtless will campaign vigorously or find some device to get it moved to a Polonocentric name, so really, what is suprising in the actions of those fanatics? :(-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, Balcer is not an admin (I have no idea how he was able to actually move the page, there should have been a redirect there...). Second, the previous 'multi-poll with secondary votes' was not a proper WP:RM, it has more holes then the Swiss cheese and should never be used as a basis for the move (which has been criticized by many users already); there was clearly no consensus for it. The other votes on the page are getting more and more laugable, with semi-serious discussions now about 'which method of voting will we use to determine the method of voting for the move'. Proper WP:RM is the only solution to deal with this problem. PS. Ghirla's yet another violation of WP:CIV/WP:PA and accusations of me and others forcing some votes and engaging in 'morbid polonization' is highly offensive and I hope neutral admins will warn him about his behaviour. "The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes" is just beyond comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, the vote to Jogaila was fair and it was a result. Whatever you may want to make out about it you cannot say that it is up to Balcer to decide these things. If you had any respect for wiki prodedures you would overtly condemn Balcer's actions, instead of wasting time going after Ghirla again. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Piotrus what about this case?

The move by User:Balcer is unacceptable. Page should be moved back to >> Jogaila and protected form other “good” moves until the editors finds solution. M.K. 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about that case? That move has evidently proven uncontroversial, so in assuming good faith etc. nobody questions it. The W2J->Jogaila move, on the contrary, has alrady generated dozens of posts and many users are questioning it, on basis ranging from 'proper procedures (RM) were not followed' to 'that move was done with 1:2 support'. It was that last move that should have been reported here; the only thing to cricitize is that it was moved by a user involved in a dispute, not by a neutral party - but even so I don't see how that move violates any policies. Again, the last move, which was not following WP:RM, does appear to have violated WP:RM and should have been reverted for it (IMHO).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good will? The good will in Jogaila case could be asking for neutral admin addition support, arranging another poll within Jogaila after appropriate time...

And I will quote and ask with user:Doc15071969 words: - "The result of the debate was rename to Jogaila. -- Kjkolb 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)" Which part of that is too dificult to understand or to accept? M.K. 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd only like to point out that, if we treated the previous poll as a proper WP:RM procedure (which it was not), then there was no consensus to move, as the votes were basically split 16:16. //Halibutt 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is this. There had been extensive discussions and polls at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. An admin who was completely and admirably neutral in the matter came along, reviewed everything, thought about it, and closed the poll with their best good faith determination at what should be done, which was to move the article to Jogaila. Yes, it was controversial, but I think that we should now respect the closing admin's decision, leave the article at Jogaila, and start the debate anew. It was not appropriate for Balcer to simply drag the article back to Władysław II Jagiełło, especially because he was not neutral (he immediately started a new poll, and voted for Władysław II Jagiełło). Me personally, I don't like the name Jogaila either, but we should respect the decision of the closing admin. If they made a bad call, then it can be addressed, but by all indications I've seen, they made an appropriate decision based on the state of the discussion at the time.

My request is that some other neutral admin at this point, reverse Balcer's move, put the Władysław II Jagiełło article back to Jogaila, as was closing admin User:Kjkolb's good faith decision, and then we start discussions fresh as to what do to next. --Elonka 19:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, let's all keep in mind that I am not an admin, so somewhat different standards apply to me than would to an admin in this case. Obviously, I did not use any admin powers to move the article back (since I have none). Given that, I do not believe my action violated any policy or guideline. In particular, I do not believe that a simple user involved in a dispute is forbidden to move the article involved. Now if I had simply moved the article back without doing anything else, that would indeed have been ill advised. This is why my move was followed immediately by a RM request, in which everyone involved will be able to express their opinion, by a clear answer to a clear question. As the talk page indicated, there was no concensus support for User:Kjkolb's closing of the discussion. I appreciate his attempt to assist in the resolution of the dispute, but in this case it clearly was not satisfactory for many users. This seemed to be reflected in the quick, informal poll started to see what further action should be taken.

I am perfectly ready to accept sanctions for any policies I have violated by my actions. My only interest was to resolve what clearly is a significant controversy through a clear, unambigous RM procedure, in which all interested editors would have a chance to vote on a clear question. Balcer 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert User:Balcer's move, but only because such actions have been determined to be disruptive by the arbitration commitee. If move protection is needed, it should be requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection for review by a neutral admin. Circeus 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed the history is due to addition of a {{R from alternate name}}, and making the move irreversible might not have been the intention. Circeus 19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is your prerogative of course. Nevertheless, a formal RM procedure has now started and I hope it will continue, no matter where the article is moved next. If this RM: Władysław II Jagiełło->Jogaila does not pass, I hope you will move the article back. Balcer 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While not doubitng the good faith of Kjkolb, he was not acting as a closing admin, since it was not a proper RM to start with. This is the version of the page before he moved it. I don't see any RM template at the top indicating this is an RM vote. Therefore while Kjkolb acted as a good-faithed neutral editor, he was not a closing admin, just as the vote was not a proper RM vote. Thus, unlike RM vote, when it became clear his move is controversial, it could have and has been reverted without any violation of our policies. Again, let me repeat: the only way to solve this as soon as possible with as little bad blood as possible is to hold a proper RM which will clearly indicate whether there is consensus for a move to Jogaila, and whose decision should not be questioned in the near future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have protected Jogaila from moves until a consensus has been determined. User:Zoe| 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for admin help (Mass-to-charge ratio, Dalton (unit))

There has been an ongoing dispute that has already been through arbitration etc. however the behavior of the other party User:Kehrli has become even worse. He has been removing the dispute tags and is now inserting his previous POV text into articles that were previously free of debate such as Mass spectrum and Mass spectrometry. I have asked for sources multiple times and he will only present OR ucombining his own interpretation of multiple sources to come to a (what I think is a quite reasonable although obscure) conclusion. This isn't really a request for resolution of a content dispute but a request for observation and correction of inappropriate behavior that in my mind borders on vandalism. Please note that most of my edits have been as inclusive as is reasonable regarding his desire to change the status quo by mentioning multple time about suggestions in the literature to change things etc. Please someone help me I am getting turned off by wikipedia. I have contributed many quality articles such as FTICR but that will end soon and I will let the unsourced POV pushers take over and turn this into their blog about how they think things should be. There needs to be more strong rapid oversight in cases such as this otherwise the good editors will go away. Thank you for your time.--Nick Y. 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg Tactics to push POV

I am reporting User:SynergeticMaggot, User:999, and User:Hanuman Das for their use of blitzkrieg tactics to push their viewpoints on the following articles: Thoth, Hermeticism, Hermetism, Cult of Hermes, Mental Gender, and Hermeticism and other thought systems.

The onslaught started about 24 hours ago when I tried to remove "references" that are not actually cited in the Thoth article. After some conflicts with 999, and discussion, I opted to move them into an Additional Reading section which he reverted back to the original version, unwilling to work on it. After we used our 3 reverts, he immediately put a prod on Hermeticism and other thought systems and an AfD out on Mental Gender, seemingly in retalliation. SynergeticMaggot, whom I know in RL, and who ironically claims membership in the Welcoming Committee, Association of Members' Advocates, and Concordia, seconded the prod. When it was deleted by uninterested eyes, he readded it none the less. 999 put the Cult of Hermes redirect to redirect towards Hermes instead of Hermetism, Then when I didn't agree and pointed out in edit summaries that Cult of Hermes refers to Hermetism, he put it up for deletion. We continued to argue to the point that he and Hanuman decided to make it a disambiguation then pick their own description of Hermetism, unsourced, instead of the cited versions I have pointed out. In reality the disambiguation disambiguates between the same thing...

As if I didn't have enough to try to get fixed yet, Hanuman went to cause problems with Hermetism, by citing it with a fiction tag and there is a debate going on about whether Manly P. Hall is a reputable source. SynergeticMaggot then attempted to raise questions on Hermeticism.

In all of these articles, I would be the primary contributor and these were selected by browsing my contributions. It is to be expected that I would be the one having to defend or work to improve these articles to keep them up or keep content in. I sent each of them a message which stated:

There are currently challenges made by the same three people, all of whom will recieve this message, on Thoth, Hermeticism, Hermetism, Cult of Hermes, Mental Gender, and Hermeticism and other thought systems all at the same time. Some people actually work for a living and have a life outside of Misplaced Pages. If you want to make challenges, you are free to do so. But when you know that they are all against the same person, have a little bit of courtesy and challenge them one or two at a time, and allow appropriate time for someone to actually do something about it. I am not a superhuman, and blitzkrieging me with all these challenges at once is unrealistic and shady. Try to have some patience and actually make it possible for me to work with you rather than trying to send me on the defensive and effectively make me leave Misplaced Pages. If this continues, I will have to make this an issue through RfC, Administrator's noticeboard, or Arbitration Committee. Try to use your time actually find sources to contradict mine if you feel that you have too much free time to wait around for me to be able to act on any given article.

in attempt to make them realize that I cannot defend in 6 places at once, and since these are the same contributors, they should be patient and wait for me to be able to handle each of these situations. I had replies accusing me of WP:OWN because I would assume that articles chosen by seeing where I had made major contributions would have to be defended by me and asking me to not contribute to Misplaced Pages if I cannot dedicate all my time (though I work 40 hours with 12-15 hours commuting time a week) to defend 6 controversies within 24 hours.

I am not asking for bans to be put into effect, but for articles to be locked and protected until I have the opportunity to work with each one. The blitzkrieg tactics employed here only serve to make me incapable of having a fair shot at working on these articles.

KV(Talk) 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I made the mistake of readding the prod tag, and user 999 removed it telling me to look into WP:PROD more closely. I realized I was wrong, so I then said the next part of the process was to take it to AfD. All of the users edit related articles, and I wont speak anymore about them after saying that there is a consensus among us that think that what KV is reverting on three pages makes the articles look better. KV is a good contributor, although he does not understand that alot of the material he was putting in was POV and OR. We also fixed the article per Manual of Style. He feels the need to defend the article and is clearly showing that he wishes to OWN the articles. I will abide by whatever the admins choose here, as I am also being accused of uncivil edit summaries below, based on me using Vandal Proof to revert his edits, and me adding test-3 and test-4 to his talk page. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My intention is not to claim that I own the articles, but that I have a right to defend them. This action was taken out specifically on articles that they knew that I would be defending, as they have looked for them by checking my contributions. If there is POV or OR in them, that can be worked on, but it should be done one article at a time, so that I have a chance to actually work with them. Not only do they have numbers and time (I can verify that SynergeticMaggot is unemployed currently and has time to edit Misplaced Pages all day, and I suspect the same of 999), but I am the one that must find sources, despite the fact that I already have sources, and the statements they support are not cited. Due to them making me inable to actually work with them in improving the articles, I have had to resort to reverting, in part to bring attention to this matter. Essentially, this is the use of a comparative mob to push POV with a stated unwillingness to work with me, but rather say that these three that work together represent a clear consensus against my version and for their version. I will add more information on my attempts to work with them and others on the articles on a break.

KV(Talk) 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perceptual transparency and Filling-in

These two articles are pasted in from the author's research paper, that s/he submitted to a University. It's not OR, as it is throughly sourced - but I am wondering if we some sort of a policy against such things on WP. Does the University hold copyrights in the submitted materials? Advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Copyright violation. Oups, didn't notice this was abot a paper they submitted. And it's still OR if it has any sort of new conclusion,until it has been officially published. Circeus 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unpublished material is not necessatily OR. Personal communcations and unpublished works are often used in academic papers and books as references. Joelito (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The original creator of the work owns the copyright unless there is some kind of unusual agreement with the university. A good research paper should have some {{OR}} in it, but if that is pruned out it can be a good article as well. ---J.S (t|c) 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Michaelch7

This user's behavior is really stressing me out. He continue to harass me and accuse me of vandalism and agenda pushing, as noted previously on WP:PAIN . Since that PAIN report, he has removed the npa-2 template I placed on his page and related discussion to it , and has again accused me of vandalism and "repressing history" (as well as implicating User:Streltzer as my accomplice in the latter) . He has also previously vandalized my user and talk pages, as confirmed in this CheckUser case. His continued accusations that I am a vandal and that I only edit to "repress history" in his words, would also a constitute a failure to assume good faith. Previous warnings have done nothing to cool down his behavior. Can somebody do something about him? --NeoChaosX 20:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He has accused me of agenda pushing, yet again . --NeoChaosX 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

AGF isn't a policy that can be violated.... I'll look into this. Maybe an outside voice can calm things slightly? ---J.S (t|c) 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I have been in an edit war in the past with this user, and recently he has repetitavely placed Template:Sockpuppeteer at the head of my userpage. This is a reference to a recent incident in which I was blocked for a week for creating sockpuppets with inappropriate names and reporting them myself for username policy violation. I'm not completely certain, but I believe that this is inappropriate use of that template. From what I've seen, the template is applied to currently blocked users who are using sockpuppets as means of evading the block, and regardless, his reasons for placing the template on my page are not constructive. Though slighty off topic, I would like to note that this user has been confirmed to have used at least one sockpuppet, Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), himself. I also checked his userpage, and saw that he had copied content from my own userpage as well as an antifeminism template that I created and placed it there, most likely with the intent of causing trouble in some way or another. I would appreciate it if an administrator would intervene.--Conrad Devonshire 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. The difference being Rennix wasn't proven to be a sockpuppet of mine (because he wasn't, but there's no point arguing that now he's banned). Conrad constantly placed the sockpuppet tag on Rennix's page, yet doesn't seem to like it on his own. Skinmeister 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said. You're not doing this for any constructive purpose; you're just trying to make a statement. Cut it out. And also, stop copying barnstars from my userpage and placing them on your own page.--Conrad Devonshire 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me the Misplaced Pages policy that says I can't do that, and I'll stop. Skinmeister 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the template from Conrad's page. There's no need to humiliate. -- Samir धर्म 07:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back on. I'll stop putting it back when the sockpuppet tags and comments are removed from Rennix's user and talk pages, or it is unprotected so I can do it myself. Otherwise, this is a clear case of double standards. Skinmeister 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's been enough said about that particular issue. He's not avoiding any blocks by using sockpuppets, so the template is redundant in its use -- Samir धर्म 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll contine to put it back on. Skinmeister 07:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what consensus is on this one. -- Samir धर्म 07:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the template. As long as Conrad is allowed to edit and not actively using abusive sockpuppets, he should be able to remove it if he wishes. Skinmeister has violated 3RR on that page, though as I believe he broke it under the impression that he was reverting vandalism, I don't believe a block is necessary unless he continues to war over the template. --Sam Blanning 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

OK, he's technically not a vandal yet, but I have reasons to believe that he's one of many Dzoni's sockpuppets. He approached me on my talk page today asking me where Serbian Wikimedia meetups are being held. Needless to say, Dzoni was always asking me such things at sr: wiki (where he's blocked indef. along with a dozen or so sockpuppet accounts) all the time and he was doing it in the same manner (calling me "Dungo" at the very first contact he makes with me, signing without "--"). Also, if we look at his contribs, he's using his famous capital letters, and by skimming his talk page, it seems as he's already gotten into some sh*t by being rude and violating policies. After skimming his talk page again, he's certainly been connected to Dzoni by others. Checkuser would be in order to confirm my claims, seeing as I am certain this is indeed Dzoni. Thank you. --Filip (§) 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser requests can be made at WP:RFCU. --Sam Blanning 11:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was I blocked??

I got a message saying "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Redvers for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS". The reason given for ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS's block is: "User...". Your IP address is 205.188.116.70. Redvers"

I'm not ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS, and I don't know why I was blocked. It's not fair that I have to be penalized because I have the same IP address as someone else. I wasn't doing anything wrong. --Sakano 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh ... the AOL saga continues. --Ragib 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sakano, this is an extremely common issue with people who use AOL: please read Misplaced Pages:Advice to AOL users. Generally if you let one of us know, by your talk page or e-mail, we will find the autoblock and clear it for you so you can get back to working. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Try contacting the blocking admin, and using this template: ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), which shows autoblocks, they're usually nice about removing autoblocks. Really I'm not sure why they never came up with a media wiki fix to stop autoblocks all together--64.12.116.200 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I'll try that. --Sakano 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL violation by User:SynergeticMaggot

Calling edits that are not vandalism, vandalism.

69.14.79.14 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More evidence here: ... This is a problem with the previous point I brought up that has been unanswered as of yet: . Problems with cookies, sorry for IP signing.

KV(Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I never called an edit of his vandalism. As most admins know, I use Vandal Proof to revert edits. KV is throwing a fit and reverting edits that 3-5 users agree are consistant with Misplaced Pages policy, on at least 3 pages (Thoth, Hermeticism, and Hermetism). He has exhausted his reverts and now he wishes to complain about it. He's made it clear here and here in his edit summary that he wants to just cause an edit war. We have tried to discuss this matter on the talk pages, it is he that is not working well with other editors. He also brings up his talk page where I placed test3 and test4 templates. He had already reverted so many times that I didnt bother to put tests 1 and 2 first. KV saved me the time, because I'm asking for a block on his account for however long an admin sees fit for reverting twice on the Thoth article, 3 times on the Hermeticism article, and I believe 2-3 times on the Hermetism article. SynergeticMaggot 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I undid the auto. --Woohookitty 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does that mean? SynergeticMaggot 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for my intentions, the edits on Thoth are not against Misplaced Pages policy. I am attempting to take references where it cannot be verified that they are used within the article out of the references section. When 999 said that they don't have to be used in the article I worked with him and created an Additional reading section. The trio has worked to make sure that didn't stay. In the other two articles mentioned, large sections are being removed without discussion. I have attempted to work with them, pleading with them to give me the chance to improve the articles by working with them and discussing with them, working on them one at a time so that I can focus my attentions and create good article status. They have a stance that published facts put forth by an acclaimed author and published by a reputable publisher are not "reputable sources" and are attempting to remove that in favor of keeping in statements that are completely unverified, but match their point of view on the matter. They have decided to attack me on 6 fronts, nominating articles for deletion that can be improved, are verified, and in the case of Hermetism existed before I joined Misplaced Pages. Their actions are that of attempting to wear me too thin to be able to work with them, especially in good faith, in order to push their POV. WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints put forth by renowned proponents be present. Instead of working with me to rephrase things to be less POV and adding sources that disagree with me, they decided to take the easy road and delete my contributions, figuring that they would rather have nothing to the expression of a POV, though well documented by many sources, that they disagree with. Essentially, SynergeticMaggot, 999, and Hanzuman work as meatpuppets, moving from article to article to enforce their POVs. SynergeticMaggot follows my contributions regularly, and 999 follows SynergeticMaggot, and Hanzuman follows 999.

SynergeticMaggot, I know in real life, I convinced him to join Misplaced Pages originally to help me on these articles, something I am now regretting, and I have applauded him for learning Misplaced Pages policies and procedures, always freshening up on them. However, I am seeing now that he is doing so and using this knowledge to selectively apply policy and abuse it and procedure to work against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. He is trying, with the others, to wear me down, get me to overreact, and get banned so they can push their POV while there are few interested eyes in these articles. A vast majority of those dealing with these articles are interested in learning only.

On the subject of 3RR, I am allowed 3 reverts for each article, and I have not gone over that in any of them. Each revert is in restoring a version that I feel is better, is verifiable, and should be discussed to improve, especially since it is long-standing text. Yet, he calls it vandalism, indirectly by the VandalPro edit messages, then calling me a vandal on my talk page. I feel that his actions are effectively vandalism, but in good faith, I have restrained myself from calling it vandalism up to the point of mentioning it here for comparison.

KV(Talk) 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Need for spelling error correction...

The article on Liquid hydrogen needs a spelling error correction from then to than in the second paragraph, third sentence at "As in any gas, storing it as liquid takes less space them storing it as a gas at normal temperature and pressure."

I would make the correction myself but I have a permablock on both my IP and named accounts. 209.216.92.232 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But somehow you can edit here? --pgk 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed it. WAS 4.250 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bear

Polar Bear needs constant watching. Check out its edits over the last 20 months. WAS 4.250 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We can watch it but 1-2 vandalism edits a day is actually very mild. Looks like most vandalism is rolled back immediately. --Woohookitty 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice

User GaeusOctavius (talk · contribs) has made some dubious edits lately, along with many good contributions. Could a more experienced Wikipedian investigate, please? He seems hostile to conservatives, including Luboš Motl AKA User:Lumidek. Selected edits in chronological order: re Motl, also re Motl,re IQs of conservatives, I ask what's going on, reply, re a conservative, re Motl, re a moderate. Lots of good edits not listed. Perhaps he only needs a hint about the new WP:BLP policy?

(BTW, is this the right place for queries like this?) Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

A new user moved the Terrorism page to Terrorists and Terrorism without consensus; someone else fixed the redirect so it cannot be moved back. A WP:RM is in progress to revert it back. However, since the move was clearly out of line, naming conventions and whatnot, I'd ask an admin for a speedy move back. Thanks. Duja 10:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I've blocked the user responsible, Space Ghost 900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for a week. He had only just finished a 48 hour block for moves including moving Ed Gein to Gein and Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants to Hallucinogenic Shadow, and today started immediately repeating his behaviour, including the above move as well as moving espionage to Spies and Secret Agents. He has also been making bizarre edits on a similar basis. --Sam Blanning 11:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog

Hi all, CAT:CSD is badly backlogged (images), could a few people take a look? feydey 10:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Babuba

I feel that this account was created just to harass User:Babub. See this edit made by the user on Babub's user page. I have reverted the vandalism. Is this a case for a permanent block as the username seems to be too similar for a coincidence. See Babuba's contribs here. I have listed the Category:Casteists created by Babuba for speedy deletion too. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ozu ken@yahoo.com (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Hello, Is this username appropriate? Myrtone (☏) 12:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards