Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ghirlandajo (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 5 July 2007 (→[] issue on [] and []: edit conflict). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Images uploaded by Chrisg21090 (talk · contribs) - help requested

Please see User talk:Chacor#Sorry! Need help! and User_talk:Chrisg21090#False_license_tagging.2Fimage_source. This user has uploaded a whole bunch of images as PD-self (including two NASA images, which was what drew my attention to this user). After some discussion, he claims that the rest of the images have indeed been taken by him.

I'd ask any admin with the time to a) check his story, see if there's anything that is weird with his claims that I might have missed; b) check the images to see if they match his story; and c) check to see if these images are elsewhere on the web.

As everyone knows, we're getting stricter with imagevios. I've already assumed good faith all the way through, and this user is willing to let an admin double-check everything. Thanks in advance to whichever admin takes on this. – Chacor 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the others carefully. If any other is clearly not by this user, assume they're all not by him. Od Mishehu 08:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone willing to go through it all? I personally have no time to do so. – Chacor 11:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything clearly wrong about the images still tagged as self-created. --Carnildo 09:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your bot's going around and tagging some as having no source, Carnildo... – Chacor 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An Imposter

This user has adopted a user name very similar to mine and has copied my user page. I don't want to do the blocking because of the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. Could another admin give this a look. Thanks. -- No Guru 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Tango 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ! -- No Guru 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you sure? I'm not seeing anything in the block log. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, neither do I... Misplaced Pages went down for a few minutes just after I did it. I thought my block had gone through, it would appear I was wrong. Sorry. It appears the imposter has created a new account too: User:NooGura. I'm about to go to bed, so if someone else could look into this and take appropriate action, it would be great, thanks! --Tango 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat and User:Bakasuprman, edit warring again

There have been previous threads about the edit warring of this duo; most recently, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#edit-warring_duo. In that thread, both were blocked for awhile, and then unblocked. Today I've noticed them edit warring on Goa Inquisition, 2006 Aligarh Riots, M. G. Ramachandran, Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Hindu Forum of Britain, Hindu Forum of Britain, and Godhra Train Burning; there are a few more articles involved with only one edit/revert sequence. On most of these articles both editors have stopped before accumulating four reverts, but on Goa Inquisition it appears that both editors may have broken the 3RR. I have been editing that article as well, so it would be inappropriate for me to take any administrative action. Since the problem affects many articles and has been on ANI before, I thought ANI would be a better place to bring this than the 3RR board. I take no position as to who's "right" in this dispute, although I note that Baka has posted to the talk pages of some of these articles today, including Goa Inquisition. I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved folks could look at this and warn/protect/block as needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am being stalked. Anwar's first edit on this page came this morning. I was accused of linkspamming by linking to a peer reviewed article in a respected journal by our resident troll. I made three reverts, all sanctioned by WP:3RR, since I was reverting a blanking of a peer reviewed academic journal. However Anwar made 4.5 reverts (.5 being a revert of Bharatveer (talk · contribs))

• 2007-07-03T07:53:25
• 2007-07-03T09:30:05
• 2007-07-03T09:52:47 (a .5 revert)
• 2007-07-03T09:54:13
• 2007-07-03T09:57:50.

I have a revert first discuss later philosophy, and those who have worked with me will not disagree. After I realized Anwar was bent on trolling and was being dishonest about the content I showed that the link worked in a terse statement on the talk page. I already pointed out the relevant policy on the image pages, noting that the image of a bookcover was illustrating the book, therefore there was no violation. Anwar was also censured by another user for irrationally tagging images. At andrew's behest, I "discussed" on Talk:Vishwa Hindu Parishad why anwar's edits were slanderous.Bakaman 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across this duo at Vishva Hindu Parishad, unaware of the previous conflict, or the ongoing conflicts on other pages, and I am trying to get them to discuss the changes on talk instead of simply reverting each other. Sorry I can't comment on the other pages and do not want to get more involved than I already am. I'm keeping my hopes up that the dispute can be reasonably settled through simple talk page discussion. Maybe I'm approaching this situation from a too narrow view and someone may want to take a more holistic approach.-Andrew c 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that Anwar doesnt not need my help to get into disputes on Hinduism related images. He was trolling and was soundly shut down by user anetode on the Hindu Forum of Britain image. see history).Bakaman 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked for 48 hours. This sort of revert-warring, on such a massive scale, is really not on. Moreschi 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it is precisely this sort of behaviour that the clause in Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule, which says "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive", is designed to prevent. Edit-warring up to 2 or 3 reverts on 6 pages in one day is self-evidently disruptive, particularly since there are no other editors involved; it's just these two reverting each other again and again. Protecting six pages just because of the edit-warring of 2 is not only obviously grotesque, but also completely unfair to anyone more productive who wants to edit the pages in question. That would be fundamentally un-wiki. Hence my blocks for disruptive edit-warring across multiple articles. These two have lengthy histories of similar behaviour and big block logs. The pair of them need to knock it off. Moreschi 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I protest. This block is wrong and unjustified. It is obvious that Anwar is vandalizing these articles on the basis of borderline racism.--D-Boy 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has been very disruptive. Bakaman has just been doing damage control, along with myself and others. Arrow740 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. Whatever your differences with another user, revert-warring with them across six or more different articles is hardly the way to resolve them. That's plain disruptive. It's also against the rules. In addition, removing tags on an article that have been placed there by multiple different editors is also frowned upon. IMO both deserved their blocks. Misplaced Pages is most categorically not a battleground, something these two seem to have forgotten. Moreschi 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman unblocked

We do not appreciate administrators unilaterally blocking other users for no violation of policy. Please do not do this again. Your admin action has been undone. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock of Bakaman. Yes, Anwar's edits do violate WP's policies and guidelines but blocking him is not really an option here. Blocking users in this manner is a no-no and does more harm than good. Terence 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Um. Nick unblocked Bakasuprman, but apparently didn't unblock User:Anwar saadat. This reeks of special treatment, especially given Nick and Baka's involvement in the ongoing Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. And who exactly is the "we" that Nick refers to? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"We" is for the community. I will endorse an unblock of Anwar saadat if done by any other administrator. As for your misguided comments, it was I who highlighted the inappropriate block of Anwar saadat on the Evidence page. Please cease with this conspiratorial and partisan rhetoric. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying, then, that User:Moreschi is not a member of the community? As for Anwar, two different administrators have already denied his unblock requests, so I won't override them. I don't like to undo other administrators' actions. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin's judgment was clouded and if he would have cared to take a look at those pages where the alleged warring took place, these are effectively 0.66 RR blocks. We need dispute resolution for this and not blocks to escalate the situation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

O.66RR across six articles? Yep, that's disruption, and last I checked we block for that. And no, my judgment is not clouded: my reasoning abilities are perfectly intact, and I'm virtually uninvolved when it comes to these users. Moreschi 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Clouded"? I think you should have initiated a discussion here before concluding that. Since Anwar had three unblock requests declined before FaysaalF unblocked him, I see a pretty robust consensus for Moreschi's block of Anwar. As for dispute resolution, from what I've seen, neither Anwar or Baka has shown great inclination to engage in discussion, mediation, or anything similar during their sporadic edit-war (except, as I noted, Baka made some talk page posts yesterday). For what it's worth, it looks to me as if Anwar is stalking and trolling Baka, but Baka's response is, for the most part, simply to revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus. Now is reverting (and making my best attempt to discuss) anything comparable to stalking? No it isnt.Bakaman 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu, anyone? "Humus Sapiens' unblock of Baka was a mistake". That and the earlier "edit-warring duo" post have me confused as to where Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) ends and Akhilleus (talk · contribs) begins.Bakaman 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As civil as ever. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out my train of thought in the most civil way possible. You accused me of being a proxy of a banned anti-Buddhist troll and I took offense at your mis-characterization of evidence and your opprobrious facilitation of admin abuse. I find that is covered in policy, under WP:CIVIL. Your remarks are little more than "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another".Bakaman 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock of Bakasuprman per Nearly Headless Nick.Dineshkannambadi 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The block was hasty and badly judged. I support the unblock. Sarvagnya 02:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat unblocked

I've just unblocked User:Anwar saadat to cool this down. -- FayssalF - 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These are my thoughts: It seems my unblock requests would not have been declined three times by admins if the diffs I provided were read through. I was not revert warring with Baka here (as Baka blanked entire section without discussion or even a note in the edit summary and here (as Baka removed the formatting for the filmography table without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here and here (as Baka inserted link to FU image, no FU rationale provided and introduced POV with links to a partisan blog) and here and here (as Baka reverted a tag to a FU image and blanked a whole section along with supporting links to the Guardian without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here (as Baka inserted a subscriber-only link). I hope the matter is clear now.Anwar 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Undoing co-admins blocks

I am not a fan of undoing blocks. It just makes things worse as shown above. Both users have been edit warring since a long time and honestly the block of Moreschi was appropriate. My unblock of saadat tries to bring the balance back. I hope both users refrain from using the revert button excessively. -- FayssalF - 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of blocks. They just make things worse as shown above. Was this really a situation so extreme that the blocks were necessary? Are the blocking admins aware of the psychological effects of blocks? Bishonen | talk 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

Threads about both editors has been common here. It is not the first time Anwar and Baka's conflicts are brought here. There would be rather psychological effects of the blocks on admins i believe as shown above (i.e. Nick and Akhilleus). -- FayssalF - 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things are brought up on ANI, not all of them are legitimate. It is our job as administrators to decide what is good for the project and what is not. Instead of seeking quick solutions like blocking users pronto, we must encourage them to seek dispute resolution; or perhaps take the prerogative ourselves and initiate one for them. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These guys have been at it for over a month (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar). Despite plenty of warnings, and two sets of blocks (both undone rather quickly), they've shown no serious inclination to engage in dispute resolution. How do you suggest solving the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that this behaviour is endemic for these editors, as witnessed by the sheer number of unpleasant RfArbs in which they have been involved, I'd say ending a fairly lenient 24-hour block is strange, to say the least. That it is Sir Nicholas who's done it should alarm anyone who's read the Request for Arbitration in which he and Bakasuprman were involved. This is quite ridiculously unsubtle, really. Hornplease 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your motivations, as presented on arbcom and another argument are clear.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think admins must recuse themselves from taking any admin actions, in cases where allegations of Conflict of interest may occur. And also, requesting the blocking admin to reconsider the block is much better than taking any controversial admin action to undo a block. My $0.02. --Ragib 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ragib, and note that this principle from the ongoing Hkelkar 2 arbitration states more or less the same thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Answar is a vandalising Hindu articles for no reason. Seeing as he is a muslim, makes his actions extremely predujice.--D-Boy 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While no one disagrees with that, it seems .66 Reverts and attempts at talk page discussion are equal misdeeds.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We just trolled ourselves

First, I would like to reject the suggestion that my judgment was clouded. It was not. I'm not the one with a vendetta here. I'm not the one trying to push a POV. I'm neutral. Couldn't care less about Indian politics, or Wikipolitics.

Let's please say this all loud and clear: edit-warring is disruptive. I can cope with a bit of edit-warring, but revert-warring with just one other user across six different articles is very disruptive and self-evidently warrants a block. Both of my blocks were, very, very obvious blocks to make. This pair have been fighting each other for yonks with no attempt at dispute resolution. It's time someone tried to whack some sense into this pair, because they are not getting it, and unblocking either of them equates to condoning disruption. Just farcical. Particularly when you are a participant, on the same side, as one of them in an Arbitration case: a clear conflict of interest. Both users violated this rule and the clause in this one, which states the disruptive edit-warriors should be blocked even if they have not violated 3RR. Fighting like across so many articles clearly falls under that clause. Both users violated the rules: they were being disruptive, and we block for disruption, don't we? The unblock was a joke. Politics are clearly being played here. Moreschi 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, no Indian Wikipolitics for you. Thought I should remind you of the invectives you used for Bakasuprman and another gentleman over IRC a few days ago. You are obviously, an uninvolved party. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the specifics (and I incline to Moreschi's view of them), what happened to discussing a block with the blocking admin before undoing it? Am I missing something? Was the first notice that Moreschi's block had been overturned really a notice on AN/I stating, "We do not appreciate your administrative action; it has been undone"? MastCell 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that is the case. This brings on the question of conflict of interest, given that there is an ongoing arbitration case that specifically barred any admin actions among the parties. In the end, such admin actions just bring the adminship into disrepute. --Ragib 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still perplexed by that "we". Apparently Sir Nick believes he can unilaterally determine the will of the community, whereas Moreschi's judgement is "clouded". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too perplexed by the "we". Ragib and Akhilleus were a couple the original supporters of Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) during the notorious meatpuppetry fiasco. What brings adminship into disrepute is willingly making hypocritical statements and equating stalking with legitimate knee-jerk reactions.Bakaman 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And so was Moreschi...oh, wait, he wasn't. And guess what, he's the blocking admin. Not me, not Rama's Arrow (who left, so why are we bringing him up, exactly?). And you know, if you're foolish enough to take the bait when you're being trolled, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. As for "hypocritical statements", I would expect that if you agree with the principle that administrators shouldn't block users on the opposite side of a dispute, you would also agree that administrators should not unblock users on their own side of a dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was never in any sort of edit dispute with Rama's Arrow. I had a spat with him maybe a week or two before the April 22 incident. I attempted to discuss after the second reverts. Anwar has a long history of this, as we can see in Rama's first RFA where he was censured by a number of users for attacks on religious beliefs. This isn't about one size fits all remedies. I have demonstrated on the talk pages how my edits were within policy. Anwar's inability to do that is not my problem. Facilitation of stalking and religious hatred are also not becoming of admins.Bakaman 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you're being trolled. Anwar's been trolling you for over a month. There have been numerous ANI posts about this, and it's played a role in the arbitration case. And you still haven't figured out a way to respond except pursue your "revert first" policy, even though you've already been warned, several times, that this is not a good idea. Anwar's behavior is worse than yours, but that doesn't mean you're in the clear. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it seems moreschi's judgment is clouded. He obviously cannot judge the difference between harassment and a legitimate reaction. I made attempts to discuss (citing policy and reliable sources) on VHP, image, hindu temples book, Aligarh riots, and Goa. I had complained of Anwar's trolling to no avail (especially not from you). Nick was merely being bold in helping to rectify the situation. Arbcom cases sprout around controversial articles. Users that edit controversial articles, see arbcom quite a lot, regardless of their scrupulous behavior and concurrence with policy.Bakaman 01:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I noted above, you made some posts to talk pages of some of these articles, after this note from User:Andrew c. You gracefully replied here, where you said, in part: 'I do not feel a need to discuss with a troll...That being said I "discussed" my edits now.' One might conclude that your efforts to discuss (sorry, "discuss") were in less than good faith; in fact, you explicitly said they weren't. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I should add that your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Goa Inquisition consisted of "The link works." () Another one of your posts ended "I can remove this bs at whim." This was probably not the most constructive way to approach the situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So ArbCom appears about to pass a decision, in Hkelkar 2, specifically barring actions such as Sir Nick's unblock of Bakasuprman as inappropriate uses of administrative powers. Perhaps this unblock was technically "legal", in the sense that the ArbCom case is not officially closed, but it still doesn't pass the smell test. Unless I'm missing something here? MastCell 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note Bishonen, morven and Flonight's comment on the talk page of Proposed decisions here – . Some of those proposed principles are self-contradictory, and the Arbitrators are still reviewing them. They were originally meant for somebody else. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The principle in question is uncontroversial. Or do you disagree with the idea that "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in"? Note that the sentence starts "As always," implying that this is something that doesn't even need to be said. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator misconduct in deletion debates

I have just discovered that User:Evilclown93 has speedily deleted Category:Fictional affluent characters. There is an ongoing debate at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1 and another at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. This category and its predecessors have now been deleted without consensus three times. The admins involved are not showing respect for the will of the community, but are doing what they want because they have the technical ability to do so. Please could someone advise me of the appropriate action to take to get higher authoritities to investigate and resolve this matter. Thank you. OrchWyn 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

XFD is not a vote. If an administrator feels that something really should be deleted, even with 100% consensus to keep, he can IAR and delete it. Will 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And then he should not be surprised to find it undeleted later. --MichaelLinnear 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if every other administrator feels that it should be kept? Is there no appeal? Is the power of an administrator completely unlimited? Would you like it if an administrator did this to something that you wanted kept? OrchWyn 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) But they would have to have a damn good reason if it was 100% to keep. The deletion message for this category was "housekeeping". It could just be a genuine mistake. Until Evilclown responds we won't know. Grandmasterka 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the comment that "it is not a vote", no one is saying it is. If you look through the debates, the keepers have put forward many more arguments, and most of them have not even received the courtesy of a response. You really can't say that the deleters won the intellectual debate. All that happened was that one of them who had the power to delete went ahead and did so. OrchWyn 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your previous remarks condemning an admin for egregious misconduct by going against consensus at the very least comes across as saying it's a vote. Doczilla 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment: There were five comments to speedy delete in the CfD. I recall seeing this category in CAT:CSD earlier today; I presume that's where Evilclown found it as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are also many advocates of retention. And the only grounds for speedy deletion are previous deletions which were performed without consensus, and the latest of which is now up for review. If one accepts that this was a legitimate speedy deletion, then what's to stop any admin deleting any category regardless of the will of the community, and then speedy deleting it every time it reappears regardless of due process and the will of the community? If you agree that the speedy was not correct, please use your powers to restore it asap because right now the current non-existence of this category is distorting a discussion in which many users have participated in good faith, by creating what should be a false impression that the powers that be have already made their decision. OrchWyn 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there; I've replied on your Talk page. I don't feel comfortable reverting Evilclown's decision to delete without hearing what he has to say first. Besides, isn't it on DRV? Nitpick: I don't consider myself to have admin powers, but admin rights. :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At this time, it would be appropriate to close the discussion on Category:Fictional affluent characters at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1 and wait for the deletion review on Category:Fictional wealthy characters at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review to reach a conclusion. Instead of recreating the category under a different name, the interested editors should have gone to WP:DRV if they wanted to dispute the administrator's decision.

Also, although the Category:Fictional affluent characters page itself does not exist, it currently exists as red links in many articles. When the WP:DRV reaches a conclusion, I recommend either deleting the red linked categories or changing all of the red links to correspond to the "wealthy characters" category name. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with Submilli. This is an end-run around DRV. Have some patience. >Radiant< 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's on DRV, why is it here? If one such action is begun, see it through to the end before taking a different route. Starting two at the same time makes it appear that somebody is just determined to get their own way one way or another. Doczilla 05:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - please help!

This individual individual destroyed my harmless anti-genocide denial userbox and messed up my profile page code, so now even if I revert to previous version, nothing is lined up properly - nothing works. He completely destroyed the work in which I invested hours of my time. Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bosniak . Please help! Are there any objective administrators around? Please help. Bosniak 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The template was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25#Template:User Against Srebrenica Genocide Denial. If you feel it is necessary, go to WP:DRV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just userfy the userbox and you'll be fine. --Hemlock Martinis 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Userfying is the wrong answer. This type of content is not welcome here. Remember that using userpages to ... campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea. Vassyana 01:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, redux

I happen not to be a banned troll, so I'll restart this discussion.

Both SqueakBox and DPeterson continue to redirect the articles Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism to Pedophilia. A quick glance at this talk page shows that a vote on the proposal was failing 3-6 before it was closed and declared "no consensus." The "being bold" defense clearly does not hold water when the idea has already been discussed extensively, with the majority of users disapproving. The merge is a dead issue; the proposal clearly failed. Please take appropriate action.

Mike D78 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What action would you have an admin take? Corvus cornix 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is appropriate for the situation. Since they keep reverting the pages to redirect even after a long discussion resulted in no consensus on the idea, I would consider their changes to be vandalism. But I'll let an admin decide what action is necessary. Mike D78 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've recently begun watching the relevant pages. There are clear problems here, with just as clear solutions. The main Pedophilia article has become bloated with activism information, most of it pro-, that simply duplicates information from the Pro-pedophilia activism page and completely takes over the article. What needs to happen is both Pro-pedophilia activism and Anti-pedophilia activism need to be moved/redirected to Pedophilia activism, and the duplicated material deleted/merged from the main article.

I've submitted a move request at Requested moves, but if revert warring and edit warring is happening, the relevant pages may need protecting and those engaging in the behaviour may need blocking. Exploding Boy 06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning people - Mike D78 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sockpuppet of the pedophilia-obsessed Kirbytime (talk · contribs), as was Flamgirlant (talk · contribs), who was the originator of the above thread. - Merzbow 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The time has clearly come to be bold. Exploding Boy 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But Exploding Boy is not anybody's sock, and rightfully sees that something's not right. Editing warring just isn't the way to solve disputes. Pro-pedophile activism has now been locked, and the material is duplicated on both pages. Exploding Boy has proposed a merger between pro- and anti-, again, and I'm getting dizzy with deja vu. There has to be a better way than this. ETA: looks like he's got things into some kind of form to carry on the conversation without reduplications everywhere. -Jmh123 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I am most certainly not a sockpuppet of "Kirbytime" or any other user; in fact, a look at my contributions will show that I've been editing since before his last account was blocked. I don't appreciate you making these unfounded accusations against me, and furthermore, simply the fact that a banned user originally brought up this issue does not mean that the issue is not relevant. Mike D78 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who locked that article; it wasn't me. I've proposed that the Pro-pedophile activism article be renamed Pedophilia activism, and that all activism related to the subject be included in that article, unless there's a good reason for separate articles (ie: there is a lot of information, too much for one article covering both sides, which is unlikely based on the current state of all related articles, and the fact that the anti-pedophilia activism information currently available comprises about 2 paragraphs). Exploding Boy 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Expecting pro- and anti- paedophilia activists to cooperate on a single article is "a bit" optimistic. Dan Beale 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They will by necessity be separate sections, so ne'er the twain shall meet. Exploding Boy 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Mike D78 is probably another sock of Kirbytime. --Matt57 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Again Matt, stop making these unsubstantiated accusations against me, or I will consider them to be personal attacks.

Mike D78 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the Pro-pedophile activism article is safe for the moment from edit warring, its counterpart is not as lucky. Could the article on Anti-pedophile activism also be protected, at least until the ongoing discussion reaches some kind of consensus? Assistance of an admin would be really appreciated. What is happening is that information is getting deleted from the free-standing article on the topic and a redirect is getting placed on the page to the general Pedophilia article, yet the latter contains no information on the Anti-pedophile movement. The only reference to any kind of pedophile activism is within the section entitled "Pedophilia-related activism" that has a link to "Pedophilia activism," which redirects to the Pro-pedophile activism article. As can be seen, not only is a pointless redirect/link loop created, but information relating to the subject of Anti-pedophile activism is getting completely deleted from Misplaced Pages. Please help! Homologeo 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair

We are all making inputs in Misplaced Pages with good faith and clean intentions. I have made similar edits in the past in Telugu language, Telugu script, Brahmic family etc., and my edits were reverted without giving proper reasons. When I cited references they were branded fake. When I gave page numbers they were termed 'unreliable'. When I reproduced large chunks of material on talk pages they were ignored. When I tried to protest collusion of certain group of persons I was threatened with blocking. When I complained to some administrators they expressed their helplessness, busy schedules and inability to understand the topic. So, who will come to the rescue of well-meaning people? Please see the talk pages of the earlier mentioned articles. I strongly suspect sockpuppetry in this case too.Kumarrao 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For convenience sake, the Talk pages in question are Talk:Telugu language, Talk:Telugu script, Talk:Brahmic family and many more

• Please see Sarvagnya's Contributions and those of similar users, and decide for yourself. Thanking You, Altruism 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just saw Sarvagnya's Contributions. What is there to decide? What do you mean by "similar users"?

Unless you provide the supporting diffs, i'm afraid, it is not going to help the case. Thanks, - KNM 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong in giving the link of a user's contributions. Nothing confidential about it. I'm sorry I can't elaborate any further for obvious reasons. Most of the concerned will understand. Don't try to bait. --Altruism 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Elaborate. You are here to get us to do something, not the other way around. If you're going to be so lofty with your request, we're going to toss it aside. —Kurykh 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bam Bam Slim Fast and Lee's Summit

I noticed a lot of attempts by multiple users to create articles about this Seattle based radio announcer yesterday, using various different versions of his name, all of which were speedy deleted. e.g. Bam Bam AKA Slim Fast (which has now been protected) Slimfast BamBam etc Also many additions of his name to the Lee's Summit, Missouri article as a notable resident. Finally, the explanation came from one user that Mr. Bam Bam had said on air that he should be included in WP and his upbringing in Lee's Summit noted. . Another article involved is Church of lazlo. I write this to ask for some extra eyes and help, as it seems likely that this might be a recurring theme once he gets back on the air today. Thanks.--Slp1 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected.-Wafulz 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wafulz! --Slp1 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer continues to vandalize the redirect from Jews to Jew. After reverting to the last non-vandalized version of the redirect, he threatened to block me, accusing me of vandalism. Requesting intervention. Perspicacite 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Have reported this user to WP:AIV. Continues to remove 77,000+ words from an article. - NeutralHomer 12:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have some sort of anti-Semitic agenda. The only difference between the page he is reverting to and the July 2 version of "Jew" is that the "Jews" page is under Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Perspicacite 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am actually insulted! Wow! No, I don't read the page, don't care what's in it. 77,000+ words down to 17, I revert it. The content of the page, I leave that up to someone else. I ask, though, you take retract the "anti-Semitic" comment, because it is rude, uncalled for, and not anywhere close to what I am doing. - NeutralHomer 12:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, but it should be noted that you should not be copy and pasting the text from Jew into Jews as is occurring. If you want to move the article, the correct venue for discussion is at Talk:Jew. Will (aka Wimt) 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no interest in the subject what-so-ever. I see it on the "Recent Changes" page, clicked on it, revert, Warn2'd the user, and went on from there. Seen it was reverted again, Warn3'd and well, you get the idea. I have no real interest in the article, I leave that up to someone else. - NeutralHomer 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this a content dispute? He deliberately put the article into Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. He then proceeded to harass me for reverting his vandalism. I would think his edits merit a 24-hr block at least. Perspicacite 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact it seems to me to be an innocent mistake. He is reverting to the copy and paste move from Jew seemingly introduced by an IP here which happened to contain that category. I see no evidence that he is deliberately introducing that category. It is true Jews should stay as a redirect (unless Jew is moved there properly and with consensus) but I see no grounds for a block. Will (aka Wimt) 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN...I do not read the articles, when I see a article that has been reduced from 77,000+ words to 17, I instantly revert it. The content of the article, especially something like Judaism, for which I do not understand and don't claim to even understand in the least, I leave up to someone who does. I am not going to catch a category at the bottom of a page. If I did, I would have certainly removed it, but again, that is not my department. Actually, reverting vandalism isn't either, I just do it to help out.

So, again...I was not vandalising, I was reverting what I thought was vandalism. I have no agenda and I am not and have not vandalised. - NeutralHomer 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This user apparently has a long history of incivility, referring to the "bastards" (no doubt the Jews) behind 9/11.. Perspicacite 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt his past edits involving Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks and Cat:Victims of 9/11 are coincidental. Righttttt. Perspicacite 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary on the September 11 page was about people who were Islamic, for one, who took down the Twin Towers. But, I shouldn't have lost my temper and said that on my edit summary.

But it had NOTHING to do with Jewish people, actually had nothing to do with Islamic people. Just 19 "bastards".

Now, you need to stop this personal attack you are going on, because you can be blocked for that. - NeutralHomer 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite, you seem to be entirely lacking in any kind of good faith assumption here. Neutralhomer has said that he just saw what appeared to be a blanking of content and reverting it. Trying to insinuate from this and his previous areas of contribution that he is antisemitic is not acceptable. Please stop this now. The issue in question is resolved, let's all get on doing some productive. Will (aka Wimt) 12:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Neutralhomer, I would appreciate it if in the future you look at the articles before you edit them. Perspicacite 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite seems to be at fault here.--trey 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer needs to read what he's reverting. Corvus cornix 23:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Never revert unless you're sure you're reverting to the correct version. --Masamage ♫ 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock User:Matrix17 since he has been misthreated

unblock user matrix17 since he has been misthreated by users>yamla and steel on english wikipedia. its obvious that they have blocked him not in good faith and for the best of wikipedia but because they dont like him. and since user steel uses word like bad ass and stuff like that to describe matrix17 i think its quite obvious that something is very wrong.matrix17 has contributed with alot on wikipedia he was the one who started the articel for example on riyo mori winner of miss universe and he has done man good articles on swedish celebrities and sutch. i think its something smelling about this blocking and i would rather see him ge tunblocked then being blocked for 6 months which is way to far. i also saw tha tone admin sayed that matrix17 should apply for adoption here on wikipedia, but how can he do tha twhen hes talk page has bene blocked (which is obviously steels work so he cant communicate with other here) i would like to now how that admin thinked. anyway my standpoint is unblock matrix17. hope not to get censored just because this is my opinion.--86.90.169.62 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi there little sock. -N 14:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • i guess its easy to blame a sockpuppet for a opinion. when you all know its wrong and just wants to get ridd of someone who has a different opinion.--86.90.169.62 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • user yamla sayed that she blocked matrix17 because he had created a nn bios on Ebba von Sydow which was proven not to be a nn bios. and afterwards she didnt even apologize to the user or unblock the user. how can matrix17 have done anything wrong when it wasnt a nn bios and thats why yamla blocked him. then anothe ruser first unblocked him and then user steel blocked him again, thats not nice at all in my book anyway.--86.90.169.62 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• I know this says resolved... but I just noticed a new editor asking around about Matrix17 and adoption. He claims to be Matrix17's friend, though he seems to have a strong interest in editing the exact same articles Matrix17 did. I hear quacking, but I'd like another admin to review.--Isotope23 13:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Usernamedit (talk · contribs) is a sock and ought to be blocked, preferably by someone uninvolved. – Steel 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Fernandobouregard is Jimbo?

So is this user actually Jimbo Wales (I doubt it) or is it blatant impersonation? His user page is a copy of Jimbo's user page, his talk page is an out of date copy of the Jimbo Wales article talk page.--Atlan (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was some really quick action by Deskana. Case closed.--Atlan (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not resolved after all, as Deskana's blanking of the page was reverted by User:Orangemike. -Hit bull, win steak 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

I´m in an argument with two or three users -don´t know exactly, cause the one mentioned above might have two usernames. It´s about IMO unverified or poorly veryfied information regarding the an allegend post world war 2 terrorist/insurgent movenent in Germany. Instead of some hard facts I get called a nazi sympathizer and THAT crosses a line. Look under warnings on this discussion page: Talk:Werwolf Markus Becker02 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• The diff is here. "Nazi sympathizer" indeed crosses a line, despite the context or maybe because of it. That's a blockable offense. I can't block, but I shall warn. Shalom 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Both is ok with me.Markus Becker02 04:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GiorgioOrsini yet again

User:GiorgioOrsini repeatedly destroys absolutely necessary corrections to grammar and formatting; deletes legitimate warnings and comments on his talk page; falsely accuses people of vandalism when they correct grammar, formatting and NPOV; and has insulted other editors on talk pages and in edit notes. He was recently temporarily blocked for confirmed sock puppetry, but obviously that wasn't enough since he keeps blatantly violating both the letter and the spirit of Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines. See his edit history for more details, especially in relation to the Neo-Nazism and Ustaše articles.Spylab 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, check all 'contributions' of Spylab on Neo-Nazism - complete removal of the text related to the Thompson's concert in Zagreb , removal references and strictly referenced text, mutilation of the originally contributed text under pretext of grammar correction and formatting. Also, Spylab comments (warnings) on my talk page are offensive and not civil. See the Neo-Nazism talk page, too.--Giorgio Orsini 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Unlike Giorgio Orsini, edit histories do not lie. He has total disregard for Misplaced Pages and English language rules, and should not be allowed to continue to destroy necessary corrections to grammar, formatting and neutrality.Spylab 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Here are two recent examples of vandalism by Giorgio Orsini: deleting an absolutely necessary "copy edit needed" tag and destroying the correct structure of a lead section. These are typical of his long history of counterproductive edits. There is no point in leaving warnings on his talk page because he deletes all of those (example). This has gone on long enough. I've seen other editors be banned for far less.Spylab 13:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Giorgio (if/when the inevitable unblock request is turned down, we can consider it a community ban). To a casual observer this may seem harsh, but I am convinced, from looking through talk pages as far back as December, that in any given dispute this user is 100% of the problem. – Steel 14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and incivility - need administrator's help

I am being wikistalked and they are being incivil to me. This is against wiki policy ]. I made a very neutral comment on the talk page of Senator Barack Obama here ]. User:Tvoz, who POV pushes at the Barack Obama article (as he as edited 239 in this article, far more than any other article he has edited), began wikistalking me.

I created a very obscure article about the Astronaut Hall of Fame. Immediately, Tvoz begins contentious editing there. That article is so obscure that this is not a chance event. Later, I edited about the very, very obscure Johann Schobert, who is NOT the famous composer Schubert. Guess what, Tvoz follows me there and causes trouble.

Tvoz is all violating AGF by calling me a sock because of my 2nd very neutral Barack Obama talk page edit. ]

For wikistalking, incivility (calling people socks just cuz you don't agree and want to push POV, and not AGF, Tvoz should be blocked for 24 hours. Help! Feddhicks 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Feddhicks is an obvious sock puppet of Dereks1x. · jersyko talk 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that an uninvolved admin would indef block this latest sock of a community banned user. Please also see recent abusive edits , , , , to my Talk page by an unknown-to-me IP address, whose timing seems curious, considering the above. A 31-hour block is in effect for the IP address, which seems rather light to me, but we'll see. Tvoz |talk 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz accuses User:Plumbing of being a Feddhicks sock and therefore a Dereks1x sock. This is wrong. Plumbing is a sock of cat POV pusher DreamGuy ]. According to Tvoz's logic, DreamGuy=Dereks1x, which is a false accusation. Given that Tvoz's 2nd most favorite article to edit is Cat Stevens, I suspect that Tvoz=DreamGuy=Plumbing (as all 3 edit controversial stuff about cats or cat stevens).

For more information, see my AN/I report about Plumbing and DreamGuy below. Mikkke2 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This speaks for itself, I think. Tvoz |talk 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't, then Mikkke2's total of 10 edits to Misplaced Pages do. · jersyko talk 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom placed Gazimestan speech on probation

I have reverted this article Gazimestan speech with the comment that's in the tag "The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator". There seem to be two issues, the emperors-clothes web-site is deemed non-RS in all circumstances, and there has been serious POV entries made to this article. I don't know what the next step would be if it's reverted again. PalestineRemembered 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Nikola Smolenski. I posted this two days ago - it's disappointing that the edit war has been allowed to continue without intervention, in blatant contravention of article probation. Unfortunately I can't act myself because I wrote the original version of the article which other editors are now fighting over. I'd appreciate it if another administrator could review this and act. -- ChrisO 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a bit, though I'd like another admin to pop over there and make sure I'm not too involved to have done so. --jpgordon 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In indirect relation to the above, I've also made a minor modification to Misplaced Pages:Copyright to make a sentence clearer, give the Wayback Machine its official name (i.e. Internet Archive) and link to an external source explaining its status (see diff). It doesn't affect the existing policy, merely the wording. The edit is being disputed by a user involved in the above-mentioned edit war. It would be helpful if another admin could check the diff and advise on whether it's a reasonable clarification. -- ChrisO 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders of the World editwar

Snjv has been making several edits to the New Seven Wonders of the World, insisting that the company is a "for-profit" institution. This user references the company's terms and conditions as somehow proving that the company is not a non-profit. I think that perhaps this is a very literal reading of the words "non-profit", and saw no mention of anything relevant on the page the user linked. This article, on the other hand, by the MSN Travel network, explicitly mentions that the company is non-profit (" . . . says the nonprofit organization conducting the balloting"). Two messages on the user's talk page went without a response. I am in danger of breaking the ever-fearsome 3RR on this, and would like assistance if possible. Please communicate with me via my Talk page. Sorry to trouble you guys! --Action Jackson IV 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, so you should follow the steps of dispute resolution. And of course, don't violate the 3RR. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Well, I'll just work on step two for the next few months :) --Action Jackson IV 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

The editor Orangemarlin:

• sent me frivolous warnings about alleged vandalism ,
• repeatedly insulted and slandered me
  • "… Mr. panty and penis obsessed …"
  • "… Mr. Panty obsessed …"
  • "I found it amusing that he's obsessed with panties and penises."
  • "… audacious ****wit …"
• was extremely aggressive and provocative
• tried to remove an active unfavorable discussion from his talk page and then called me a vandal when I reverted it
• falsely accused me of being a vandal, even though it was explained to him by a neutral third party that it's wrong

The case can best be seen by the discussion in my talk page. The only policy I've broken is WP:EQ, which itself was after being provoked, but he's flagrantly violated WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASS. What had caused all this was simply following the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE, and trusting the WP:BOLD guideline, since there was a calling need for a big talk page to be archived, and WP:BITE, since I'm new to editing. All this was stated clearly and several times in the pertinent talk page. The same actions, but done by a different editor, have not caused anyone to call him a vandal.

Having been treated so unjustly has caused me pain, and I believe I've been in the right the entire time, so I'm calling for any disciplinary action against User:Orangemarlin, just so he would maybe understand that he was wrong. –Fatalis 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after Fatalis filed this report, User:Sasquatch left a warning on User talk:Orangemarlin threatening a block if the harassment continues. Since then OM has made 3 edits, none of which have directly made the situation worse AFAICS. I am familiar with OM (I've done an editor review on him), and he tends to have an aggressive personality, but here he took it too far. It's hard for me to interpret Fatalis's attempt at archiving as anything other than an honest mistake (I'm not just assuming good faith, I really believe that's the case). It certainly does not warrant name-calling relating to body parts. OM's record is such that it's hard to justify a block if he stops cold - but that's a big "if" at this point. Shalom 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to make the peace here. I'm ignoring his follow up commentary. There is a larger story here, and typical of these ANI's they do not look beyond surface complaints. But I'm done with this issue, and ready to move on. Orangemarlin 05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the "name-calling" Orangemarlin did ("Mr. panty and penis obsessed …") was in response to Fatalis calling OM a dick and telling him not to get his panties in a wad. Clearly, there was incivility from both sides, and it is strange that one user (in this case, User:ConfuciusOrnis) was blocked, while Fatalis never even received a proper civility warning. It's also strange that the discussion would be about blocking Orangemarlin without even a mention here of Fatalis' incivility. Weird. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The idiom "panties in a bunch/knot/wad" is not something that you'd use in a polite society, but it came after a completely gratuitous vandalism warning, and its meaning fit there perfectly. Calling him a dick was after he'd insulted me more (namely, calling me "Mr. Panty obsessed" and a vandal again), and was meant as an invitation to stop being one, because he was both wrong and seriously uncivil. I don't think you can find any instance of him assuming good faith there, or even listening to other editors, or showing any repentance. His attempt to "make peace" came right after an another spurious accusation of vandalism and tag-teaming me with his friend, and I did not decline it anyway. –Fatalis 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Firsfron, this is a very odd situation. Perhaps it is indeed typical of a certain haste and superficiality of our "ANI culture", as Orangemarlin proposes above. Oddest of all is Sasquatch's uncalled-for block threat here. Fatalis seems determined to prolong the conflict until everybody apologizes to him (for ... uh, not sure). See this thread, with Orangemarlin's offer to move on and Fatalis insistence on "justice." Or see Fatalis' call for "repentance" just above here, with the hilarious and petulant misstatement "I did not decline anyway". Fatalis needs especially to stop reverting Orangemarlin's changes to his own talkpage, which he is free to make. See for instance this revert and this, note especially the edit summaries. Stop trying to police his talkpage right now, please, Fatalis. Incidentally, isn't it time you stopped sheltering under WP:BITE? You've been editing here since April 2005. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

The account is old, but I've edited very little until now, and his attempt to make peace came after I said I'll go to ANI, and sounded more like "I'll let you go", when it was he who had kept escalating it, and who had started it in the first place. I agree that the reverts you pointed out were false, but I can't stop doing it "right now", because I'm not doing it now at all, and it's still not what you'd call vandalism, because the discussions were active, and more comments were made after I restored them.

I think it's telling of your own bias that you don't see anything that I could want an apology for, or that Orangemarlin could be warned for. I agree that the hostilities were not one-sided, but I did not initiate them, and I asked him to stop them very early. At one point he said that my apologies were worthless, because I kept on vandalizing the article's talk page, which was still as wrong as the first accusation of vandalism. He also had assumed without asking anything, or caring to look at my edit history, that I'm a "POV warrior" from the beginning. In the end, if someone very unjustly attacks me, and I don't behave as a saint, it doesn't mean that I've waved away any rights to complain. –Fatalis 10:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Or to attack me for "bias"? I see. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Yes, Bish, that must be one of his rights too.

Fatalis, if you cannot present the whole story, just drop it. You seem to forget that there were Draconian changes you made that were the catalyst for all of this. Was OM angry, yes but I think it was a "righteous anger" -- he responded to your actions (which were indefensible by the way). Apparently, neither you nor Banno can see that archiving still-activediscussion threads is wrong (especially given that your denfence of the archiving was that you don't have broadband and the page was loading too slowly). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, where did I say that that I don't have broadband? It is you who is seriously misrepresenting the case, and it is Orangemarlin's "righteous anger" that can not be supported by any policy, and my editing that did not violate anything. The mistake I made was using the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE that caused the history be archived too. I have recognized that it was wrong several times. About your active threads, both after I had archived the page, and after Banno restored the history from the archive, it was clearly suggested that the active threads should be copied back. What was copied back instead was almost the entire archive, making the page still much too heavy. You have not shown to understand the situation, both by claiming that having a > 200 KiB talk page is not wrong, and by accusing Banno of losing content, which is false. –Fatalis 10:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because you were dismissing any fault on Orangemarlin's side by saying that there's nothing to apologize to me for, you were calling the warning to Orangemarlin undeserved (and used the loaded term "threat"), giving too much weight to misconduct on my side after the stress had been risen significantly, and accusing me of dishonestly by pretending to be a newbie (which my edit history can prove to be false), and implying that your analysis is supposed to be not hasty or superficial. I was just standing my ground against injustice, and still am. –Fatalis 10:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Fatalis, that's not my "bias", those are merely my interpretations of events. Bias implies that I have some hidden or personal reason for interpreting the actions as I do. What would that be? Please specify these suspicions of bias. Have you and I ever interacted before? Would I have any reason to want to ambush you? Do you think I'm passionately in love with Orangemarlin? (I'm not, I'm passionately in love with El C.) Anything like that? Or what is this bias of mine? Please don't attack the integrity of users merely because they don't agree with you. I noticed that when somebody did agree with you, you described them above as a "neutral third party". That's what I am here. A neutral third party. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

You are right, that was not the right word choice. What I really meant that you were mistaken in your analysis and conclusions. English isn't my first language, and I'm still under stress. –Fatalis 11:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's another accusation of dishonesty: you called OM an "audacious fuckwit", not the other way around. See here &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's false, it was clearly directed at the trolling Octoplus (I think everybody agreed that he was), Orangmarlin does not appear even near that comment, and I recognize it was very uncivil, and have refrained from using such phrases since. It was Orangemarlin who called me that later, because you had copied it in my talk page. –Fatalis 10:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should we trust you after you have to lied to us? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell have I lied about? Besides, it's verifiable. See for yourself. –Fatalis 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Lies or not, civil or not, the editor who filed this ridiculous incident report, has been incredibly disruptive to any possible progress on talk:creation science. His actions amount effectively to tearing up the talk page of a contentious article without bothering to seek consensus. Further, any assumption of good faith that may have been his due, has been undermined by his self-righteous and unrepentant attitude. ornis 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you have done nothing but create mess yourself, and then spread FUD about an administrator who actually restored the history, and second, this is irrelevant to the complaint, and false, because my mistake was simply using the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE. –Fatalis 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatalis, your mistake was in archiving quite a few active discussions, and responding with "don't get your panties in a wad"-type incivility when people understandably were upset at the resulting mess. And then calling for disciplinary action here against Orangemarlin for being "treated so unjustly" and "caus pain". Firsfron of Ronchester 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an unfair summary. After I archived the big talk page (280 KiB; the mistake was in moving the page history with it), Orangemarlin attacked me and issued a false warning about "vandalism". I repeated what I had said in the summary, and suggested that the active discussions should be moved back in. I then told him to not get so agitated, that I was just following the WP:ARCHIVE guideline. Perhaps it was impolite (it could also be taken as humorous), but he met it with pointless insults, and showed that he does not understand the situation, and kept calling me a vandal. I was reasonably upset, and told him to stop being a dick. I was met with more pointless vitriol. Two other editors told him that he was wrong about tagging me as a vandal, and he just dismissed them, and also called me a "POV warrior", showing that he had just made that assumption, without bothering to see my edit history. After that he has not yet acknowledged that I'm not a vandal, and is still making aggressive comments. Also, all this muddle is because after the history was restored by User:Banno, a certain editor moved back in not just the active discussions, as was the idea, but almost the entire archive, ranging from 380 KiB to about 200, with many threads long dead. –Fatalis 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Well, it's certainly unfortunate that all this kerfuffle has arisen when a newbie with only eight months of solid editing experience tries to be helpful, and completely misreads the clear instructions at WP:ARCHIVE on a particularly sensitive talk page, then when Fatalis raises the issue here in, it must be said, a remarkably well constructed complaint, editors acting in good faith get a block in the rush to calm the situation down. I'd hope we can all learn from this, and do our best to undo all the collateral damage. . .. dave souza, talk 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected

Both parties should cut down on the incivility or else both of them will be blocked. That sound fair enough? This is already getting out of hand as it is. If you guys can't learn to play together you can play somewhere else. Sasquatch t|c 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

unrepentant personal attack by User:01001 on User:Pete.Hurd

In response to this request to cease personal attacks, I get this response. I feel this scurrillous allusion to racism is intended to cast aspersions upon my professional character. I request it be deleted from the article history along with this AN/I section. I also request an admin weighs 01001's long history of disruption in and consider a block, other forms of communication are proving unsuccessful. Pete.Hurd 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Done - as for the second case, at least two eyes are already on the problem. Cheers, WilyD 22:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde sock

I strongly suspect User:FormerlyPanairjdde is a sockpuppet of banned user Panairjdde. Could you please deal with it? --Angelo 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Username hard-blocked. Grandmasterka 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused user

OK - so we have Max Smith-Creasey who claims to be the 14 year old owner of a MSC Business group (article on which was CSD'd out of existance - various orphan images), he seems to be creating userpages for others - here and, now Max Entrepreneur has appeared and is doing the same along with bits of petty vandalism and nominating himself for admin here, which he identifies himself as Max Smith-Creasey. It's pretty clear those all seem to be the same person, and he either doesn't understand what we are about or thinks this is some form of game. I need to hit the sack but does someone want to look into this before he comes back tomorrow and generates all sorts of other material that will need deleting/cleaning-up. All of the userpages are also adverts and need zapping. thanks. --Fredrick day 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've checked to make sure all the pages that need to be deleted are dealt with. The only question now is whether to block the user, and I'd advise to hold off on that. Shalom 04:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

POV warriors who delete large portions of text

What remedies are available for blatant POV warriors who delete large portions of text which does not meet their own POV? I have seen a small group of editors go around and delete huge portions of referenced text that they personally don't agree with. They cite policy for these deletions, but their policy reasons dont stand up to any scrutinty. It simply is a way to delete large portions of referenced text. What remedies are available, other than RfC and Arbcom? I have no problem accepting other peoples view points but destructive uncompromising deletions of large portions of text are terrible. One editor in particular, has been an editor for over a year and a half, and never actually adds anything to wikipedia, his only purpose is to actively get articles he doesnt like AfD'ed.

Any suggestions? 216.60.70.152 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

that you be less vague ? this is a board for people to bring specific incidents to the attention of administrators - what specific problem do you have? --Fredrick day 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not name usernames or name particular pages right now. I am just wondering if there is anyway to stop this behavior. Would another policy page be a better place to ask? 216.60.70.152 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is -- you revert it, and refer them to the talk page. --Haemo 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion Haemo. Wow, if it could be that easy. :) I am talking about deletions that go on for months, even years. A third party moderator didnt work. RfC? Can a person have a RfC for several users at one time? Does wikipedia have any policy on this to stop this abuse? 216.60.70.152 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like you have some serious content disputes then, not simple POV warring. There's a difference between removing text, and having a content dispute, though the line can be blurred. To answer your question, yes you can have an RFC for a set of users -- just remember to notify them all, and provide evidence. --Haemo 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a content dispute. Most articles or referenced sections that paint the United States in a bad light are removed. Thank you for your response. 216.60.70.152 00:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is about State terrorism. It was filled with all sorts of original research which had all sorts of links to sources that didn't actually discuss State terrorism. It has been cleaned out several times, and it will remain clean. If the IP editor wants to put stuff back in, he needs to find sources that actually refer to State terrorism. Jayjg 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The cleaning has only just commenced. This article is one of the worst POV violations I have come across. Not to mention the other policy violations including WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT, it needs a lot more work to come close to being neutral.--MONGO 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO your personal bias is well known and legendary. I would have no problem if these editors actually contributed text to the articles, but they don't. 69.153.81.182 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:200.223.252.243 trolling only account

I made two legitimate edits, one removing the entire listing of Pope John Paul II's titles...as per the talk page discussion; the second was removing a bit or non-trivia from the Eric Cantona article. This IP address then reverted both without so much as a valid reason. I re-reverted, stating again my valid reasons. This same IP user again changed it back. I looked at the edit history at it appears to me, that it's probably a registered user hiding behind their IP address. Or it's a new user who is simply trolling about reverting my edits. Batman2005 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral party's input... I disagree with Batman2005's conclusion that the IP's edit revert is pure trolling, at least as applied to the Pope John Paul II article. I am not a fan of IP editors in general, but in this case I agree with the IP's edit, which was to revert the deletion of a relevant portion of the Pope article. Batman claims that the issue was addressed and somehow resolved in his favor in the discussion page. That is not the case. I don't want to get overly involved in this issue, but I am troubled by Batman's overreaction to someone disagreeing with his edit, and his own history leads me to believe that he has overreacted before in other edit conflicts. I don't know who the IP editor is, but I felt I needed to offer a defense, in case it is a new user that doesn't know much about these conflicts. I am also uncomfortable with Batman's decision to take the issue here, instead of communicating with the IP on the IP user's talk page (which if I checked correctly, he didn't do). --Anietor 01:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I never claimed that the issue was resolved, I simply pointed to the talk page disscussion. Which you ignored and reverted...shame on you. I don't give a damn if you're uncomfortable with my decision to bring the discussion here. It was quite obvious, as you pointed out, that the user is only a trolling account, going around and reverting my edits...notice you ignored the fact that they reverted my edits to the Eric Cantona page. If you have problems with where I chose to take my grievances, that's just too bad. You can either deal with it or get over it, cause i'll take my grievances to whatever forum I feel appropriate. Batman2005 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that User:Anietor is the IP address. Batman2005 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Batman, please calm down a bit? ⇒ SWATJester 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm. Batman2005 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of banned user

Would someone block a Leah01 sock? User:66.216.231.232 Leah01's page says retired, but I think the sock puppet notice should go on his/her page as long as he/she remains active in sock-puppetry. His/her socks tend to start out light-weight, but they're "give-em-an-inch-they'll-spit-on-you-and-call-you-names" type socks, so it's better to simply block and revert. User:Leah01, and his/her blocks. MrDarcy usually handled these, but he has retired. He had way too much patience with this user, allowing him/her to simply agree to stop using all the socks, then indefinately blocking once they started resurfacing and using anons. MrDarcy tended to have great patience with everyone, even this user who attacked him and abused his patience beyond belief, so I'm sorry he's gone. KP Botany 01:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sue W. Kelly

This is very strange. Zy4477380 (talk · contribs) and Super6066 (talk · contribs) are obvious SPAs, reverting the article to a promo piece style, which have been their only edits. I reverted. Recently, Lewis2007 (talk · contribs) has begun editing the article, removing relevant information such as the fact that Kelly was chair of the page committee. He's done this three times and his only edits have been to add a POV-pushing link to several articles of congressional Democrats. Are these the same person using sockpuppets? Is there any known banned user who edits in this style? hbdragon88 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is insufficient data to link Lewis to either of the two previous accounts, who both edited in January. Keep in mind that Mrs. Kelly is a prominent politician. However, Lewis2007's pattern of adding spamlinks is problematic. He hasn't done that in two weeks, so I think you can wait and see. Shalom 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an unblock request

Per the blocking policy, I'm looking for a consensus of sysops to unblock Ned Scott. The 12-hour block relates to obscenity in a DRV "Cut the bullshit matthew" followed by removing warnings with edit summaries of "fuck off" The block was clearly appropriate, but the contrite dialog at User_talk:Ned_Scott#Blocked (with an editor Ned Scott has previously been in conflict with) including "I will resume reading and considering other people's comments, and not swearing at them" leads me to say that the block no longer serves any preventative purpose and should be lifted. What do other sysops think?--Chaser - T 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• 12 hours is like, tomorrow. He can wait till then. -N 02:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And the user has been blocked several times before, according to his block log. I'm inclined to let him wait it out. Exploding Boy 02:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous blocks were for 3rr and an early block for spamming.--Chaser - T 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I too would be opposed to an early unblock. (disclaimer: I have had disputes with Ned Scott before) In my experience, Ned is usually extremely contrite during the block, but then simply goes back to old behavior when the block is lifted. On June 24 when he was blocked for 3RR, I offered to support an unblock if he would avoid editing the Juice Plus article and just participate at the talkpage. At 04:27 Ned agreed, saying he was done with that article completely. So he was unblocked, but then at 21:49 on June 24, he was right back to that article and edit-warring again, making another 4 reverts in 26 hours. Then June 26, he was blocked for 48 hours for 3RR at a completely unrelated location, the WP:BLP page. Now he's blocked again, for incivility. I actually think a 12-hour block is very lenient considering recent history. I would be opposed to lifting the current block -- Ned needs to take some time off from Misplaced Pages, calm down and realize that there's a problem. --Elonka 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think blocks normally calm people down, his behavior in the past and the behavior that lead to the block is clearly inappropriate. If a block does not prevent the behavior in the future then a longer block or other action is needed, and I agree with Elonka that a 12 hour block is very lenient. I say let it stand just as we would for anyone else who was uncivil. DarthGriz98 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks all. Elonka's example has changed my opinion as well.--Chaser - T 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked. There is a heated dispute here and both sides should calm down, but it's long been demonstrated that blocking people to calm them down doesn't actually help. Misplaced Pages is not your mother, and it's not helpful to send people to their room for swearing. If people have serious issues with Scott's behavior, I'd suggest opening an RFC. >Radiant< 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The specifics of this particular case notwithstanding, I'll offer the general comment that while a block may or may not help an editor cool down, it often serves the twin purposes of

• discouraging the behaviour in the future (even if they don't contritely acknowledge their errors, they want to stay unblocked); and perhaps most important
• allowing other editors – the ones who are able to interact civilly – to work in peace.

Whether or not a block is appropriate for a single participate in what appears to be a multi-editor argument is obviously strongly situation-dependent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of very short blocking for incivility and releasing blocks early after an apology. I note in passing that ArbCom has generally abandoned civility parole, and in cases where it has been recently proposed, the maximum block length is one hour. If "cool down" blocks are to have any value at all (and I know this is debateable in some quarters) they should be lifted once the blockee has indeed cooled down. Thatcher131 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay32183

Jay32183 (talk · contribs) has previously been blocked twice for incivility toward users who disagreed with him on the interpretation of policy . Now he is arguing with Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nighthawks in popular culture (2nd nomination) and, while he's avoided the colourful language of the earlier incidents, his attitude has been highly combative ("It's not enough for me to know you're wrong, or for the closing admin to know you are wrong. You need to know that you are wrong"). He's threatened Tyrenius with a block for continuing to advance an opinion that he believes is against policy and insists is in bad faith. I've tried to ask him to stop, but to no avail. Perhaps someone uninvolved in the debate would have better luck. —Celithemis 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in the debate, unfamiliar with Jay32183, I found his attitude to be sharply uncivil - especially to Tyrenius, I agree with the all of the above. Modernist 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking threat. Failure to AGF. A word of advice from someone uninvolved might help to steer him in the right direction. Tyrenius 12:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

John Scalzi; On- and off-wiki war

Recently, the science fiction author John Scalzi, who edits as Scalzi (talk · contribs) (and apparently the IP 67.76.243.31 (talk · contribs), reported the death on Misplaced Pages of Fred Saberhagen based on a report he personally received from Harlan Ellison. The information was repeatedly removed as uncited at first, which led to some off-wiki angst at Scalzi's website (see also some of the other threads on the blog homepage). There has been a lot of argument back and forth, and even vandalism to the John Scalzi page reporting his death. Not sure if any admin action needs to be taken right now, but the issue is far from dead and personal attacks are flying. Probably worth monitoring given the notability of people involved, this brouhaha has already drawn the attention of Fark. Videmus Omnia 02:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to me User:Hexrei could stand a block for making personal attacks (falsely reporting the death of a fellow Wikipedian and then cursing at him). Other than that I don't see anything the community can't take care of. -N 02:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am almost certain it is a sockpuppet

A user that has the single purpose of whitewashing the lead of an article I watch, Monicheewan (talk · contribs), is obviously not a new user. I am not entirely familiar with the disruptive India-related users so I'd like some opinions. I suspect Hkelkar (talk · contribs) because I had the unfortunate experience of fighting with his sockpuppet Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs). This account is warring for the same notions Rump's did and also has a similar style of edit summary. I suspect that he is Hkelkar's sock but I'd like some more familiar opinions.

In any case the user is wasting my time. He claimed I was committing OR, I pointed out how this was wrong, so he now states that the source, BBC News, is a "sensationalist tabloid". I don't think I should tolerate this kind of disruptive crap from a user who very much seems like a SPA sockpuppet of a banned user. Any ideas on how to resolve this problem? The Behnam 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Similar edits, so its probably a sock. ~ Wikihermit 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree things look fishy. I can't say if that's a sockpuppet of Hkelkar, but it's certainly a sockpuppet of someone. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Aminz (talk · contribs)

For those not aware, the Islam article has been a war zone recently and there has been edit-warring left and right (although things have calmed down recently). The issue at this moment, however, comes down to a recent one-week block applied against Aminz (talk · contribs) for violating the three-revert rule. I don't want to go into the details about this – it has played out in multiple locations (mostly User talk:Aminz#Unblock request, but also User talk:Tariqabjotu#Interesting pattern, User talk:Blnguyen#Bias against Arrow, User talk:Blnguyen#Aminz, and WP:AN3#User:Aminz_reported_by_User:Arrow740_.28Result:page_protected.2C_week.29) – but ultimately I believe Aminz's block is excessive. Yes, he has been blocked before, but his latest block was almost six months ago. Yes, he has been edit-warring, but some have suggested that two of his reverts ought to be considered consecutive (thus making only three reverts). Recently, blocks for revert-warring on that article have only been applied when four reverts in twenty-four hours, no fewer (although I'm not really a fan of this principle). That would make Aminz's block imbalanced in comparison. However, even if we were not going to accept the two reverts as consecutive, the block is still excessive. Any comments? -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is really one of those 'just for edit warring' blocks (aka "not technically 3RR"), it should at least be dished out to the other warriors in that dispute. Unless his edits have simply been absurd and inherently disruptive, it seems inappropriate to block only him, as it takes two to edit war. The length seems a tad severe (what purpose does it serve) for a controversial block, so at least reduce it. The Behnam 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not. His reverts were not consecutive, and the argument to treat them as such should be disgarded because of his extremely disruptive behavior on main page day and since. I encourage everyone to read the discussions tariqabjotu linked and also User_talk:Proabivouac#Completely_unproductive, which he didn't link. Arrow740 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I said it was controversial because it generated controversy. I don't yet have an opinion on the consecutiveness of the reverts or not. As you were the member of the dispute against reducing the block I expect you to treat the block as completely appropriate, but don't say it wasn't controversial. Perhaps another way of putting it is that it wasn't a "strong" block with a legitimate basis that is clear to pretty much everyone involved. Unless a consensus among the disputants has been reached that the block itself was appropriate, it should be considered controversial and the block should at least be reduced until a consensus is reached, as there is no point in risking severity. Consider: if it turns out that the block was indeed inappropriate, then there was no rightness in issuing the block to begin with, and as such the editor was blocked unfairly. Since the appropriateness of the block remains in question by the non-blocked disputants, the block should be at least reduced until the issue clears up to prevent further possible damages. However I may take a look to make my own opinion on the actual events leading up to the block. The Behnam 05:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the "if." Sorry for not being clear. Arrow740 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris dejoseph

The Chris dejoseph article was tagged by User:Hu for speedy deletion as an attack article. I removed the speedy tag and put on an unsourced tag as it was not clear to me that the article was an attack article.

User:Hu questioned my decision. We have had a short exchange about this , and . I have to say that this case is ambiguous enough that I thought it might be good to get a third opinion from an experienced admin as to whether I made the right call or not.

--Richard 05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I decided to speedy the article as {{db-bio}}. --Richard 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Alsace

That stork picture attracts a lot of vandals. Could you semi-protect the page ? Thanks, RCS 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. You'll usually get a quicker response if you go through WP:RFPP in future. Neil ╦ 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

My main page was vandalized in a personal attack by GreekElite shown here: . Please help me. --Asams10 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just roll with it; he doesn't look like he's on a vandalizing spree or something -- it looks more like a joke. Poor taste, yes, but I would just let it go. Keep ANI posted if it happens again. --Haemo 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't have said anything but he's got a history of doing it to others. I'd call it abuse, not a joke.--Asams10 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Asha

and the other suspects / people being questioned. It seems premature to categorise them as British Islamist terrorists. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that they are nationals of countries other than the UK, and (AFAIAW) not charged yet, then, yes, it does seem premature. LessHeard vanU 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - I've reverted on Asha. Will look at doing some of the others if I'm not beaten to it. David Underdown 12:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All removed, I've generally removed category:British muslims and similar as well as none are British nationals, I left it on one as he was born in the UK, although largely brought up in Iraq. David Underdown 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIAW ???? - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming edit war

There is an edit war at Factory farming. Will someone please lock the page down? WAS 4.250 12:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

False accusations and defamation of me by user HattoriNanzo

I would like to complain for the nasty behaviour of user HattoriHanzo, who runs defamation campaign of me publishing false accusations. He accuses me that I have complained to the noticeboard that he has inserted citations, which I never done. Moreover, HattoriHanzo behaves uncivil and continues to do so systematically. He thinks that I have conspired with some guy named Evula. His false accusations:

• 1. diff 1,
  2. diff 2,
  3. diff 3.

His personal attack to me, stating my writings are "truly idiotic".

I have brought personal attacks to the board, but HattroiHanzo doesn't stop his uncivilties. Vlad fedorov 12:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You conspired with EVula (talk · contribs)? This seems highly unlikely. I am concerned that Hanzo removes huge chunks of referenced text, however. I believe you both should take a cup of tea and discuss your grievances thoroughly. Mother Russia will not collapse in the meantime. --Ghirla 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

NOte: I linked EVula's username, for readers' quick reference. —Crazytales ] 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE. Now Biophys also joined HattroiNanzo in his disruptive editing by removing large chunks of text he claims to be poorly sourced, but these sources coming not only from Arutunyan, but also general Troshev and Guardian newspaper. Vlad fedorov 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

IP address 220.225.140.74

- Ip address has blanked article in the mainspace for no reason. Want to report this as vandalism. Article: South Central Railway I reverted article to the last unblanked version. --akc9000 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You may do so at WP:AIV. Unfortunately, yhis particular edit was 3 days ago, so it's a bit late to report. Also, please note that users should usually only be reported after having received a final warning. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained edits, Removal of Maintenance Tag

Over the past week, a User, lpcrocks has been constantly removing maintenance tags from the Linkin Park articles, most notably The Document. I've asked the user to please stop, or at least state some rationale towards the edits, but it has been in vain. I'm not exactly sure what if there is a penalty for such an offense, but it sure does not seem very civil, especially since the user is ignoring me. I have given the user three warnings, and one final warning, with links to Misplaced Pages's policies. See the user's contribution list. Thanks for your time. --►ShadowJester07  13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a tag removal warning. However, it might be useful to give a note about WP:3RR if there isn't one already. The user does, however, seem to think that he/she has improved the article and is removing the tags (although I cannot explain the {{fact}} removals), but (likely) the same person did try and add a source even though it's not the greatest way of doing it in the world. Perhaps a little nudge in the direction of WP:ES? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll try that. Thanks for the help :) --►ShadowJester07  14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN issue on Western Caucasus and Vladimir Putin quotes

I constantly get reverted (see history) by some user with such explanations: the article was initiated and written entirely by me, thank you, and now (s)he is trolling me on my talk, (and again: ) and several articles I have recently touched (, ). Is it normal in Misplaced Pages? Colchicum 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary was in response to your "rv. consult sources." I don't need to consult sources, because I'm not a stray ignoramus you take me for. I instantly started a discussion on talk, but you failed to respond. Your forum shopping on this page is a bad token as well. --Ghirla 14:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is how I failed to respond, right? Colchicum 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the former Soviet Union-related topics can end up being rather controversial. However, looking at the diff, I'm not sure what benefits there are to introducing Russian text into an English article are unless it is an important term (like on Russia itself). While the comments are definitely WP:OWN ("unsolicited", "my", etc.) and a tad uncivil, perhaps dispute resolution might be best. Try seeking that first, then come back here if it fails. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing really controversial in nature reserves. It is not only about Russian text (which consisted of official name of the reserve in Russian and two Russian-language references where no comprehensive English-language substitutes are available). Some English text was also reverted (info about the yew and box grove, location of the site etc). Colchicum 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider Colchium's repeated attempts to remove my plea to stop revert-warring over the trivial issue with the edit summary "WP:TROLL" grossly incivil . I also resent his attempts to cast himself as a newbie who has never interacted with me in the past. Calling me above "she/he" is particularly pathetic. I'm sure he knows my name after so many discussions he's been involved with me. --Ghirla 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You, sir/madam, are a hypocrite: , , . Digwuren 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know you personally and have no idea of whether you are male or female. Yes, I have interacted with you, but I am surprised that you consider yourself so memorable. As to the edit summary, I merely followed your habit: , , , .Colchicum 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren and Ukrained are qualified trolls. Nobody can dispute the fact. Your failure to distinguish a troll from Ghirla (and malicious trolling from a good-natured advice) is a gauge of your involvement with Misplaced Pages. I still expect your apologies for the rude outburst quoted above. --Ghirla 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd person? Wow. Commentarii de bello Gallico. Just wow. Colchicum 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff: . There you can easily see how much of the text is in English.Colchicum 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff: . There you can see that the debacle started with your attempt to prevent Vladimir Putin quotes from being moved to Wikiquote. There is no need to take offense that your pet page has been transwikied; it's a normal practice in such cases. --Ghirla 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The debacle couldn't start there. You didn't touch Vladimir Putin quotes before I came across Western Caucasus.Colchicum 15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, conspiracy theories. Ok, I have received an answer to my question here. It is normal in Misplaced Pages. Colchicum 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to follow your lead in petty bickering. On the other hand, I request the community opinion on Colchicum's heroic attempts to prevent Vladimir Putin quotes from being transwikied to Wikiquote. The talk page is particularly informative. --Ghirla 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important to assume good faith here. Often editors will make comments which come across as extremely rude when first addressing users they aren't familiar with. That last edit summary is totally uncalled-for, but the rest of those comments appear benign to me. So yeah, you shouldn't simply be getting reverted, but the correct thing to do is to ask for an explanation rather than getting straight into an edit war about it. Chris Cunningham 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's enough to scroll up to see the warning that "as a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting" or "Before posting a grievance on a user, it is advised that you take it up with them before you bring it to this message board". I'm afraid Colchicum decided to waive requirements in this particular case not so much for lack of courtesy (although this is also an issue), as for making haste to use the page for forum shopping against his opponent in a content dispute. --Ghirla 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

However, it seems telling that Ghirlandajo prefers not to address the issues raised on Talk:Western_Caucasus, where I tried to resolve the content dispute.Colchicum 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not try to resolve anything. You made three sterile reverts and went to this page, where I have spent an hour replying to your pointless accusations. I don't have four hands to indulge you both on this page and elsewhere across Misplaced Pages. So far you have not made a single attempt to modify your original edit. I don't see your point in polluting this page with such petty grievances. --Ghirla 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I only made two reverts of unreasonable deletion of text. Frankly, I don't consider my original edit (here is it) bad enough to require a prompt revision. Colchicum 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding content to Misplaced Pages is a petty grievance. Ok. I see. Colchicum 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you aspire to continue discussion with me, you should bring apologies for your personal attacks quote above. Until then I will not stoop to engaging you on this page. --Ghirla 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, as I said earlier, I'd prefer never to communicate with you, but you disagreed. Colchicum 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Its not normal on Misplaced Pages, it is just normal modus operandi for Ghirla. All opposition are trolls, national extremists etc. and all their edits and comments are vandalism, incivility or POV. And somehow I do not see that changing.(Yes, I know Ive just set myself up again to be called something "nice"... Life is fun and truth is rude.)--Alexia Death 15:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Alexia in this fully. Ghirla's views in this are extremely two-faced, he likes to accuse others of nationalism and cabalism - and then made this edit little while ago. Ghirla sees nothing wrong with abusive edit summaries, threats, personal attacks, accusations, inserting false or very badly sourced information to articles - as long as he is doing all that. Those, who do not agree with him, are, of course trolls, and, since he owns Misplaced Pages (note: sarcasm alert), they need to be banned. DLX 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sad to say that Ghirlandajo is slowly but surely reverting to his old habits. Here is a recent example, where he threatens to start editing articles in a certain area as a form of single person self-generated backlash (as silly as this sounds, I cannot describe it any other way). Balcer 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

“Digwuren and Ukrained are qualified trolls. Nobody can dispute the fact,” “Bonaparte, Digwuren and other extremists” (Ghirlandajo) - the more I read stuff connected with users with such vocabulary (cf. , ), the more inconvenient I feel here. The more I learn of certain displeasing personalities here, the more I doubt in the future of Misplaced Pages. The "dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" (Larry Sanger) seems to be an irreversible development. E.J. 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to assume a philosophical posture here. Nobody would have doubted that all your Tartu company will join in and second each other in a thread where my name was mentioned. This has been performed by you a dozen times since you simultaneously registered your accounts back in May. So what's the purpose of these latest antics? Do you think that Alexia Death seconding Digwuren who is seconded by Martingk and Staberinde, then endorsed by DLX and Three Lowi, and add Erik Jesse to that ilk, with the "Teutonic Balt" Big Haz who is always ready to chime in, is such a priceless show that you need to repeat it on a weekly basis? Seriously, I challenge anyone to disprove my opinion that Digwuren is a nationalist-motivated troll, but please not here. The page is too long without these pointless rants. --Ghirla 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized Users

• declanthebullbull has been vandalized, can this be deleted?

• Dereck poliink was set up as an argumentative hoax

Krummy2 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and socks of DreamGuy

I strongly suspect User:Plumbing is a sock of DreamGuy. Plumbing is a new account who answered a RFC under cats ]. Others think Plumbing is a sock, too. See ]. Shouldn't we block Plumbing for 24 hours as a warning? Plumbing did help with constructive comments for several RFC so this should be taken into consideration.

I don't want a huge fight with DreamGuy so I am not asking for his blocking and this account will self destruct (not edit) in 5 seconds (to prevent stalking by DreamGuy).Mikkke2 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as somewhat of a (modest cough) expert on DreamGuy's alternate accounts, I have to say that I see no evidence whatsoever that plumbing (talk · contribs) is the same user. --Elonka 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In view of good relations, I withdraw my comments about DreamGuy and Plumbing. I think there is a link but don't want to pursue it. If you are so anxious to defend DreamGuy, then you should also defend Plumbing against this wikistalking editor which Plumbing wrote about (Plumbing isn't stalking him but User:Tvoz is...see ]Mikkke2 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai uses admin power in content disputes against User:Tones benefit

It seems that User:Mikkalai is using his admin powers in content disputes he is involved in. Take a look at the contrib list of User:Tones benefit here, and also at his block log. You will see that Mikka blocked him once for 3RR, but then, after several days, he blocked him a second time in the middle of a content dispute he was involved in. He claimed that the block was for edit warring. Still, I took a look at the concerned edits and they are not exceptional on wikipedia (not the kind of edit that requires blocking without 3RR). It seems to me that Mikka pushes his national (Russian) POV using admin rights. Dpotop 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The user had already violated 3RR two times (report). That was before any contact of his with Mikkalai afaik. Alæxis_¿question? 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he was blocked for it by Mikka. But the second time (on July 3rd) the guy did not infringe on 3RR. He did nothing special. Dpotop 18:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Mikka classified the user page of User:Tones benefit as suspected sock of User:Bonaparte. The proof he presented] is the edit list. However, I can't find where sockpuppetry is... I mean, I can't prove the guy is not Bonaparte, but there's no proof he is Bonaparte. And, given the notoriety of User:Bonaparte, even suspecting someone of this is a serious offence. Aren't there some rules against arbitrary tagging? Especially by admins... Dpotop 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What d'ya mean? It has been found that the user is probably Bonnie (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bonaparte#Tones_benefit_and_Bonaparte). The template says exactly the same thing - that he's a suspected sock. Alæxis_¿question? 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Bonny all right. I recall he has started some page about , and now I see Tones benefit editing it. There's really much in common. Dpotop's complaint has no merit. --Ghirla 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof? The result of the checkuser was "Possible", which basically means nothing. Dpotop 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte was banned from WP for having run a sock farm, with great skill and care I should say. His only mistake proved his ruin. Given his background, I would not expect him to have trouble in cheating the checkusers. --Ghirla 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Then accuse all the new editors you don't like of being Bonaparte socks. Of course, throwing doubt on everybody makes random application of the rules possible. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have to notice that the "Russian brotherhood" is manifesting itself again, just like during this previous case right here on WP:ANI. Dpotop 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and allegations of cabalism are not welcome. You should specify who you consider to be ethnically "Russian" among the people mentioned in this thread. I don't know any. Furthermore, your attempts to denounce your opponent Mikkalai without bothering to inform him on his talk page are basically incivil. Bonaparte, Digwuren and other extremists will rule Misplaced Pages only if they follow my old advice - "Nationalists of all countries, unite!" - which they do, by and by. --Ghirla 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the incident I cited above, you are in no position of lecturing me about nationalism being bad. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't try to change the subject. What we are talking about here is Mikka using admin powers in a content dispute, which is forbidden. Just like 3RR and sockpuppeteering. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonny or not, that guy has no place here. He is a vandal. He should be banned for being a vandal. We tried to reason with him, but to no avail. I'm with Mikka on this one. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute or not, as a banned user, Bonaparte and any of his sockpuppet are not only blockable on sight: they have to be blocked. This whole discussion is pointless and a waste of time. If you want to attack Mikalai, you'll need a better excuse than this. Circeus 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Serial copyvio check help needed

It would seem that Paul venter (talk · contribs) has uploaded at least two copyvios, Dorothy Gurney from and Vibration-powered generator from . I have warned him about this and waiting for a reply. However, past experience leads me to suspect these 2 incidents could just be the tip of the iceberg, so I'm requesting help in looking through his contribs for further copy and paste jobs. --W.marsh 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yikes, here's part of his reply: "You obviously don't write many articles. One starts with a source and then modifies it drastically". Cleanup on aisle six please. --W.marsh 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours, and will make it indefinite if he does not stop. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for handling that side of it... it does seem like he feels he has a right to start with a copyvio and just make tweaks here and there and add more content, which hopefully isn't also a copyvio. I looked through his new articles in his last 500 edits and most are clean at a glance. But some started out as copyvios, and were mostly rewritten... others he seems to start with a source and change some words, e.g. Icadyptes salasi from , which has some similar phrasing but not outright copy and pasting that I can find. Very difficult cleanup job here... but as far as I can tell a lot of the content he adds is actually not a copyvio, at least not as detectable with the search engine test. --W.marsh 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel-based IP-hopping vandal

Hi. There's a problem with an anonymous editor who is vandalising the same set of articles (e.g. Nelly Furtado discography, Justin Timberlake discography), as well as others, from a variety of IPs that originate from Israel. Each time I block one IP the editor returns from another - so far I've blocked 217.132.153.45 (talk · contribs), 85.250.19.86 (talk · contribs), 217.132.224.111 (talk · contribs), 89.138.36.25 (talk · contribs) and 89.138.135.165 (talk · contribs) for a month each, but I'm hesitant to block for longer than that to avoid collateral damage, and it's not really solving the problem because the editor either has a dynamic IP or is editing from different computers. Is there a way of dealing with situations such as this - should the network service provider be contacted, for example? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

I saw an article by the Boston Globe, and went to the wikipedia article on Thompson. I noticed it was removed by Eseymour. The article? A discussion about a memoir writen by Thompson in which he admits giving information to the White House during an investigation. Included is a statement from the Thompson campaign, which does not deny it.

I reinserted it, and ask for clarification from Eseymour. This user then starts throwing out claims. He asserts someone made a section to make Thompson appear negatively. That another mentioned the birth of his son to make him appear bad. That discussion about his fundraising is NPOV. So I expand that one of the sections since it is short (Eseymour removed much of it). Eseymour removes it. Then an anon adds something, Eseymour removes it.

I went through Eseymour's history and he has been spending much time downplaying criticism, reverting edits, and adding in material conducive to Thompson's platform.

My first ever edit on that article was by reverting Eseymour's removal.

Opinions on the page welcome. C56C 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I'm trying to figure out why CJC47's only edit in two weeks is to wholesale revert me and let Eseymour's edits stand. That user didn't give any reason, but signed on for the first time in weeks within minutes of the edit conflict. C56C 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

first - I have never edited that page, I have no interest in editing that page. While this is a content issue, just a cursory glance at the talkpage is setting off all sorts of WP:OWN bells with me. The claim in question is from his own bio and talks about how he leaked information to the white house during Watergate. The reason for removing it is that it gives undue weight to an incident in the past. Well I'm not an American but that seems to a fair significant thing for someone to do in the context of one of the major American political scandals of the last century. I would suggest that anyone who knows a bit more about American history than me head over and has a look but as I say, I'm getting a WP:OWN vibe. --Fredrick day 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think others need to start watching that page. C56C 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth also hitting up the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you haven't already. — Scientizzle 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex mond and Armenia-related articles

The indefinitely blocked Alex mond (talk · contribs) has been creating new accounts to edit Armenian hypothesis against consensus (e.g. , , , ). He's also canvassed other users to perform controversial edits (, ). Alex mond only showed up a few months ago, but I'm wondering if there's a longer history here that I don't know about, perhaps a previously banned user or something. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a brief chat with Dmcdevit on this: he mentioned that Alex mond's edits are apparently the spitting image of User:Ararat arev, who is banned. Checkuser was inconclusive, but apparently Arev was the very devil to checkuser cleanly, and the edit pattern is very similar. Moreschi 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Yug

Yug is continuing to POV push on Stroke order, which came up here at ANI in the past at some point (which is how I found it), but I'm not sure how to find old topics here. He is refactoring discussions and changing the context of people's comments (as here) and went back into an old thread to insert a link to an archive here. Yug has his view of what the article should be (which specifically uses OR and adds how-tos, which are both clearly prohibited by policy) and after stepping out of the discussion because it wasn't going his way, he's now trying to refactor the talk to be more sympathetic to his position, despite two uninvolved editors' comments about an appropriate place for his work on Wikibooks. MSJapan 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please block me

Please block me for 1 year AND please say "blocked upon user's request". I am an alternate account of an established user. I am worried about suspicious behavior of DreamGuy, an administrator, and didn't want my regular account blocked. DreamGuy has shown he is partially an honorable man by not doing so and let some debate go on. I am finished.

The blocking admin should have had no contact with any articles that I've written and should use the reason "blocked upon user's request". If these conditions are not met, I do not wish to be blocked.Mikkke2 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, part three

SqueakBox and DPeterson are at it again, constantly blanking the Anti-pedophile activism article and redirecting it to the pedophilia article, even though a discussion on this idea resulted in no consensus for this action. As mentioned above, they previously engaged in this kind of edit-warring concerning the pro-pedophile activism article, but now, since all info related to activism has been removed for the pedophilia article, these reverts make even less sense. As Homologeo mentioned above, their actions are essentially completely removing info related to anti-pedophile activism from Misplaced Pages. Would an admin please step in and protect the Anti-pedophile activism article, and perhaps consider action against SqueakBox and DPeterson, as this is the second revert war they have started based on their redirects without consensus? Mike D78 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus not to move and why have you reposted given no admin action was needed was the decisioon before and nothing has changed. The material is at pedophile which is locked and you keep duplicating it. You edit war and then accuse others of edit warring, and being bold (which is what my initial action was) is not reason to receive admin action, SqueakBox 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, I don't know how many times I can explain this to you, but you need consensus BEFORE blanking and redirecting an article. My reverts were simply restoring the previous version of the article before your disruptive edits, which eliminated information.

Clearly if you keep doing this, admin action is needed to protect this article, just as it was needed to protect the other articles. Mike D78 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you have the experience to lecture me on how wikipedia works, admins arent here to support your pro pedophile activism, and once all the socks and SPAs were removed the consensus was not to keep these pedophile promoting articles as they were, SqueakBox 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this is the third report in a week? —Kurykh 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to ask Squeak why this is the second edit war he has insisted on starting in a week? Mike D78 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am asking you. If I wanted to ask him I would have done so. —Kurykh 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine then. It has been reported three times because the first time, no admin did anything about it, and the last two times were in reference to separate disruptive edit wars at seperate articles, although related to the same users. Mike D78 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Its all one dispute, SqueakBox 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you apparently didn't get the message last time, after an admin had to protect the pro-pedophile activism article against your reverts without consensus. You have no grounds to blank and redirect a page without agreement, bottom line. Mike D78 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, content dispute. Go back to the talk page and hammer it out, guys. —Kurykh 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot