Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 200.207.13.3 (talk) at 01:27, 1 May 2007 (archived). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Disruptive actions of Alec U.K.

User:Alec - U.K.'s disruptive edits on a number of topics, and probable use of a sockpuppet previously reported to WP:AN/I (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#Disruptive_and_inconsistent_editing_-_Alec_-_U.K.) but was time-guillotined with no admin commenting or taking any action. Alec is back on respiratory/asthma related topics, acting outside of consenses with attempts by several editors to engage him in discussion to reach consensus (particularly ArmadilloFromHell).

Today these edits to Asthma with unencyclopeadic personal speculation as to what asthma might be misconstrude with, this attempt to again claim on 'Category:Respiratory agents' that asthma is not a disease (consensus clearly set out on Talk:Asthma#.22Disease.22. Also again trying to fragment topic with attempts to distinguish asthma, asthmatic, asthma attacks with switching of "asthma" for the term that redirects to this of "asthma attack" in Respiratory failure (see here).

Could an admin have a look at previous WP:AN/I posting and the above items. Please either act, or if not appropriate for WP:AN/I then advise us of how we should be trying to proceed :-) David Ruben 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also of interest is User_talk:87.194.35.230 which is a suspected sock puppet. The editing style is identical pushing the same POV. Regan123 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop him permanently, I've no idea what his agenda is, but this is worse that blatant vandalism. A vandal you just keep reverting, since it's clear what's going on, in this case, by mixing valid edits with nonsense, it becomes much harder to deal with and becomes so time-consuming that his edits are left as is. I'm sure as a result, a lot of misinfromation has been added, this has gone way beyond WP:AGF - it's now a case of WP:ABF (and it's not the least bit funny) --ArmadilloFromHell 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User:87.194.35.230 has made a further edit last night again stating the Asthma is not a disease which has been reverted by multiple editors on many pages before. The editing style remains identical. I am convinced this is a sock puppet. Also see here for an example of a circular redirect that I had to issue speedys on. Regan123 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mall spam

Dvac (talk · contribs) created a large number of very similar articles on shopping malls, all of which were (quite by chance I'm sure) operated by the same company. I have nearly finished nuking all those which are of the style Foo Mall is a mall in Foo, Bar, built in 19xx plus a list of anchor stores, the official website, and a link to the property company. About thirty of them were created in alphabetical order, so help me. Many notes were left on the user's Talk page, I don't see any evidence of responses. In fact, I don't see any evidence of any activity other than adding directory data to malls. I blocked the account. I am a heartless bastard with no appreciation of shopping as a leisure activity. Or something. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what was up this afternoon when there were so many malls in the speedy queue. I didn't touch any of them because the mall debate is one I'd like to stay out of (much like the school debate). Thanks JzG for wiping out them all and a huge thanks, as well, to Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) who tagged them all. Metros232 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A few (a very few) good subjects may have been swept up among the cruft. Apologies if so, any admin should feel free ot resurrect any such. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What reason is there to block this user and delete all his edits? They (the ones I can see) contain verifiable content and are written from a neutral point of view. Yes, it's unfortunate that they all belong to the same company, and yes, the writer is probably part of that company too, but damn. Do we encourage people to write about what they no about, and then block them because the material is outside one's area of interest? — CharlotteWebb 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and tagged a few of the malls with speedy deletion tags which were removed by CharlotteWebb so I will make a group nomination for AfD. They seem to me to all be clear-cut cases of both A7 and G11. Pascal.Tesson 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not do it as a blanket case as what has happened here. In this case, many notable articles that meet general Misplaced Pages requirements are nominated for deletion based on little to no evidence. As with the ones in this case, I cannot see a reason to delete all of them since some are written in a neutral point of view and contain verifiable content. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for deleting the articles and blocking the account is that he created several tens of articles on malls operated by a single company, in alphabetical order, all of which were directory entries and linking back to the property company's website. Numerous messages were left on Talk in an attempt to engage the user, but all were completely ignored. This is what we call WP:SPAM. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is also what we call a conflict of interest and an autobiography. Aecis 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• An article of the form Guy described really isn't that helpful. In my local mall I've seen at least 4 shops leave and new ones coming in their place. A long list of shops in a particular mall is simply not encyclopedic, and when you get that out, it's merely a substub with more links than actual content. Perhaps we need an example of what a featured mall article would look like, just like the few School FAs we have. - Mgm| 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yup. And WP:NOT a directory - the articles I deleted were directory entries. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Realniggaztalk

Is this username offensive enough to merit action? -- Donald Albury 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, blocked. I can't see any instance where the word Nigger in any form isn't going to offend someone. pschemp | talk 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And I sent an article he created to AfD earlier today. Ah, well. I've got his talk page on my watch list, and my e-mail is activated. -- Donald Albury 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kingdom Hearts

Can someone with a little better detective work take a look at Talk:Kingdom Hearts? It looks like DiamondDragon (talk · contribs) tried to create archives and it didn't go so well. From what I see, the user simply copied and pasted into archive 2...but I see no evidence of archive 1 being made with content, just the pages created for them. That's what drew me to them, the blank archive page for Talk:Kingdom Hearts/Archive1 was tagged for speedy deletion as empty content. Can someone figure out what happened? Metros232 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Look better? Key was that the first archive was put into Kingdom Hearts/Archive instead of Talk:Kingdom Hearts/Archive1, i.e. no Talk:... —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

need immediate lockdown, please!

A whole bunch of shit is hitting the fan right now at Talk:Evolution, and it's really dunb shit. Please lock this page for an hour or so to let folks cool off. If not, things are going to spiral quickly and badly, possibly resulting in blocks for otherwise good editors. Consider this a 9-1-1 call. --Doc Tropics 07:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You want to have a talk page locked? It looks like people are being a little hostile back and forth, but locking a talk page is pretty extreme... Georgewilliamherbert 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I know a bit about this group; things are getting ugly and it would be a serious shame for any of them to get blocked. The talkpage hasn't hosted any serious discussion in the past hour, just an increasingly tense situation. Just an hour's protection, to let things cool down? --Doc Tropics 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(I am not an admin, but...) It's not just procedural that first, you should contact people on their talk pages and ask them to calm down and take a bit of time off (which I just did to one of the parties). Protecting a page should only happen after other approaches including warnings to users and short blocks if necessary have failed. I can't blame you for wanting to try to calm it down a bit, but start at the right starting point: ask people nicely, on their talk pages, to calm down... In overall seriousness, this is nowhere near as bad as many other flame wars which we've let run without locking a page. Georgewilliamherbert 07:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully your comments will take care of it then. Thanks for your help. There was a crazy blaze of comments on the talkpage, coming so fast I kept getting edit conflicts when trying to appeal for peace. I guess I just panicked :( Thanks again. --Doc Tropics 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So, that's what a flame-war looks like, eh? I'd never been close enough to one to feel the heat! So I yelled for help, and it was a false alarm. In my city there's actually a hefty fine for calling in false alarms, so...who do I make the check out to? --Doc Tropics 08:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The fine for this incident is that at some point in the future, when you see an argument break out and get too heated on a topic you aren't personally involved in on Misplaced Pages, you have to go to the heated debaters' talk pages and leave them friendly messages asking them to calm down and be patient 8-)

Have a good night. Glad the situation calmed down. Georgewilliamherbert 08:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NRC ADMIN

I believe putting the word "admin" in your username is a no-no. Also appears to be a sock puppet created to influence Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spinosaurus Vs Rex. -Anþony (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree

User:Threeafterthree has, for many months, been attempting to remove any designation on biographical articles of individuals as "Jewish", particularly famous and respected people like Albert Einstein, though he apparently has no issue with it if the person happens to be Harold Shipman, the U.K.'s worst mass-murderer. In addition, he has been insisting on removing "Antisemitic" categories from various individuals considered antisemites, but insisting on adding the "Racism" category to various Jews and Jewish groups, and insisting that people like Leo Frank were not "innocent", but merely "convicted on circumcstantial evidence". All in all, it adds up to something quite ugly. If that weren't bad enough, he's been edit warring as an IP editor, for which he has been blocked 3 times in the past week and evading his blocks and sockpuppeting as a third editor. I've blocked all the accounts for a month, but I'm wondering if a permanent block is more in order. Thoughts? Jayjg 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, reading your comments here, I would support an indefinite block on this user. Suggesting hatred towards a religious group is just not on. I think you have done very much the right thing here. --SunStar Net 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of suggesting hatred towards a religious group?--131.109.1.41 15:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Very odd. By what definition is a convicted murderer, whose conviction was never overturned, "innocent"? And I don't see any edits by this user to Harold Shipman at least as far back as 2002. -- Kendrick7 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Very odd response. Frank is infamous for having been falsely convicted and, in fact, being an innocent man: The Leo Frank case is considered one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the legal annals of Georgia... The degree of anti-Semitism involved in Frank's conviction and subsequent lynching is difficult to assess, but it was enough of a factor to have inspired Jews, and others, throughout the country to protest the conviction of an innocent man...Slaton reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents, visited the pencil factory where the murder had taken place, and finally decided that Frank was innocent. He commuted the sentence, however, to life imprisonment, assuming that Frank's innocence would eventually be fully established and he would be set free... etc. As for Shipman, did you bother clicking on the links provided? Jayjg 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, do you think that prior to your block Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was avoiding accruing a history of blocks through puppetry? It seems rather odd that he'd never been blocked before under his user name. (→Netscott) 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is, Leo Frank isn't innocent in the eyes of the law. You don't seem to have picked the best edits to criticize here. -- Kendrick7 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The case is a famous miscarriage of justice according to everyone who's written about it extensively, to the best of my knowledge, and so there's no reason to keep removing the category. Threeafterthree has e-mailed me to say that the two other editors are people he lives with. I assume he means User:68.9.116.87 and User:Backroomlaptop.

There are similarities in editing style, articles edited, and general interests. Lots of Jewish-related interests, and specifically removing that people are Jews, even from well-known Jews such as Steven Spielberg (Threeafterthree removed that) and Elie Weisel (Backroomlaptop's first edit was to remove from the first sentence that Wiesel is Jewish, then add to the end of the lead that he's of "Jewish decent ". ) Threeafterthree even removed "of Jews" from a quote which said that Martin Luther's work had tragic effects "on later generations of Jews." He twice removed "of Jews," saying he was correcting the quote, but the quote does say "of Jews."

Also, Threeafterthree enabled 68.9.116.87 to evade 3RR at Kahanism. The anon added Category:Racism at 21:51 Nov 16, and reverted three times; then Threeafterthree arrived to revert at 02:57 Nov 17, despite having not edited since September 1. There's also one distinctive thing that Threeafterthree and one of the others do, which I won't mention here. I'd say they're all the same person. SlimVirgin 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are two versions of this document on the web. The one you link to from Canada has "of Jews", the American one does not . His edit is correct for the reference at elca.org which was actually being cited in the article. -- Kendrick7 10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The link in the article is dead, so how do you know? SlimVirgin 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The link in the article is to the elca.org domain, even though they may have moved the page. So now you are saying User:Threeafterthree has psychic powers? Or are you saying he hacked that website and removed the words from the WP:RS just to make you look foolish? -- Kendrick7 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, mentioning someone's religion first thing in the lead is really a matter of taste. I'd view articles starting "Antonio Banderas is a Catholic actor" or "George Bush is a Methodist politician" as fairly silly. Are you seriously complaining about this edit on Steven Spielberg? -- Kendrick7 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of "complaining" about any particular edit. The question is whether the accounts are run by one person. SlimVirgin 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why block for one month? Why block backroom indefinately? This seems really excessive.--131.109.1.41 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But the paragraph he removed was an unsourced tirade calling Steven Spielburg a worse anti-Semite than Mel Gibson, no? You have completely mischaracterized this as User:Threeafterthree "removing that people are Jews". When you are wrong about things that can be checked, it makes it harder to trust you on things which can not be checked. -- Kendrick7 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Then instead of relying on one link, why not spend a few minutes looking through his contribs? Then you'll see the similarities for yourself. And please review CIV. SlimVirgin 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How is Kendrick being uncivil? Because he caught your mistakes and mischaracterations of this user? This case is beyong flimsy. What did this editor do to you to warrant this? --131.109.1.41 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange understanding of American law, Frank was murdered before all the flaws in his case were properly analyzed. "The eyes of the law" see these flaws even more so.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the cabal, and its usuall members who have shown up here together, again, have anything better to do than to witch hunt and block editors? Seriously guys, and gal, you are so transparent!--198.176.188.201 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are an insulting troll. Thank you for your for insults, please go back to ED or Wikitruth or whatever hell you come from. An infuriated Elaragirl 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A one month block is a very long block. I do not support this block and think it should be withdrawn. If an editor poses an immediate threat of disruption, then you should block for a few hours or a day at most, during which time you should come to ANI to gauge consensus. Otherwise, you should do a discussion or warning on the user's talk page. In this case, I see no immediate threat, nor any attempts on Jayjg's part to warn or discuss and consequently feel that the block should be recalled. I make no judgment on whether the blocked user exhibited any anti-Semitic edits, only on Jayjg's implementation of policy, which I find flawed and unfair to the accused. -lethe 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ring modulator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The previous ANI discussion regarding activity by this editor under his previous username is here. He has also been blocked under this user name for incivility. Yesterday he issued this warning to a new user for making and reversing their own test edit. He then contacted User:HighInBC, whom he thought was an admin, and asked for the new user to be blocked. HighInBC correctly responded that a block would be inappropriate given the nature of the test edit, and instructed Ring modulator that use of the blatant vandal warning was inappropriate in this circumstance. Hoping to not scare off the new user, HighInBC removed Ring modulator's warning, replaced it with a welcome message on the new user's talk page, and told the new user the message was placed in error. Today, Ring modulator placed this message on the new user's page, even though the new user had made no further edits. This seems to be harrassment in my view. The message was properly removed by User:Dina. Dina contacted Ring modulator, told him she removed the message and why. Ring modulator responded to Dina with this uncivil edit. Ring modulator has continued to use the blatant vandal warning inappropriately here. I feel Ring modulator should be blocked again for incivility and biting new users. Accurizer 12:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I've indefinitely blocked Blindnimratt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this edit (their first and only one) to Ring modulator's talk page. This is obviously someone's sock, but can anyone identify whose? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What appears to be trolling of some sort

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mandarin_Emperor_style_dildo please look into this right away ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 08:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've left a note on the Chinese noticeboard and asked someone to comment on the content of the Chinese sources of the article in question. - Mgm| 08:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is more then that, there are multiple users, in the voting, lodged fake votes, 3 user all of whom registered today and have only contribution relating to this hoax article.
• user:WeiWei11
• user:GVixen
• user:MingNei

▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that non-English language sources are frowned upon in the English Misplaced Pages? Anchoress 09:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

English-language sources are preferred, but in their absence, non-English language sources are perfectly fine. Assuming, of course, that they exist and are translated correctly. --Sam Blanning 13:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Make that 4

• user:MangonelMan

has nothing to do with "non-English language sources" its a hoax. ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Were you responding to me? Because I was responding to the note about inviting evaluation of the non-english language sources. Anchoress 09:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Anchoress, that not what I meant, there is something more then just a afd going on here, i'm not exactly sure what but it's very fishy, I was hoping someone would like into what is going on here look at the history of this afd and what some of the users are doing▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sirex98 is right about there being something fishy; MingNei is running quite the sockfarm trying to influence the AFD. I've blocked the underlying IP for a week (until the AFD is over) and will strike the votes from the socks, but I somehow expect this won't be the end of the socking. Essjay (Talk) 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone would like to block them, the socks are as follows:

• LionelNailer‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MingNei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎WeiWei11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MangonelMan‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GVixen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)‎
• Fredsavage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've already blocked the IP and struck the votes, if someone feels like tagging and blocking the socks, please do. Essjay (Talk) 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All socks are permablocked Alex Bakharev 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake at interpreting what was going on as far as peoples reactions here, please see my talk page where I gave a timeline leading up my mistake understanding MacGyverMagic first reply here, my apologies to MacGyverMagic and the rest of you. ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a blatant hoax, admitted as such, it's a sock farm, and, frankly, a complete waste of everyone's time having to supervise it. It's clearly going to be deleted, and so I've closed the AFD, speedied the 'article', and protected it from recreation. If anyone objects, I've no problem with you reverting this (though I can't see why you would). Proto::type 12:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet reposting

First see AFD here: three articles were deleted at AfD: Advanced commando combat system is now up as a repost. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion and have warned the perpetrator User:Teacherteacher on their talk page. However, it IS a sockpuppet creation of a deleted article. Does this warrant a block for teacherteacher? Note: Teachteacher also spammed his link on CQB and Martial arts, which was how I found it, as I monitor CQB (note: awe and the AfD was one of my first too...look how noobish I was!) ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't block someone for a single repost. More than one and it becomes a problem. - Mgm| 10:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more clear: I wasn't suggesting it for the repost: it was for the new account creation, afd avoidal and reposting, and the linkspam combined. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 11:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• How are you so sure it's a sockpuppet? Was the other account blocked? I'd try a block for linkspamming if they persist. - Mgm| 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry claim is based on an almost identical article with inclusion in the exact same wikipedia entries that it was included in last time. As for the other account, I have no clue. It was back in february of this year, I don't remember the result of it. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

NetScott harassment

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Netscott keeps vandalising and harassing me by posting my ISP info on my user page and reverting my deletes. He is trying to intimidate me for no good reason and makes unfounded accusations please help and block. Thanks. Here are the diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:71.111.115.155&action=history

71.111.115.155

71.111.115.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This talk contravenes Misplaced Pages:Civility and is unrelated to editing on the Michael Richards article. Specifically the lines, "Wiki Adminitrators have refusd TWO different requests to put the "michael Richards" story in it's headlines. Talk about a whitewash and racial insensitivy by a bunch of overprivileged white guys! Check it out! " are very problematic. (→Netscott) 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence I WROTE that I only reverted his deletion of it. People are entitled to their views! Stop this user's unwarranted harrassment of me and my privacy. Thanks.

71.111.115.155 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This IP editor is from the same area in Oregon as 71.111.119.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who was blocked yesterday and is very likely the same individual. (→Netscott) 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just more falsehoods to justify his abuses, harassment, and invasion of privacy. Please help this Newbie! There are many people/ Wikipedians in Oregon and this is from 2 different cities way apart! Very ridiculous. Thanks.

71.111.115.155

No invasion of privacy here, all the information posted by Netscott was already publicly available. If you are concerned about your privacy, create an account instead of telling everybody your IP address. If you don't want to create an account, stop complaining that we know your IP address and all data that can be deduced from it. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To cut down on admins pursuing this report (save for curiosity or verification purposes) please know that User:Glen S has blocked both IPs. Thanks Glen S. (→Netscott) 17:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, on the bottom of every IP user's talk page is a link to WHOIS etc. Scott did not add anything that was not very easily publicly accessible. -- Avi 18:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yup. Nothing to see here, I'd say. Move along, please... Guy (Help!) 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please Help!

Admin Glen S has made a totally inapprobriate block here. Please Unblock. There are Two very good reasons. 1- The users are not the same and 2-Just as Important the reason given was evading of block! But the the previous block of 31 hours had already EXPIRED!! 3- As far as I know users do not always choose their ISP address so it wouldn't be intentional (this is moot since these two people are not sock puppets)

Please see time diff: (over 31 hours had pasted even for the sake of argument it was the same IP address user which it clearly was not) ] ] Please unblock User 119.60 and notify/Warn User:Glen_S of his terrible mistake. Thanks I have done nothing wrong except contribute and voiced my fair opinion on My talk page. I have reason to believe that Glen_S's block of this user therefore was a pretext and possible racially motivated for attempted contributions to the Michael Richards article, which would be a is a serious violation of WP. Thank you. 71.111.117.65

I keep getting harassed/blanked, WIKIStalked and reverted by User:NetScott also from my userpage and ANI page. Please warn or block him him. see ] Thanks for your help with this intimidation. Its like a cyber lynching of people who are different or something. It is very unfair. Thanks for your help we should support diversity not discourage it! 71.111.117.65 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This repetitively abusive editor is evading previous blocks. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NetScott_harassment also see User_talk:71.111.119.60 and User_talk:71.111.115.155 (you may need to review the histories of those talk page for they may be targetted for blanking by this editor). Now this editor is admin shopping (spamming): spam1, spam2, spam3, spam4. (→Netscott) 13:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The word disruption comes to mind. (→Netscott) 13:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I, Freestylefrappe am back

I am back. I was formerly User:Freestylefrappe, but this is my new account. No longer will I be using the Ya ya ya ya ya account, or any of my other sockpuppets. --Horbeine 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indef-blocked by Pilotguy. Move along, please, nothing to see here... Guy (Help!) 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cork

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Administrators Guinnog, pschemp and myself have been involved in a discussion about creating a disambiguation page for Cork, as strong arguments can be made for the city not being the most popular lemma with that name. One editor, User:Frelke, has proven extremely difficult to work with, and his unwillingness to engage with factual arguments, take up complaints about guidelines in the appropriate places, and file bug reports about technical aspects that he feels need to be changed, has stalled progress on the talk page. I would appreciate review and recommendation by an independent admin. As a quick intro to my view of the situation, you may wish to read . Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• What administrative action is needed? --jpgordon 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Well people are certainly allowed to ask for advice here from other admins and fresh eyes on a situation, and this is done all the time. What we've got here is a situation where after much and prolonged discussion the majority of editors agree with what is standard practice on Misplaced Pages for disambig pages yet the minority is claiming that because not everyone is in 100% agreement, there isn't consensus. So what do you do in a situation like that? If you go with the majority and the standard practice, then the minority will claim "process wasn't followed" and "its a dictatorship" and "there wasn't consensus." (As they already have done) Can we do the right thing even if the minority doesn't agree or is Misplaced Pages so bogged down in process that it isn't allowed if it will hurt someone's feelings? Certainly asking the community this before taking action is a noble thing. pschemp | talk 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A vote was taken on the issue, five people requested that the status quo of Cork as the city be maintained whilst six requested that an alternative name be used (indeed in said vote the status quo was removed part way thru the vote as it was seen that a consenus had to be fixed). Its very close cut and by no means just one "extremely difficult" editor who is holding up the process. Djegan 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus on the page was that voting was evil and a discussion was a better way. Only Djegan and Felke continue to cling to the "we must vote" even though the vote was closed as malformed and the resulting discussion can out in favor of following Misplaced Pages disambig guidelines and having cork as a disambig page. His interpretation of the vote is off too, only two people indicated that cork shouldn't be a disambig. This is an example of why more eyes are needed. pschemp | talk 16:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats a bit of spin. Djegan 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Two, count 'em two people only said Cork was the only acceptable option. That's not a spin. Plus, the poll was closed becuase it wasn't formed correctly, there was no consesnsus to have yet another poll, and a perfectly good disscussion took place that came to a decision. Additionaly, the disambig guidlines clearly state Cork should be a disambig page. pschemp | talk 17:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Three now.

Sorry thats four, not discounting those that voted and have been disenfranchised and others ignored because they dont give a daily check on their option as seemingly required. Djegan 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you just went and changed a closed poll, nothing has changed. pschemp | talk 17:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, once again this has disinigrated into a content dispute. Never mind, sorry for wasting ANI time. pschemp | talk 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And once again this article has been moved without clear consenus, and by an admin who wanted a move. Djegan 17:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin investigate this move? Djegan 17:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, the consensus of the discussion was clear. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean anything improper was done. pschemp | talk 17:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure, thats why hopefully a neutral admin will investigate. Djegan 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt you will continue to see it as improper. However, this is just like closing an AFD, where the evidence presented is more important than the number of "votes". Unless you can come up with some hard facts to support your viewpoint, your complaints mean little. pschemp | talk 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You made the first move and persistantly wanted a move thats why I have placed my comments here and not on your talk page. I was not expecting you to change your mind. Djegan 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog made this move. Unless you are claiming he's my meatpuppet, my pointing out the facts related to it is irrelevent. pschemp | talk 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you fancy yourself as a meatpuppet thats your claim, not mine, thanks. Djegan 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got your logic wrong way 'round but that's not surprising. pschemp | talk 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that the move seemed a bit premature. i thought the plan was to take the argument to request move to get the outside opinions. It seems strange to move the page without going to WP:RM and then come to ANI for outside opinion. Especially given the sensitive nature of this subject. This early move, which appears to side step normal proceedure, is just asking for those who object to dig in their heels. It was definitely counter productive to resolving the issue. David D. (Talk) 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you review the talk page, you'll see that there wasn't a chance in hell of any constructive discussion coming out of it. Taking the issue anywhere else would have only prolonged the conflict and got more people hot and bothered, rather than achieving anything positive. Taking it to requested moves had been the option favoured by the opposers from the beginning, possibly with exactly the intention outlined above. As for digging the heels in, they had pretty much announced they would do that regardless fairly early on. Please note that the opposing side provided no data supporting their case, other than a somewhat biased analysis of Google results. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct. Several contributors (myself included) attempted to offer supporting data. All of which was refuted out of hand. (Despite being acknowledged as an accepted WP means of identifying DAB priority). Regardless, the "request for admin review" here is not to "review the validity of this move", rather "review the manner in the move was instrumented". It was unheralded (a simple "I'm going to do this" would have done), and so gave no time for the contributing editors to help "prepare the ground" by preemptively working through the several thousand links which now incorrectly point to a DAB page! Guliolopez 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked this question before, and ended up being pointed to what turned out to be a rant against guidelines, unsupported by evidence or any attempt to resolve the concern on guideline talk. Where, please, is this evidence that you speak of? I have provided diffs when asked this question, therefore so should you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, if you were pointed to a "rant" it was not mine. (I have never "ranted" in any of these discussions). Secondly, I find myself questioning your use of the term "rant", given the profanity used on your own userpage. Thirdly, I remain saddened by this expectation that this discussion be conducted over an undefined set of conditions. (EG: "enter into this discussion under *my* terms or you will be ignored")

All that said, while I'm not about to go through every one of my posts on this discussion over the last month to provide the diffs you request, I will bow to your terms and offer the following: , , , , . My points against the move therefore remain:

1. There was no precedence for this move (save for the enthusiasm of a handful of editors) (See: Bath, Turkey, Limerick, and - beyond geographical terms - any page that has two potential meanings).
2. A quick Google test (even balancing for links with a higher ranking owing to commerical considerations) demonstrated Cork (city) as a primary use candidate.
3. The arguments citing "dictionary evidence" were inconclusive, and offered no argument to address the imbalance of "proper nouns" in a dictionary context. (Beyond which, using "dictionary rules" seemed inappropriate given that wikipedia is clearly not a dictionary and not bound by the same considerations).

Regardless, the validity of my points above are no longer of concern. As stated, I am no longer concerned 'that this page was moved, but that (even though those involved in the discussion were attempting to work "within the rules of engagement defined by the proposers") it was moved without due consideration to the ongoing discussion, without notice (given the contention), and by an Admin (or Admins) who should have considered closing the debate, heralding the change and addressing any "impartiality" issues before making the change!

I am further dismayed by the language, attitude and undiplomatic perspective which permeated the discussion, which resulted in measured contributors - who were attempting to remain balanced and considered - being effectively blocked from participating. An aggressive (flaming) atmosphere was perpetuated in the discussion, and was not addressed by the admins (and in some cases the "flames were fanned"), and - because a vote was rejected and so no other avenue offered - measured discussion was impossible, and relevant arguments were ignored or (I expect) never proffered in the first place.

It's hardly the most inappropriate use of power I've ever witnessed, but it was so badly managed that I find myself disillusioned with the role of admins in resolving contentious issues. Guliolopez 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All those things were addressed and discussed over and over on the talk page, so I'm not going into why a google seach is not representative of the entire world's usage of English again. An inconclusive result says that to be NPOV we can't give the city precedence over the material anyway. pschemp | talk 21:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on your points. A neutral admin should of come in and reviewed the process and made the final call. Instead the admins who where involved in the discussion for moving made it a rather private affair between themselves, and even when editors requested that a neutral admin interveen they went ahead (indeed the attempt was a rather botched one as the talk pages where not moved and less than five minutes notice was given before intention to move and moving - bearing in mind the vote was 5/6 and requests to allow an neutral admin ignored).

It makes you think is adminship just a private accolade to ensure that your requests are carried out, for your individual benifit, or for the benifit of the community as a whole. A patronage system? Certainly the tone and manner of some admins leaves a lot to be desired. Djegan 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. You are simply whining because you didn't get your way. However, you never once came up with facts supporting your position. We make decisions around here based on facts and the dismabig guidelines, both of which say that Cork should be a disambig page. Like afd's, decisions are not made by votes (which you are skewing the interpretation of anyway, plus the vote was closed because it was malformed) around here, they are made by looking at the facts of the case. There were lots of non-admins who thought cork should be a disambig page so get off the conspiracy theory. Whine away but like it or not, if you don't have facts to back up your opinions, they matter little. pschemp | talk 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A prime example for us to see here is the word Lift. Because no term is more common, life goes straight to a disambig page. This is the same circumstance. pschemp | talk 22:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(reproduced from the talk page) Hi... I've looked through this entire discussion... wow. I'm not sure I see why people are so passionate about this. My conclusion: (I am a neutral admin, previously uninvolved) and I think cork should be a disambiguation page. No term is most prominent, not the material, not the city, none of them. So the main reference should indeed be to a disambig. Support the action of Guinnog, and suggest that it be left as is. See, for example, Phoenix and Lift. I'm not sure that characterising the inputs of some admins as arrogant is necessarily the way to make a case for things, though. Support the close of this poll. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing more useful to say here. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Peripatetic / Beaumontproject

I have a complaint by email from User:Peripatetic that he is autoblocked as a result of a block I made on User:Beaumontproject. I can't see this; and I'm offnet for the weekend; so if someone else could take a look? Thanks William M. Connolley 18:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• It appears this user was hit by an autoblock on an IP he shares with Beaumontproject because the third checkbox was checked to avoid Beaumontproject avoiding the block with another IP. I've killed the autoblock. - Mgm| 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Illegal blocking of User:Bowser Koopa

A user by the name of Bowser Koopa has been blocked from wikipedia without proper warning. User:AuburnPilot was the one who reported Bowser Koopa to User:Metros232, who immediately blocked Bowser Koopa and labeled him a "vandalism only" account. I am addressing this because Bowser Koopa only vandalised ONE page and was warned for it. He only received one warning of his actions. He goofed around with his talk page but received no warning or anything(he only received a hint). AuburnPilot then told Bowser Koop