Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryulong (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 2 August 2007 (→Block of KensingtonBlonde: remove nonsense). 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)

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

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Misplaced Pages, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Misplaced Pages is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Misplaced Pages as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: . There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment . I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Misplaced Pages out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Misplaced Pages standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Misplaced Pages, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).

I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --健次(derumi) 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days. If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other. Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it. If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page. Navou 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus. Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate. I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --健次(derumi) 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --健次(derumi) 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.

Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too. I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc. But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness. I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc. I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does some good work. Also some bad. And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --健次(derumi) 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things:
- Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to).
- Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation.
- Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors
- Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring
- Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more.
- Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Misplaced Pages faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Misplaced Pages needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive disruption

There is a user who keeps disrupting articles regarding cities in Croatia. He posts either as anon or uses one of his two-three sockpuppets. I suspect this user has an original account named Inter-milano ( his pictures where he states they are "made from his trip to Republic of Serbian Krajina in 2005" and are used in edits of other accounts are more than obvious). The other accounts (sockpuppets) he uses are: Wermania, Benkovac and LAz17. Bunch of other disruptions are made with anon accounts always with the IP beginning with 124.181.xxx.xxx. Check contributions: Inter-milano, Wermania, Benkovac, LAz17 and couple of anon accounts here and here. It is possible that he or she has more sockpuppets. I have already posted a similar post to this at User talk:DarkFalls thinking he is an admin. There is also an explanation for the nonsenical category this user is constantly creating despite it being deleted two times already. Can someone please help? --No.13 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you are facing sock-puppets, you should take the issue to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser.

On the issue itself: You seem to be pushing yet another occupation theory; how your virgin country was occupied/raped by Slavs/Huns/Commies/whatever. All may not agree with your views. Some may in fact see your POV-pushing as hate speech. -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how can this happen. We have article such as Republic of Serbian Krajina and Croatian War of Independence which extensively speak about this. We also have articles such as Milan Babić and Milan Martić which speak about the leaders of this illegal political entity and confirm the fact they were indicted and convicted of joint criminal enterprise. This state is was neither recognized nor accepted by anyone, not even Federal Republic of Yugoslavia who were their main sponsors. I suggest you read up on this matter before you draw your conclusions and start throwing accusation. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to Petri Krohn, a known weaver of alternative histories, when he's merely saying weird things. He's much more dangerous when he's meddling: Digwuren 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On Petri Krohn. This is a copy of what I posted at User talk:Isotope23: Petri Krohn is lately viciously attacking me and accusing me. You can see his accusation on WP:ANI (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_disruption) and on ]. Additionally to his support to now confirmed vote stacker and sockpuppeteer LAz17 (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17) he also seems to be following me around and reverting some of my edits withouth actually knowing anything of the subject. It seems he does it just to revert me. He did it on Dubrovnik where he keeps reverting despite Ragusa not being the official name of the city and despite the various versions of the name presented in the separate section of the article. On Giacomo Micaglia he completely reverted to User:Giovanni Giove version (the user which was blocked for edit warring and refusal for making a compromise on the same article, Marko Marulić and Zadar) disregarding me or Kubura's arguments. Today I noticed he reverted one of my earlier changes on Theories on the origin of Croats where I have removing unscientific rant by one of the anon vandals (you can check the anon's diffs here and I especially point to these changes , of the same user). Petri Krohn obviously has something against me though I am still uncertain what that is since I never met him on Misplaced Pages until the case about the disputed Category I mentioned above. --No.13 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I talked to Petri Krohn and he suggested that I should post a complant here. I came across a number of pages and found that User:No.13 has deleted a number of images and a few link to relevant websites (eg: Strmica). Here is an example Glina, Croatia, he/she deleted all the images. He/she deleted them without giving any reasons. I believe that's just clear vandalism. I suggest you search No.13 history. Another example Benkovac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semberac (talk • contribs) 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If I deleted some images that was not done on purpose, I was merely reverting edits by a edit warrior. The link for Strmica is no a relevant website, it's a personal website and cannot be used in the way it is at the moment, it's not even in english. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You were edit warring and summarily reverting edits of someone you call an "edit warrior". This is not acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages, even if you did not break WP:3RR. Your edit warring should clearly earn you a block.

On the other hand I am not convinced your summary deletions were mere accidents. Your edit history indicates you are systematically deleting content that is sympathetic to Croatian Serbs. -- Petri Krohn 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of massive disruption is not edit warring. I also warn you Petri if you continue with this offensive attitude I will report you. It is now evident that you are supporting a sockpuppeteer who uses his accounts for vote stacking and massive disruption. I point you to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17. --No.13 08:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked your history again today and you went to the Dubrovnik page and deleted a image. Be careful !!!

Could this be... Afrika Paprika, infamous for disrupting articles relating to Serbs and Croatia? ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is, indeed, sockpuppetry. LOZ: OOT 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that is A.P.? ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of KensingtonBlonde

I have been mulling over this ever since I saw the account show up at the English Misplaced Pages, and I am tired of sitting idly by. KensingtonBlonde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet being used to evade a block placed on EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was discovered through checkuser to be behind the various Ichträgtkeineschuhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) harassing sockpuppets that were also used to harass me via e-mail which led to the Block e-mail function added to block options.

I am not randomly accusing KensingtonBlonde. In one of the various cross-wiki harassments that led to me seeking a checkuser at meta, Lar had discovered meta:KensingtonBlonde (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:KensingtonBlonde was discovered and revealed to be created and editted from the same IP (not the one listed) at meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#Ichhabevielesocken@meta as well as socks listed at meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#FortHuntington/QuackyQuackDuck @ enwikiversity, and at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ichträgtkeineschuhe.

In private checkusers performed on KensingtonBlonde's account at the English Misplaced Pages it was discovered that he was solely editting through open proxies after both of his primary IPs that he had used to harass me were checkuser blocked.

As I said, I am not randomly targetting this user. I have had strong and damning evidence against this user being a sockpuppet, and I cannot sit idly by while he builds up good hand edits under this account as he did with EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs) and then create several dozen harassing sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the CU requests. They do have some editing patterns in common -- interest in Mario Bros, Misplaced Pages-space contributions for both are centered on RfA participation and Wikiquette alerts, use of VandalProof. Their first two edits made sure to bluelink both their user and user talk pages (this is obviously the first edit of someone with experience). Compare, if you will, between KensingtonBlonde's current userpage and this oldid from EnglishEfternamn. There's enough in common between those two that I don't feel a particular need to look much deeper. This seems a probable match, I'm afraid. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first accusation I've heard of this. Wasn't there a CU that came up inconclusive? ⇒ SWATJester

One of the first checkusers on the first harassing accounts showed EnglishEfternamn. Subsequent checkusers not at en showed that KensingtonBlonde was registered on the same IP. There was also the same system showing up for the old accounts and this one in a recent checkuser I requested prior to my block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see further evidence in the form of mutual quirks in writing style. Raymond Arritt 05:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Having had quite a bit to do with EE and his various manifestations I recognise the style too. I'd still like ideally to see some technical evidence that he is one and the same, but it certainly looks like it from here. --John 05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Update, KensingtonBlonde has altered their unblock request, apparently admitting that they are EE and asking for another chance. The previous sockpuppetry issues with this user were rather intense (several dozen voracious attack and harassment accounts, several hundred spam emails to a few Wikipedians before the blocks were re-enabled with the new email block option), but as I'm closely involved, it seems appropriate to allow further comment before this gets reviewed. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How many "second chances" do folks like this get before we put an end to it? We waste far too much time on these ongoing dramas, time that could be better spent on other things. Let's allow the block to stand and get back to writing articles. Raymond Arritt 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, apologies in advance if my question may seem weird: what is/was the purpose of the user EE/KB? Why all those messages sent to a number of ppl? Does she/he really deserve an indefinite block?B J Bradford 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We tend to give out indefinite blocks to socks (determined or strongly suspected or admitted) of already blocked users. If the sockmaster user was not indefinitely blocked, we tend to reset to now so the block runs the original time. As for this particular case, sending a lot of harassing emails is not appropriate behaviour. The underlying user (and admitted sockmaster) is already indefinitely blocked. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I ran checks on Commons and Meta, as Ryulong notes above. As is my usual practice, I will make relevant data available on request to checkusers on en:wp as needed. Call me a softie, I guess, but I'm inclined to give EE (the underlying account) another chance. One last one, and not a lot of leeway!!!! ... but maybe just maybe this user has learned. They did go through a bad patch (getting three short blocks in relatively quick succession in December/January) and then seemed to straighten round before things deteriorated again. On the other hand, maybe it's irredemable behaviour, so I certainly will not overturn. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See also meta:User_talk:Lar#The_English_Wikipedia where KB shares some thoughts and I reply. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

as related there, KB sent me something heartfelt that I (with permission from Ryulong) forwarded on to Ryulong. What Ryulong chooses to do is his to decide. I will not support overturning a block of the original account unless Ryulong does but I do think that here is a user, unlike some, that says that realises that what he has done is disruptive, is sorry about it, and wants to try to make amends, to address the issues with his behaviour, and to be a constructive contributor. That is far more than we get from some users, knowing you have a problem is half way to solving it so I hope that Ryulong finds it in his heart to, perhaps after some considerable time, forgive the egregious harassment he endured. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read over the e-mail, but I still don't know what to do in this situation. He harassed me through e-mail and new accounts before the block was put on the EnglishEfternamn account (the harassment was for my block of User:EastGermanAllStar). The block on EnglishEfternamn occurred after this. I would still like input, as it appears that he is sincere, but I don't want to be suckered in.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said to you on your talk, I'm a softie when someone apparently is being sincere about wanting to change (and a hardass when they are acting like it's the rest of the world at fault) so I'm sympathetic. But on the other hand I've been suckered before. The only way I would think this would have any chance of working would be if someone were to agree to keep a very close eye on this user and their contributions, a mentorship perhaps... I've tried doing that with a previous user and it didn't work out that well so I'm not sure I'm the ideal person for that, if that were where this came out, but I could try. Still, as I said, I really think that you need to be OK with this, since he abused you pretty badly. So the net here is... I don't know either. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Brusk u Trishka

We have a Kurdish revisionist troll on Misplaced Pages now. His edits on the the Assyrian people article are laughable at best. He has also engaged in personal attacks on Assyrians. "Syriani refugee", now clearly, that's an insult, is it not? Obviously, we're dealing with an extremist. Obviously, he is an editor with an extremely anti-Assyrian agenda. He will not be NPOV on Assyrian-related articles. I suggest that admins ban this troll, and ban him fast. Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:37 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

User:203.87.127.18

I don't think I'm being unreasonable to see some trolling tendencies in 203.87.127.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This user has a demonstrated propensity to edit war, obfuscate and assume bad faith. Could an univolved admin please examine the user's contributions, particularly edits to their own talk page and Family First Party, and determine whether a block would be appropriate.--cj | talk 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I reviewed the situation anyhow. I would endorse a block. The IP has been blocked already for 3RR two days ago, and it appears that he has violated 3RR again at the "Family First Party" article (see talk page and history). Shalom 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The user's behaviour continues. Could an uninvolved admin please step in?--cj | talk 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for continued edit-warring immediately after completing a 3RR block. MastCell 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, although I find the user's persistent incivility more disruptive than their edit warring.--cj | talk 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked account breaches unblock condition

The follwing account, User:Gnanapiti was unblocked under the condition that the account will not edit the same pages as it's suspected sock account but in number of artcles these two accounts have been used to clearly over come 3rr. They are (latest not complete list big is it is too big:)))

• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
• Thiruvalluvar Statue
• SarathambalTaprobanus 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Carnatic music. Look between the edits at 20:12, 3 July 2007 by Gnanapiti and 01:25, 4 July 2007 by Sarvagnya.

The correct link to the unblock message is here. The user is clearly not adhering to this unblock criteria. This would clearly be reason for a re-block ... however, since then, Gnanapiti was blocked on April 3 for the same sockpuppetry season, and then unblocked on April 4 with an unblock message saying that RFCU had cleared them. Comments? ELIMINATORJR 14:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, CU showed them to be 2000km+ away from each other. The CU definitively showed them not to be the same person. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A question, was the CU done only on one edit or number of edits, because sometimes people share their passwords with friends far way to evade such scrutiny. I think one way to clear this issue is to do a CU on number of edits of both the accounts spanning number of months to see whether paswords have been shared or not to evade WP:SOCK. If Admins are unable to do it based on ANI, I propose that we open a suspected sock puppet case again and request the admins to be through with their CU this time. Thanks Taprobanus 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Remote access, sharing passwords, eh? You guys seem to have first hand knowledge about these things! Good for you. I've always wondered about certain editors who seem to edit sometimes from Texas, sometimes from Arizona and others who seem to edit sometimes from Canada, other times from Brazil. Not to mention edits purportedly 'atleast 30 mins away' from each other and then of course, the bizzare open proxy edits that keep springing from all corners of the world to protect pro-Tamil POV pushing. Somebody really has a well oiled machinery in place! And oh, btw do you have a suggestion what software admins should use to analyse the results? Please let us know. Sarvagnya 22:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Taprobanus has not engaged in that kind of behavior, but both of us have dealt with a user who has. That user does not edit wikipedia anymore.Bakaman 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. i didnt say it was Taprobanus. And also, I'm not talking of only the open proxy warrior that we've encountered. There is an arizona/texas troll and another canadian troll that I think have mostly targeted just me. Sarvagnya 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think admins are that naive or is it that you have a tendency to gift such banal ideas to Misplaced Pages? Gnanapiti 22:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that the admin had cleared them based purely on good faith, which is fine. I wasn't around back then to give my opinion that it's not too difficult for the same person to use two different IPs that come from two cities (imagine a person editing from home, using their own PC and also connecting to their employer's network whose proxy may be sitting a thousand miles away). In any case, all we can do is assume good faith, which is what the admin did even when previously these two accounts had used the *exact* same IP. That was a red flag, but based on some flimsy reason that one account explained Misplaced Pages to the other "user", they were let go. The admin did warn them not to engage in edit wars on the same article. Which these accounts are continuing to do. To add to Taprobanus's list also look at Carnatic music that I have added above, I wouldn't be surprised if there are other articles that this dispruption is going on. Lotlil 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are obviously two different people, and neither edited Tamil articles when I filed the checkuser on them. They do not edit from the same IP anymore, and Nick (the blocking admin) admitted he was mistaken in blocking sarvagnya and gnanapiti in April.Bakaman 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about admin User:Dmcdevit, in his unblock message, he clearly states that they have used the same IP once, but then when he ran a subsequent check, the IPs change to different cities. I was pointing out above that this still could've been the same person. But Dmcdevit, had rightly assumed good faith and unblocked Gnanapiti, on the condition that the two accounts don't edit war on same articles (and evade 3RR). I'm sure Nick was assuming good faith too, when unblocking them. I'm fine with that. But, the initial condition that Dmcdevit had unblocked them on is not being followed anymore. Especially on Tamil articles, there could be others. Lotlil 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick was not assuming good faith, he did it because blnguyen pointed him out to the fact that they are two different people. Everyone except those edit-warring with them knows they are two different people. Sarvagnya introduced Gnanapiti to wikipedia in late 2006. Gnanapiti left and began editing wherever he lives now. Its that simple.Bakaman 16:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And, how do we "know" that? On what basis (other than good faith) do we believe the story that one user initiated the other to wikipedia using the same IP address and then the other user goes off to live in another city ? Lotlil 16:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because CU shows the timestamp of each edit and the IP of each edit. The IPs used to overlap and they no longer do so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you know english wikipedia is biased against Tamils?.Bakaman 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Boss, if you are even remotely hinting that I posted that message, sorry it wasn't me. My IP has been documented elsewhere and it's not the same as that anon IP. You can probably have that double checked, if you don't believe me. Lotlil 16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I know that IP redirects to Germany and may be related to an old friend gone sour. Its about as close to you as sarvagnya to gnanapiti.Bakaman 16:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Forget about that IP coming from a different continent(!), is there a history of me using the same IP as that user, ever, like the G and S have? Lotlil 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't seem to get the point did you? In fact I am sure I know who our german friend is (not you), he is as much your sock as gnanapiti is sarvagnya's.Bakaman 22:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to EliminatorJR, This issue has been brought to ANI more than once and resolved every time. If you dig upon archives some 3-4 months back, you can find ample of them. I've explained several times why me and User:Sarvagnya can't be hold from editing same articles, mainly because of the interests we share. Evading 3RR is a different issue which we never do. The condition that me and Sarvagnya can't edit the same articles was lifted long time back by Dmcdevit. So there isn't any condition on us anymore. I'm sure even complaining users here know about that but deliberately forget. It's very hard now to find that diff which happened long back, but I'll try to get that diff and will provide as soon as I get that. Gnanapiti 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is trolling and harrassment pure and simple. This has been decided not once, twice or thrice but several times. Blnguyen, Aksi, Headless Nick and Dmc have handled this and they know about it. Nick made a mistake in blocking us and if you see our block logs you'll notice that Blnguyen unblocked us without any protest from Nick. Even User:Sundar, Venu62 and others had trolled about this on ANI just a couple of months ago and they got nowhere with the trolling. All the details are in the archives of several pages - on ANI, on my talk page, Gnanapiti's talk page, the concerned admins' pages etc.,. Sarvagnya 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Before we go too far on accusing editors of trolling, let's get this discussion back on track. Nobody (including me, after reading through archives) is questioning that the two accounts have been cleared of sockpuppeteering before; I'm pointing out the fact that those decisions have all assumed good faith. No problems so far. The issue is, of-late, some clear evasion of 3RR has happened between these accounts as Taprobanus has pointed out above. I'm not even saying they should not edit same articles. All I'm asking admins to look at is whether this 3RR evasion(s) are acceptable, esp. given the history of the blocking and unblocking. Lotlil 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

More trolling. Not that I wasnt expecting it. Lotlil, would you mind translating this into Tamil, I'll paste one on ta.wiki too. And oh btw, one of your buddies might need a French translation too. I think there's some kind of translation dept., on wikipedia. Let me see if I can find them. Sarvagnya 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Tamil, we seem to need an English-to-English translation here !! All the unblocks in the past have been due to the loads of good faith that Blnguyen has assumed. Which, again, if you read my message, I don't oppose. I only have asked the admins to take a note of the history of the two accounts and the recent edits, and decide whether any restrictions are in order. That's all. Ok, enough has been said, I will just leave it to the admins to comment on the issue or ignore it. Lotlil 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There was not any good faith assumptions on my part. It was simply the data.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Tamil? Well, simply because all those who are trolling here are Tamil and seem to have a problem understanding English. Which part of Blnguyen's "...and the two RFCUs after that were negative. The most recent was this February..." sounds like merely 'good faith' to you. Or do you want me to walk you to my RFCU archives too? No less than four admins have looked at this and this has been discussed on ANI too before. Your (and Taprobanus') attempts therefore, must be seen for what it is, as disruption. The next time this happens, I will be reporting you guys for disruption. Happy trolling until then. Sarvagnya 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If speaking up against your vandalism is called disruption, I will be glad to repeat it. You can try reporting or whatever.Lotlil 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, guys. Here it is. It took me about 40 minutes to dig this up! :) With this link, it should be pretty clear that, these two users are not breaching any condition.

As this issue reappearing on ANI more often, may I request Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti to save this link, for future use? Thanks. - KNM 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey KNM, thanks. But I think I beat you to it :). Check my link - it has more details and also a link to your link :) Sarvagnya 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest protection of those pages, not a block of the user. ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

edit warring, misrepresentation

Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) repeatedly removing sourced content and reinstating unsourced and misrepresented content. pointing out the problems with his edits on the article talk page (here and here) has not helped. Doldrums 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

continues , has been asked to stop. Doldrums 08:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums continues to skew the page with non-neutral ramblings, relying on the view of one left-wing journalist criticized already for a predilection against Hindus. Doldrums has consistently sought to remove relevant criticism of biases professed by advocacy groups and left-wing journalists. All of course giving undue weight to isolated incidents of Muslims being burned, as if this was some sort of genocide.Bakaman 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums, this is not the place to discuss content issues. Take it to the article's talk page. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you, Sarvagnya, for the advice. as you can see, i've taken it to the talk page for good fortnight, all i've got in return are wholesale reverts that, among other things, misrepresent sources, without so much as an edit summary. shld i just keep talking to myself on the talk page while the article continues to report, for instance, that Varsha Bhosle criticised Celia Dugger's reporting of the 2002 Gujarat riots three years before the riots took place? Doldrums 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Obviously you are a saint and Bakaman is an evil pro-right wing Hindu troll. Isn't that what you want to hear? I've worked on that page for over a year, and don't take kindly by repeated attempts by biased editors backed up by sockpuppeteers and SPA's to put WP:UNDUE weight on left wing opinions. The article does not state that bhonsale criticized dugger over the 2002 riots per se, but that dugger's reporting has been criticized, which is important because dugger is only one o thousands of journalists covering the story, but is made to be some amazing expert by those in the left-wing.Bakaman 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums, this still isnt the place to discuss this. You can take it to an RfC or to dispute resolution. Sarvagnya 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of content tags on Influenza pandemic

I have attempted to add {{accuracy}} and {{cleanup}} tags to the Influenza pandemic page. These have been reverted 3 times by User:WAS 4.250 despite the inclusion of a discussion of my perceived issues with the page on the Talk page, which may have initially been missed by the user but definitely noticed now.

I was directed to Influenza pandemic page by a RFC notice asking about the inclusion of a section on Strategies to be followed by individuals during such a pandemic. I deeply found this section to be in violation of WP:NOT (an instruction manual) and suggested this on the talk page in teh RFC section.

On closer inspection of the article I found it full of much similar WP:NOT (an instruction manual or depository for indiscriminate information) violations, innapropriate tone, and two very startling and obvious errors within the first sentence. It relies on a few specific sources. The content also fails to reflect the article's title, by focusing on modern planning towards a possible predicted H5N1 outbreak, rather than the history and characteristics of influenza pandemics. I listed my concerns in a rather informal manner, as I felt just sweeping in and deleting modifying half of the article might be seen a bit rude (especially with an open RFC going).

I have tried to tag the article with a view to fix it up this Sunday when I have more free time. I would like the tags {{accuracy}}, {{cleanup}}, {{globalize}} (and possibly {{npov}} and {{tone}}) added to the article, but interference by User:WAS 4.250 means I can't without violating WP:3R rules.

I feel User:WAS 4.250 is failing to Assume good faith and is pushing the line of Article ownership. His comments do not accurately portray a discussion about concerns with this articles content. --ZayZayEM 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a problem with people inappropriately tagging articles that they lack knowledge on. ZayZayEM is an example of that. WAS 4.250 04:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The tags are really secondary. If there are serious concerns about the article, then addressing them is best. It sounds like ZayZayEm is going to work on the article in the near future; if that's the case, Misplaced Pages won't suffer too much if the tags are absent a few more days, and it's certainly not worth edit-warring over. MastCell 05:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of these particular tags is to warn the readers of the article that there are serious problems with the article. I disagree that allowing something that is seriously problematic to stand for any length of time is a good idea. ZayZayEM is willing to work on it, let the tags stand until the issues are fixed. I should have tagged the article when I first came across it a while ago. KP Botany 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• User WAS is adding information about other flu strains. So the article may seem to have broader scope now (huzzah!). He is however ignoring efforts by 3 independent editors to point out the alarmist and encyclopedic tone of the article (which to me , alarmism is equivalent to innacuracy)--ZayZayEM 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that infects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain, and continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing a leading expert on avian flu to publish an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist. He called for adequate resources to fight what he sees as a major world threat to possibly billions of lives. WAS 4.250 05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If a world renown scientist's claim of a reasonable possibility of a billion human deaths in a flu pandemic backed by billions of dollars in government funding to prevent and/or cope with that pandemic is not cause for alarm then what is? WAS 4.250 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages is not resposnible for making such a call. Misplaced Pages can say "Scientist X says "...." and claims this is cause for alarm" or "Scientist X says "...." and Organised Body B/Media Outlet claims this is cause for alarm" - it CANNOT say "Scientist X says "...", this is a cause for alarm". Misplaced Pages is not responsible for provoking panic, no matter how strong the evidence, we are a tertiary resource.--ZayZayEM 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Insult

I was insulted on the Richmond, California talk page and called an "ass" but the page was conveniantly archived right afterwards and it had allready been archived recently. Who was it archived by? I was called an ass here and this is archived here and it was done by this editor (Lensovet) apparantly. I think he should be warned and I would like an apologyCholga 05:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not nice, but a passing insult is not worth getting so worked up about. Show that you're the bigger person and just let it go. Raymond Arritt 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The page was apparently archived by User:Chrishomingtang. If you'd like an apology, I'd suggest contacting Lensovet. There's very little anyone else can do to force him to apologize; at best, an admin could warn him about personal attacks, but so can you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 2)The best first step is probably to approach User:Lensovet on his talk page, explain why you're upset, and try to work through it with him. MastCell 05:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ray, EVula, and Mastcell. I will contact Lensovet and ask for an apology. I do think an admin should warn him as it carries more weight. Well I don't think it's a bigger person or not sort of thing. I just think everyone should be treated fairly and this kind of comment is unacceptable for Lensovet as it is for anyone else and it should be reported in case he insults anyone else in the future.Cholga 05:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion, which did get a bit heated but not unreasonable, it seems that Cholga has again come here hoping for support on a debate she was losing. The 'ass' comment wasn't much of a direct insult, referring to laziness, not that she was specifically an ass. It seems, Cholga, that you need to develop a somewhat thicker skin, people aren't always going to agree with you. --Hayden5650 05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hayden you're comments are completely unhelpful and out of line. Its obvious I am not looking for any support with regards to any debate whatsoever. Please tell me which debate I am losing, you won't find one. Lensovet and I never argued over anything. The debate was over IL2BA removing my comments on a talk page. Removing content is vandalism and the vandal always loses and the vandal was not I. Who am I asking to agree with me? and with what?Cholga 05:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Point of interest: removing content isn't automatically vandalism. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to remove content. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that this is the place but there is was no legitimate reason to remove my comments from the Richmond, California talk page because he did not like my "mini-shit storms" as he has recently called them with the pretext that you cannot add in comments in small text.Cholga 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Electrified mocha chinchilla

This user and I, along with several other editors, had a long disagreement about his removal of content (several images) from an article. He could cite neither policy nor precedent for removing the content from the article, only the fact that he considers some of the images he was removing to be "poor quality." They are perfectly fine images, insofar as their quality can be assessed objectively (relatively high resolution, no distortion or color problems, illustrate the items in question, etc). After a long debate, no consensus was reached. He had the support of but one other editor, whose only contribution was "I don't really like the gallery." I asked him to please respect the fact that his personal opinion of the images may not be held by others, and that policy and/or consensus is needed to cut content from articles. The debate continued, despite it being fairly clear, until several editors, myself included, decided out of frustration to no longer discuss the issue. He took it upon himself to wait a few days and then remove the content once again (this being at least his fourth removal, and hence violating WP:BRD at least three times by reinstating his changes without consensus/policy support). I added it back and started this thread on the talk page, where I laid it out once again, plain and simple. He proceeded to berate me in a highly uncivil fashion. He then stooped to insulting the entire idea of making decisions based on policy, decided that his deletion of content was justified based on WP:IGNORE, and told me that the content in question and I should "go rub eachother raw in a corner." Can someone please put this user on notice, not about the editorial issues (as those appear to be resolved, although not in a cooperative way), but about his highly inappropriate conduct? Thank you. --Cheeser1 06:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think his behavior is, in fact, inapprpopriate. IAR, which is an important rule when used correctly, requires that the Consensus be kept. I think the user should be refered to WP:WIARM. Od Mishehu 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my comment(s), but my position on having the gallery removed or changed still stands. --emc 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you then to keep in mind that policy and consensus are what make Misplaced Pages articles. Your personal opinion is important, in that it can be an interpretation of policy or a part of a greater consensus, but until it is, your dislike for a particular image does not dictate that we should remove it, in spite of policy and consensus to the contrary. --Cheeser1 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User Christopher Mann McKay - refusal to discuss

Hello. This concerns the American Family Association article and talkpage , and primarily the editor Christopher Mann McKay . The main issue is refusal to correspond and removal of comments on personal talkpages regarding constructive editing.

Context: AFA is a controversial pro-Christian activism group that promotes free speech on Christian-right issues and organizes voluntary consumer boycotts. Editors on the article have not generally sought to remove criticism of the AFA. There has been a general move to balance views as criticism is often directly and explicitly denied by AFA and other sources. Controversy is pretty much written into every section in the article which is natural as it is a controversial area. There has been a very long dispute over categories. It is generally realized that categories can be problematic, though a lot of editors there, including myself, are open to the use of lists. Categories are constantly removed on the basis that there has been no statements presented that e.g. “such and such is uncontroversial” or words to that effect. The controversies on certain categories are obvious yet editors Christopher Mann McKay and Orpheus keep adding the categories, even during discussion . Categories are removed so that there is no ongoing disruption to other editing while discussion is ongoing.

The dispute on the talkpage has been disruptive so the suggestion has been made to move such discussion to personal talkpages. I have contacted Christopher Mann McKay on his talkpage several times in order to solve the problem and was met with deletion. I did wonder whether I was unduly harassing Christopher Mann McKay, but on the policy page I see that I have not committed any of the offenses mentioned. The editor Christopher Mann McKay actually stated that he did not want to talk to me at all about the issue of forcing categories onto the article during discussion . So according to the harassment guidelines I am bringing this to the attention of administrators. My main concern is to allow reasonable discussion on editor talkpages, and to avoid undue or distracting discussion from article talkpages. I look forward to your comments. Hal Cross 09:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, you violated WP:HAR by user space harassment on my talk page. You keep demanding the removal of categories from the AFA page when many editors want them up. You cite the guideline WP:CAT's reference to excluding categories if they are controversial as your reason for removing the categories. Multiple users have told you there is no controversy and that if you believe there is one then you should find a reliable source stating this is controversial. However, you can not find any source to back up your argument, so instead you demand I (and others) show proof the AFA's stance is not controversial by finding a reliable source that says "_____ is not controversial"; this idea is nonsense and multiple users have told you no one needs to produce false proof. You keep filling up my talk page with your demands and criticism of my edits, incorrectly calling my edits "unconstructive" "disruptive" and "uncooperative" and when I remove your comments from my talk page, you add them back in, even after I asked you to not comment on my talk page. This type of behavior is not acceptable. The reason I don't want to discuss with you on my talk page is because despite multiple editors telling you that your demands are unjust, you keep demanding the same things, you see determined not to comprise, and you repeat same weak argument over and over. —Christopher Mann McKay 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some further comments associated with this ANI report. User:Hal Cross has been contributing to Misplaced Pages since the beginning of July. In that time, he has made very few actual contributions and a significant number of edits calling other editors disruptive and other personal attacks. (, , , , , , , , , , ) His style of contribution on Talk:American Family Association has been mostly along the lines of asserting that he has the final right to decide the content of the article. (, , , , , , , , )

When other editors (four by my count so far) have asked him to moderate his approach or contribute more constructively, his typical response is to either cast aspersions on their motives or adopt an air of injured innocence. (, , , , , )

I personally feel that it's more constructive to discuss the content issues and forget about these things entirely, but it's a bit on the nose to bring this against an editor who has been working towards a constructive outcome. Especially when it's brought by an editor who hasn't yet edited anything except for a single article that he's obviously very invested in. Orpheus 12:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, from what I understand of WP recommendations and policy, your behaviour is quite disruptive . Your (and Orpheus') editing seems to me to be tendentious (“continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.”) cannot satisfy verifiability(“fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.), you seem to be dismissive of other editors on the article, and seem to me to be owning the article by dismissively forcing categories onto the article even when reasonable discussion is in progress . I am not interested in blocking or banning you though I am led to believe that is the way policy may direct the action. You did not directly involve yourself in the direct personal attacks against me , and that is a plus to you. I would prefer to encourage a situation where calm discussion is the norm instead of particular POV’s holding the article hostage. I realize the article is becoming more balanced now despite long term disputes, though I feel it would do us all a lot of good if we could openly discuss on each other’s talkpages, instead of having to handle personal issues on the AFA talkpage. I deliberately brought this issue to admin notice in order to avoid any harassment issues according to guidelines . Again, my main objective here is to encourage discussion rather than the constant forcing of any unsupported or disputed information into the article. Editing would seem to go far better when discussion is followed thoroughly on article and user talkpages Hal Cross 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, if anyone is interested in my own editing on the article, my main drive has been towards broadening the view out of the pro-anti flavour that the article has taken e.g. . According to the literature AFA has far more issues involved that need including in order to make the article encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the constant insistence on certain disputed categories has made editing quite disrupted. I have no particular interests in the group (AFA) and am not affiliated to it in any way. I do see a problem that needs fixing with the article though. I have rather taken to the WP recommendations and am fairly motivated to edit on horticultural articles once we have this problem sorted out. Hal Cross 12:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross: "I am not interested in blocking or banning you though I am led to believe that is the way policy may direct the action." -- I will not get banned, as I have not done anything wrong. This whole ANI notification is completely unnecessary and pointless. —Christopher Mann McKay 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am following the recommendations . This is an admin notification. Administrators don't have to reply at all. The main point is that the facts get presented out here and you start to re-consider your behaviour. Editors are not supposed to refuse discussion, and they are not supposed to constantly force disputed edits or categories onto articles for months on end while being dismissive of discussion. The personal attacks are a minor point I think as I have pretty much forgiven the attackers. Encouraging good editing behaviour is the main purpose here. So there is a very useful point to all of this. Hal Cross 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are misusing ANI. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks," this page is not for disputes or complaints about users. —Christopher Mann McKay 08:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The recommendation was to take the issue to admin. If anyone here has a better idea of a venue for the issues then feel free to chime in. I'm all eyes. Hal Cross 10:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike yourself, I have not violated WP:HAR (or any other behavioral guideline), so this recommendation does not apply to me. You are misusing ANI to complain about a user/dispute instead of requesting a block or requesting another action needed by an administrator; even if you were requesting a block against me, I would never get blocked because I am not doing anything wrong. In the future, you should use ANI for its real purpose; else admin will ignore your request like they have here. End of dicussion. —Christopher Mann McKay 17:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hayden5650

Is creating a negative environment on the talk page with comments that are possibly in violation of WP:CIVIL

• Referring to Albinos as "freaks of nature"

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AWhite_people&diff=148473150&oldid=148468951 racialist rant
• diff

Muntuwandi 12:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first diff he doesn't call albinos freaks of nature. He says albinism is a genetic mutation and that the article is not for discussing freaks of nature. You're giving "freak of nature" a way more negative connotation than the word implies here. In the second diff, he's just being sarcastic to get his point across. He's certainly not mincing words though, I'll give you that.--Atlan (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

isn't the use of the term halfcasts uncivil. Furthermore the user has already been noted for abusive editing in the past seeMisplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Nordic Crusader. What is worrisome is the pattern of edits.

• freaks of nature aagin

Muntuwandi 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree his choice of words is quite poor when discussing races. I also agree that his editing pattern and the points he's trying to get across are questionable. I'm still on the fence over whether he's crossed the line or not though.--Atlan (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think he's Nordic Crusader, you should file a checkuser request.--Atlan (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I havn't got time to type much right now, but there already was a checkuser filed which cleared me of the sockpuppetry. --Hayden5650 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read this diff . Isn't it needlessly inflammatory?--Ramdrake 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole discussion. --Hayden5650 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I did. Your point being?--Ramdrake 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That if you take the last few comments from a heated discussion, the ones that are most likely the hottest and post them here then they may look inflammatory. You should all take a good look at Muntuwandi's contributions --Hayden5650 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are likely to be more heated, that's true. I'm not saying they're indicative of the whole discussion (they aren't), I'm just saying that, IMO, at that point you crossed a line you shouldn't have, heated discussion or not. The heat of argument is not an excuse to make that kind of remark.--Ramdrake 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He does this a lot. It's who he is. I personally don't like him, but what can you do?

I would have to say that what was said is a pretty uncivil thing to say. LOZ: OOT 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What worries my is that this pattern of editing is not new and thus it is likely to continue. Almost every edit that was from Hayden5650 on the talk page is venomous. Muntuwandi 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hayden5650 made inflammatory and uncivil comments in Talk:The Holocaust#Positive Effects of the Holocaust for Jews. He seems to have stopped after a warning, but I see that he simply switched to other articles. ←Humus sapiens 09:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of needlessly inflammatory, racially oriented comment a blockable offense for disruption? Can an admin please look into that?--Ramdrake 12:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't! Damn, I get shot down for looking on the bad side, shot down for looking on the good side, what am I supposed to do? Where is the policy that says you can't suggest different consequences of a situation?? There was absolutely nothing uncivil posted on that Holocaust talkpage it was worded as carefully as hell --Hayden5650 12:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's midnight here so better be off, if this discussion is still open tomorrow I'll have more of a constructive input into it --Hayden5650 12:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hornplease (was: Community's criminal negligence at revelation of personal information)

While the Misplaced Pages community is discussing attack sites that make outing on members, a criminal troll inside Misplaced Pages is revealing personal information about an established user and an Arbcom member is giving a pat to the troll by blocking the victimised user. User:Bakasuprman has effected an outing on an established user, who hasn't been active over two weeks. A permanent block of this troll is long overdue. An Arbcom member Blnguyen, who btw, is the patron of Bakasuprman has blocked User:Hornplease and has thus given the go ahead to this criminal act. Blnguyen might oversight the page to save his protégé. Community should be vigilant against such moves. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hornplease 59.91.253.206 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Where has he done this? WilyD 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the link I gave. The troll gives enough details to locate and identify the user, if the details were true. That those details are not given by the user himself and not seen on his user page itself shows that the troll was attempting harassment by revelation. 59.91.253.206 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Hornplease was blocked for using IP sockpuppets to try to bypass the three revert rule. He also states on his user page where he lives. The IP locations are easily seen by the WHOIS link after their addresses on the RFCU page you're linking to. I don't see the outing. If I'm missing something, could you provide diffs? Flyguy649 _contribs 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)The checkuser request linked above provides no more personal information than is posted on Hornplease's user page. Perhaps you misinterpreted "incidentally where the subject teaches"; to me, it pretty clearly refers to where the subject of the article in question (Michael E. J. Witzel) teaches, not User:Hornplease. If there is truly more personal information than this being posted somewhere, you're better off dealing with this thru email, rather than posting a gigantic "Look! Here Is Some Personal Information I Don't Think You Should See!" notice on ANI. --barneca (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Nor do I. Hornplease admits to being in Cambridge, and aside from the large ISPs in the area, just about the only place that has its own IP net is Harvard, which has not only dorm-based access, but Wi-Fi in all the buildings, via dynamic IPs. There's plenty of real-life people he could be. MSJapan 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, Bakasuprman, was deliberately gaming. He deliberately used the word "subject" to leave room for ambiguity. Please note that, the name of the subject of the article has not been mentioned in the page. Also,the IP that the user admitted to have used has only 8 edits, all of them on a single day in 2005. Hornplease was blocked by Blnguyen because Bakasuprman argues that the IP that reverted on Witzel article is similar to the IP that Hornplease adimitted to using on a single day in 2005. See. Firstly, the attempt to pin a Harvard IP to the user. Coupled with this is the deliberately ambiguoous "the subject" who could be the subject of the checkuser case as well. Moreover, the IP edits accused of as revert-warring were really attempts to remove ill-sourced belittling information which should go per BLP policy anyway. If I guess correctly, 3r violation is irrelevant about removing BLP violation. The reverter quoted the policy in his summaries. Also see how Blnguyen treated Bakasuprman's sockpuppetry involving multiple socks and personal attacks where indefinite ban should only be reasonable. See the first entry in this log and this case.59.91.253.250 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuntan (talk · contribs) go away.Bakaman 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Go away troll. Your mimicking the dick is obscene. Mastcell, you don't need to suspect. I am the very party. I suggest you do a block range. 59.91.253.161 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kuntan, I'm not part of Korea's bulging Hindu nationalist BJP robot hindutvavadi communal cow worshipping community.Bakaman 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The CU case doesn't reveal enough personal information to be a problem. Take a look at User talk:Hornplease, and you'll see that people are trying to guess at this user's real identity; whether this is a problem, I'm not sure. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt hornplease is Michael E. J. Witzel, but I know at least three editors of India related articles that edit from the Harvard, and one is the real Witzel.Bakaman 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Hornplease should be reduced

Using IPs to edit war is not acceptable, and since Blnguyen is a Checkuser, I suppose there's enough evidence to tie User:Hornplease to these IP edits. However, the 1-week block is clearly excessive. Hornplease has never been blocked before, and a shorter block would have been more appropriate.

The article where the supposed sock edits occured, Michael E. J. Witzel, is a BLP, and the passage that was removed, , while sourced, amounts to innuendo and has no place in an article about a living person. (Note the discussion at Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel#Crimson_articl.)

Since 3RR can be violated to remove negative information, I don't think the reverts are a violation in and of themselves, though I agree that the use of IPs is problematic. Therefore I think the block should be reduced in length, perhaps to a 24 hour block. (Which is a pretty normal length for an established user's first block anyway, right?) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Akhilleus as to shortening the block. I have also blocked the above dynamic IP temporarily as it appears to be in use, as Bakasuprman mentioned, by User:Kuntan. MastCell 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever the community decides. However I have suspicions that Hornplease (talk · contribs) editing in collusion or at the behest of Witzel (talk · contribs). The geographic closeness as well as Hornplease's obvious POV and continued promotion of Witzel's work as the piece de resistance of Indology in my view cannot be just a coincidence.Bakaman 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus and MastCell, and recommend reduction of the block, considering that Hornplease has never been blocked before. --Ragib 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bakasuprman has in no way violated WP:HARASS here: as he states, there's no more personal information here than was freely given already/is publically available and was necessary for the report.
• It does indeed appear that Hornplease has violated 3RR using IPs, per the CU.
• Reverts per WP:BLP "may be" exempt, and as there is valid concern, Hornplease should be unblocked now, and advised not to do it this way in the future. It's a shame, though, that anyone would have felt it necessary: it shows there is not enough consciousness re BLP, or that we don't have confidence that BLP-grounded reverts really will be held exempt - as here, they weren't.
• It's time to leave Michael E. J. Witzel alone. This seems a particularly unnecessary example, as the material added (so far as I can discern) has nothing to do with the reason for the animosity, but it just an arbitrary (and, from the looks of it, not very significant) "controversy."
• If and where Hornplease is promoting Witzel's work, as Bakasuprman alleges, it is certainly legitimate to keep a check on that; the conversation above moves me to wonder if there might not be a WP:COI factor at play (not charging, just asking.)Proabivouac 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The block is a good call in my opinion, Hornplease as an established user should know better. There is a possibility of a conflict of interest and collusion Michael Witzel who is a professor at the Harvard University, and has been involved in the California Textbook controversy. This is a grave matter and should be investigated. --Nearly Headless Nick 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be investigated. However, COI doesn't necessarily trump BLP - or does it? If someone pops up claiming outright to be the subject of an article and starts removing information that honestly does look like it shouldn't be present, I'd be pretty reluctant to block him/her. It just sounds like a bad idea on a number of levels. Something tells me that this situation must have arisen many times before; if I have this wrong, please educate me.Proabivouac 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced Hornplease's block to 1 day, less time served. So, the block will expire in 30 minutes. I see nothing in his behaviour which justifies a one-week block on a first offence. FCYTravis 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The one week block was totally justified. After all, Hornplease was holding forth on the arbcom that meatpuppetry was worth indeffing! 'Hasnt been blocked before' doesnt really make any sense. He's been here long enough and should have known better. Be that as it may, the thing that is of most concern is the possibility of COI that Bakaman has raised. It needs to be investigated with all seriousness. Sarvagnya 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. If something happens again, another block can be applied. A one-week block is grossly excessive, as there is no evidence that the offending behaviour will occur again, per our blocking policy. FCYTravis 04:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is one thing, but trying to hide that you are edit warring by changing identities is simply a bad faith action. 1 week seems very reasonable. Until(1 == 2) 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there an attempt to hide it? Just the other day, I reported User:Chubeat8 who was (and still is) pretending to be four different people for 3RR; he got 31 hours. Here there's a BLP concern, I see no unambiguous evidence of deception (unless he denied this somewhere?), and an editor in good standing gets a week?

And who is User:211.51.164.33/User:211.51.164.93?Proabivouac 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warring

Note: this is regarding this ANI thread above -- Flyguy649 _contribs 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't get anywhere in an edit dispute with Arthur Rubin because he refuses to listen to me. I am guessing it's because he has zero-tolerance for my ilk. He keeps reverting me; I am nothing to him. I can't do an RFC because there isn't another person who agrees with me yet. His edit summary "AGAIN" shows that he finds me a big problem, rather than a valid contributor, just like a vandal. — Selmo 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, but article talk pages are generally the place to hammer out content disputes. Also.. if nobody agrees with you, perhaps this should tell you something? You should probably make your case on the talk page, then wait and see if there's any agreement with your position. At any rate, I don't see how this is a matter requiring administration attention. Friday (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Selmo: I just took a few minutes to find out what you're talking about; when you post something like this, it's handy to link to a couple diffs between your edits and his so we can see what you're talking about. That said, whether you *like* what's being said about Scholars for 9/11 Truth, it seems quite well cited, it's not POV; they've been criticized for those issues, and there are links to the criticism. If you'd like to balance it, find their rebuttals or the rebuttals of others proving why the criticisms are invalid, but removing them from the article isn't the way for you to go. --Thespian 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The cite appearts to fail WP:RS though. — Selmo 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of reliability of sources is an interesting and double-edged one on articles like "9/11 Truth Movement". But in any case, this is content issue that you need to hash out on the article talk page. As User:Friday mentioned, if no one agrees with you, then consensus may have gone against you, and posting to AN/I won't get around that. You don't need a co-signer to start a content RfC, which would solicit outside opinions on the sources - you only need a cosigned for a user-conduct RfC, which would appear unwarranted in any case. Also consider asking for a third opinion. MastCell 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so User:Pablothegreat85 has taken the liberty to declare a war against me. He resorts to personal attacks to get me to stop editing. — Selmo 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chichichihua

This User continues to edit war on Chihuahua (dog) over a photo for which there is consensus on the Talk page not to use. They have been told in two separate AN/I:3RR cases (that they raised) that their edits are disruptive. They canvassed the original uploader of the offending photograph, who joined in the edit war. They have been repeatedly asked on their Talk page to stop and to raise any issue on the Talk page, which they refuse to do. I'd like to request a week-long block for this repeated behavior that has been going on for over a week, with at least three admins telling them they are being disruptive, two regular editors of the Chihuahua page, and five editors of the Chihuahua page who want the current lead to stay, per the Talk page. --David Shankbone 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think thats sarcasm about the three admins, two editors of that page and an extra five, but if its not, that is a ridiculous proposal to have so many people tell a person something. Its simply extraneous and impolite. See WP:STICK. -- Anonymous Dissident 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Three admins on the 3RR page, two editors (VanTucky and myself) on his Talk page, and under the photo Talk page and in reverts of the User where they don't want a poor quality photo as the lead. Are you saying that such strong consensus is in favor of the vandal? Huh? --David Shankbone 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Miscommunication alert: AD thought you meant that you want this many people to tell Chichichihua to stop. You meant that this many people have already done so. --barneca (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Apologies for my inartful wording. --David Shankbone 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! such a difference a small amount of wording makes. I understand now. -- Anonymous Dissident 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like an IP check done of the User. I believe they are a banned User. See here. This is exactly the behavior this user engaged in over a five month period, mostly with my photographs see here. --David Shankbone 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh-in and support all of David's statements. This user has literally done no contributing except to this disruptive nonsense. I personally consider it to be vandalism, and the idea that this is a sockpuppet created to harass David makes perfect sense to me. The user has done nothing but: 1. try and remove his images 2. try and get him blocked for 3RR. This is especially odd as he is far from the only one to revert this user's edits 3. be completely uncivil 4. canvass others to harass David and remove his image as well. VanTucky 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What disruptive nonsense? Putting up a better picture? The picture isn't perfect, I agree, but it is a chihuahua, unlike the current dog up there which looks just like my neighbor's chihuahua-terrier mix. It sounds like this is Davidshankbone's dog and he wants it to be on the page as a vanity effort. You and Davidshankbone have been edit-warring on the chihuahua page, Davidshankbone has even violated 3RR with his persistent reverts. It's really hard to have a dialogue with these two when they constantly revert, threaten people with blocks and label their edits vandalism. Chichichihua 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, three admins have told this user their edits are disruptive, two editors have engaged them on their web page, and five regular (and long-term) editors of the page have agreed to the photographs currently on the page. I would like this user blocked for a week for their persistent vandalism. --David Shankbone 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter that much which picture goes on the page? If there's consensus for one, then that's the one that goes up. simple as that. However, blocks aren't punitive, so unless he does it again no reason to. Wizardman 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman. Is it even worth discussing? Who cares what picture is on the page? No difference. You have already posted the picture on your userspace; let people see it there, instead of edit-warring over it on another article. -- Anonymous Dissident 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The block is for persistent vandalism, disruption and edit-warring. They were already warned here on the 3RR board and again here on their second 3RR. It's odd that good faith and regular editors have difficulty asking for a block for obvious behavior that is disruptive. That's what makes Misplaced Pages frustrating for many of us. --David Shankbone 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous message was addressed to the subject of this discussion, not you. I dont care either way, really, if the user is blocked. I can see why he would be blocked.

-- Anonymous Dissident 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep an eye on this user. Vandalism's a misnomer, though i don't think anyone's trying to deny that he's being an edit warrior. Wizardman 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• The request was for a block, not for discussion over the photograph, over which the page has consensus. The user's entire edit history is over disruptive behavior with this photograph, which they've been told repeatedly is not wanted. Two editors are now asking for a block. Is it being denied?--David Shankbone 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for 31 hours. There's clear disruption here.-Wafulz 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to leave and take care of something. Looking over his contribs I most likely would've ended up blocking him myself. Wizardman 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Retired

The amount of time and energy it takes for regular, established and good faith editors to get admins to help them when their pages are being trolled and disruptively edited makes working on Misplaced Pages too frustrating and too time-consuming an experience. I have supplied diffs, I have supplied warnings, and I've supplied evidence that this short-term User, whose entire edit history is full of disruptive editing, is worthy of being blocked. Another editor backed-up the request. It's rare I ask someone to be blocked. The last time I had to spend two days compiling a lengthy case against an IP user, who I suspect is this person again. That little credence or respect is given to people such as myself, who have given a lot to this website and continue to give a lot, is beyond frustrating. Instead, my request just sits here. It's not worth my time and energy. I have three people I am photographing at their homes this week for Misplaced Pages; I will put those photos up and then call it quits. You all are welcome to the User:Chichichihuas - they are the only ones who are going to be left when you give little care or concern when those of us like myself ask for you all to help - which is what I thought the purpose of this incident board is for. Not even as much as a warning on the user's talk page. Good bye, and good luck to you all. It's time for me to move on instead of waste my time. --David Shankbone 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been less than 2 hours since you made your first report. Isn't this a little premature? Thatcher131 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with Thatcher131. User:Chichichihua was blocked less than three hours after you made the report here. It might have been more appropriate for you to have placed your request for the block at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism given the circumstances. Getting a response for blocking in less than three hours on this particular noticeboard is certainly a reasonable response time. I'm sad to see you feel it was entirely too slow, and certainly hope you reconsider leaving. --Durin 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the advice to use Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism is misplaced here since the situation does look at first glance like a content dispute. The problem for an uninvolved admin is to determine whether User:Chichichihua is being disruptive (and may be the same editor who was harassing you before) or whether you have ownership issues with photos you have taken yourself. It takes time to review a situation like this, and while there are admins who are willing to do it, they won't always be active at the instant you need them. It's a very distributed, decentralized system and can, but does not always, turn on a dime. Thatcher131 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, AIV might not be exactly the right place, but there was a final warning and obvious disruption. As to the distributed nature of administrators...what are you talkin' about? Admins are paid out the wazoo to respond to customer service issues within minutes ;) (not to belittle in any respect David's concern, just making a joke). --Durin 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn! Someone's been cashing my checks, then. Thatcher131 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, about the points made concerning decentralization and whatnot. But don't try and make backtracking excuses for letting this trolling go on too long, and driving an immeasurably valuable contributor to want to quit Misplaced Pages. David is not some wonk like me that flys off the handle at the touch of a button. Frankly, the idea that we have someplace else to report such a complex problem - one that blurs the line between trolling, 3RR, and simple content dispute - is a falsehood (to put it lightly). Not one person actually gave an example of a place we could have gone other than ANI. VanTucky 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe that's the case. Regardless, even if this was the best resource, the response time from when this noticeboard was informed to the block being applied wasn't too bad at all. In fact, it was rather good. It takes time to review complex situations. That's why we HAVE this board. If it's a simple case of base vandalism, no sweat; blocks come in minutes if not seconds. More complex cases take time to review. I'm not suggesting David flew off the handle. Rather, each person's patience level is different and from my chair his was exceeded earlier than one should probably expect from this board. I'm disappointed this has happened, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. Only he can make this choice. He has to make his own choices. --Durin 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Improper stance

I have been involved in an edit war at Human penis size. This is of course unfortunate, however, I have been careful not to breach the three-revert rule, even warning the other party when they have done so. Despite of this, an admin, Ryan Postlethwaite, posts repeated warnings on my talk page, starting with the false assertion that I have broken the three-revert rule. I am of course going to continue attempts to bring this dispute to a close using the talk page, however, by the latest injunction, the administrator has in reality decided which version will remain. __meco 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, you are not entitled to 3 reverts. If you are engaging in behavior that appears to be edit warring, you may be warned and blocked. I will look into this further though. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try requesting semi-protection based on the history, dunno how that would work out though. Wizardman 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You have actually reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours as seen here, here and . THis is an edit conflict and ryan has done nothing innapropriate or wrong here. Please engage in discussion on the talk page and attempt to reach a consensus. On another note, a list like that BETTER have a serious list of reliable sources to back up any claims, should it be determine to be encylopedic. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also warned the IP that you were edit warring with so please don't think I'm choosing the version that will remain. As Chris said above, you are not entitled to 3 reverts in a day, especially when you've been edit warring for a number of days now. I warned you yesterday that you had broken the 3 revert rule, and you have continued to edit war today - hence my final warning that I gave you on your talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people; Repeated deletion of sourced material via the use of wholesale reverts

Please review Talk:Palestinian people#Sampling of some of the now 6,000 bytes deleted. This has been going on now for a while. The same editors tend to be involved in deleting material that is reliably sourced to exclude a particular POV. Other editors have been restoring the material. Two RfCs failed to put an end to the dispute and I feel it requires some administrative review. I don't know what else to do. Tiamat 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring content disputes to the AN/I board. And if you don't want your nonsense removed, then stop inserting it and seek consensus. The reason why your insertions are unacceptable has been explained at length to you. Instead of working with others, you just keep reverting in the same material and adding even more poorly sourced, POV and off-topic material, so that you can claim ever higher numbers of bytes deleted. You've been playing this game for months, and it's become very disruptive. Please stop. Jayjg 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization and tone. It's needlessly aggressive (e.g. "your nonsense", "playing this game"). I encourage admins and editors to check out exactly what is being deleted, as outlined at the link I've provided above. I should also point out that Jayjg has been doing exactly the same thing at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, deleting over 4,000 bytes of material, all sourced to international human rights organizations and other reputable sources. (Check the history and discussion there). In fact, this is not about a content dispute, but rather about Jayjg's attempts to exclude a particular POV by selectively invoking policy. He is treating good faith editors as though we were vandals by mass reverting material that is reliably sourced, cited, composed in perfect English, NPOV in its presentation of the material, etc, etc. Tiamat 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat is raising some important points and concerns. i urge you to look into her concerns. --Steve, Sm8900 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you're the guy who keeps insisting that material can only be added to an article, never removed. That's not only not part of policy, but it makes no sense. Jayjg 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Jayjg, I only say that in articles on controversial or heavily-contested topics, if Side A inserts material which Side B considers entirely dubious and based on wrong premises, then Side B can insert material indicating that Side A's material is heavily disputed. There is no need to eliminate blocks of text just because they come from sources which may be part of an entirely different ideology or different frame of reference. --Steve, Sm8900 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A false analogy is a bad argument. The issue wasn't with the sources ideology, or frame of reference, nor was it with "wrong premises". The material was from unreliable sources, or abused sources, or simply wasn't relevant. The only thing to do in those case is remove the material. Please desist from making spurious arguments. Jayjg 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I should note that Jayjg is not the only one doing this. There are three other editors that are engaged in the same process at both pages: Tewfik (talk · contribs), Beit Or (talk · contribs) and Armon (talk · contribs). I only mentioned Jayjg above since he responded. Additionally, as an admin, I feel that his behavior sets a standard for other editors and that his example is emulated by the others. Admins by their actions tend to set the boundaries of acceptable behavior here. And this wholesale reversion pattern is getting very corrosive. Tiamat 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Tiamut, you're playing a game here. People object to material, and instead of leaving it out, you revert it back in and add even more. You do that again and again and again until the total amount is "6000 bytes", then complain about "reactionary reverts". If you were editing in good faith, you'd insert any non-controversial material separately. But instead you mix everything together, to make it as difficult as possible for people to separate the wheat from the chaff. As I said, it's a game, and not a very pleasant one. When you stop playing games, and start editing collaboratively, you'll find much less resistance, and a much more pleasant experience. Jayjg 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "playing a game" Jayjg. I'm trying to add reliably sourced information with properly formatted references to an encyclopedia that claims to be open to anyone to edit. When I have tried to address my concerns about what is going on, by for example, contacting Armon (talk · contribs) on his talk page, you have posted things like this: . As an admin, you should be encouraging people to respect the hard work of other good faith editors. And not protecting articles from the inclusion of POVs that differ from your own. You speak as though what I adding is completely out there. It's not. Anyone who actually reads the material deleted can see that. If anyone is playing games here, it's you. Tiamat 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, as long as you keep mixing in material that you know people object to with other material that people may or may not object to, you're playing a game. If you weren't, you'd simply insert non-controversial material, and discuss the rest. Stop playing this game. I'm not going to respond further here, as content disputes don't belong on this board anyway. Jayjg 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts are not for removing some things you do not like. The page on reverts specifically states unless all of the material is contentious, that you should work within it, which you are already admitting, much of it is acceptable. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't "admitted" much of it is acceptable. Most of it is unacceptable, and Tiamut makes it deliberately hard to figure out what she has changed, so it's hard to see if any of it is acceptable. Jayjg 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see if any of it is acceptable too Jayjg. There are a lot of edits to that page. But I try not to simply revert "my version" back into existence. I go through the edits and piece things back together. What you've deleted is pretty clearly numbered on the talk page section for this issue: The sources are all reliable, the material is faithfully represented though it could use minor improvements. But it's practically impossible to improve when I spend all my time piecing things back together after wholesale reverts. I'm a productive editor when I don't have to waste my time fending off unfounded accusations of "playing games" and poor scholarship while fending off a string of disruptive edits by mutliple editors that just take out perfectly good material.Tiamat 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You first revert in the material that has already been objected, then insert even more stuff. It's an on-going game. Please stop. Jayjg 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Banning Jayjg for a few months would help greatly, and have a net positive effect. He has used personal, bogus, limiting delineations concerning the scope of House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to delete much info during his mass reversions. --Timeshifter 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I can think of some people Misplaced Pages would actually benefit from banning for a few months, and you're pretty near the top of the list - just look at the disruptive fiasco you created with categories. You're not quite at the top yet, though, though you're working on it. Jayjg 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a Misplaced Pages:Character Assassination section. However I do not believe Timeshifter is correct that any of this warrants a ban. I believe a general agreement on how to deal with sources, and what is appropriate use would be better. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a little worried about the section noted, but not have the time to fully read through all that text. Some of the sources cited are from the United Nations, Haaretz and books published by Oxford and Colombia University Press, which is a little troubling that they are being removed, unless they are not citing the information they are alleged to cite. The other thing I noticed is a piece of information being deleted on the basis that Jayjg finds it dubious, however it is cited to a source, and Jayjg admits to not having read the source to check if it is correctly cited. I also noted a kind of hostile environment on the talk page, but that seems to permeate any article when acronyms are being thrown around. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Seven, I've asked for the exact quote, and non-one has been able to provide it. There's nothing wrong with challenging sources used in dubious ways, and sources that cannot be supported are removed. Jayjg 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully, however it is your job to do that responsibly, which would include finding the cited text and verifying, not challenging it on your gut and asking random people on the talk page, which are not the ones who added it, to verify it. Could you imagine if I went to a page that an editor created a year ago, one that no longer edits, and removed all citations on the basis that none of the current editors could provide matching quotes? That would not only be disruptive, but a bit chaotic. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V#Burden_of_evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So, that's clear enough, Tiamut restores it, she becomes responsible for proving it is verified. Regarding the rest, I haven't deleted everything added by previous editors; in fact, I take issue with only one single claim inserted by a previous editor. Jayjg 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof was met, I see you ca link it, but fail to read it "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question" The item was sourced and cited, hence meeting the requirements. The section you are quoting as justification deals with "unsourced" material, not cited information. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof was not met. The policy is about reliable sourcing, and this material wasn't reliably sourced, since no quote was provided, and it is dubious Lewis said that. The policy applies to any dubious material, not just "unsourced" material. Please familiarize yourself with the policy in question. Jayjg 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read it, and realize policy is not something you weild to get your way. Dubious doe snot mean "things I want to remove." Further the policy deals with dubious unsourced material, yes please read the policy. It states as I quoted, so I am not sure what the issue is, that material must be cited if it is questionable, which it was. I think this type of policy manipulation and selective reading is what is causing the issue on that talk page. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The edits I am adding are being treated as though they violate policy when in fact, they do not. I'm sure they could use improvement, reorganization or editing (after all, this is Misplaced Pages and that's what we do) but I resent having them thrown out completely through a selective invocation of policy. Hardly anyone else on that page has their edits subjected to such stringent scrutiny by Jayjg. Tiamat 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an evasion of the main issue : you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. Tiamat 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue is your game-playing. Stop throwing a pile of manure into the article, and insisting we have to wade through it because "there might be a bit of silver hidden in there somewhere, you never know." Jayjg 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to be civil, noone is insulting your edits, try not to insult others. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would note further that this incivility, which permeates the talk page as well, tends to exacerbate the problem. Calling my edits "a pile of manure", "nonsense" and accusing me of "playing games" when all I am trying to do is improve an article on a subject in my area of expertise is not helpful and it's not confined to this page. While Jayjg regularly invokes WP:CIVIL, he rarely abides by it. Tiamat 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see also this diff. As I mentioned above, the mass reversion (i.e. deletion) of reliably sourced material is not confined to the article Palestinian people, or to Jayjg. Three other editors at both pages (who I have named above) have emulated Jayjg's behavior in this regard. Now, in the case of the Palestinian people article, Jayjg has often argued that my additions are "exceptional claims" and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Indeed, it seems that there is an effort to change that policy to make it even more stringent. See this diff. The problem with the proposed change which would allow for material to be excluded despite having multiple reliable sources if it is controversial is: who decides what is controversial? If there are multiple reliable sources making a claim, and none that refute it, can its non-inclusion into an article be justified? How do we make such determinations in the absence of reliable sources stating this is the case? These are just some concerns related to this overall issue. Tiamat 11:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested regarding this general topic at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. That's probably the way to get this resolved. --John Nagle 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated information removal

I've noticed user User talk:217.68.80.50 (contribs) removing sources, mainly transliterations and other informations from articles about Serbian towns. He was warned, however, I was notified by user 124.181.111.17 about continuing vandalisms. He has been already blocked once. He started to vandalize massively on about 10th July. His vandalisms include repeated removal of transliterations as in articles Varivode - or Jagodnjak, . I want to propose editing block for him. --Tomaxer 18:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He's still blocked right now. If he vandalizes again, we'll block him again.-Wafulz 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of AfD notice

User:Knea2006 has reoved the AfD notice for Chelsea Zinn twice once while logged on and I suspect once while logged off , as I find it unlikely an IPs first ever edit would be the removal of an AfD notice . The user has obvious ownership problems with regards to the article in question. I don't think action needs to be taken at the moment with the user, but a short block on the IP (to prevent the AfD being vandalised) might be worthwhile. I warned him when he removed the AfD to which he responded on my talk page. I have the article on my watchlist so I will revert again, but could someone tell the user the AfD process cannot be stopped. Darrenhusted 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wanted to expedite the process by speedying the Zinn article as A7, that'd be fine. I voiced my opinion in the AfD and then realized how valid an A7 was (after reading the porn notability guideline) and realizing that the number of films is irrelevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez, I got beaten to closing this!--Isotope23 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what you get for blocking an editor before I could. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha!--Isotope23 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Determined edit warrior

Anti-Russian sentiment has collected a number of accusations, some of them pulled out of context. Yesterday, I provided context for some of them. Mikkalai reverted them, leading to discussion on the talkpage, and an apparent consensus. However Kuban kazak has shown intent to force the context out of the article by force, rather than engaging in discussion: , . Particularly troubling, especially in light of his ignoring the discussion on the talkpage, is the edit summary "rvt to Mikka, btw Mikka what is Digwuren's counts on reverts? WP:3RR broken yet?" in .

What should be done about such behaviour? Digwuren 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actualy I have engaged in discussion, so please don't tattle on WP:AN/I for every time someone sneezes in your direction. Yes I believe that you are making an outrageous WP:POINT violating crusade given the scale and the tone on the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GlassFET Maintaining link to disinformation

GlassFET insists on maintaining a link to nyingma.com which is a site belonging to the Aro cult. This cult is invented by a former English truck driver who claims he is a Tibetan Buddhist prohpet (treasure revealing gTerton) being given teachings by buddhas. Of course the high lamas such as HH Dalai Lama have dismissed these claims and a genuine gTerton (Dudjom rinpoche the first whom the person claims to follow) prophesised in the 19th century that a false lineage called 'Aro' will appear! There are more serious controversies raised by former members. GlassFET refuses the largest online community of buddhists (e-sangha's moderators) and says he is a non-buddhist who is the right person to edit buddhist forums!

However the main contention is the article maintained by GlassFET contains fallacies and he/she refuses to erase the link to the misinformation despite being proven to him by simply not addressing the issue raised. In Tibetan Buddhism photos of the tulku recognised by your lama can be used in the altar setup as part of the practices. The misinforming link has captioned wrongly the tulkus.

This is what I raised in the 'my talk' section and GlassFET's response to my point about his/her maintanance of false information:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Secondly the article contains untrue information as the photo of "Tenzin Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche" is in fact the other tulku, Dudjom rinpoche's (II) own grandson not "Tenzin Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche". "Tenzin Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche" is the other boy in the top photo named as Kyabje Dudjom Yangsi. Kyabje is just an honorary title and yangsi just means tulku (reborn) hence its not even a name. The wrong photo was mistitled by namkha.org and picked up by a few plagiarist sites later. There are many photos and documentation to prove this in the official site: dudjomba.org

If you are a person of honor and really mean that you care about not spreading false information then you'll visit "Tenzin Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche" (http://www.dudjomfoundation.org/ )official site and see that the tulku is not as titled in the cult's site. I will be saving a copy of this message and will continue to take this matter up if the false information by the cult is maintained.

GlassFET's response: You are of course welcome to add information to the article as long as it is verifiable and cited. Forums are however, not permitted to be used as sources. Also, you may not add your own personal opinions to the article, but only citable information from other sources. Please follow these policies of Misplaced Pages and stop edit warring and you will have less of a problem here. You will also want to about our rules about living people. Parts of your post above should probably be removed as the verge on defamation. GlassFET 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3 points:

1- As you see GlassFET does not respond to the point of order that he is persistently reposting the disinformative link.

2- If the article remains, the whole section will be called into question as a disputed reference.

3- I ask that GlassFET not be allowed to administer Tibetan Buddhist sections with false information and that one of the administrators that is a follower of TB to oversee GlassFET's activities in that section.

I await the administrators' decision.

- Thegone

The information is verifiable to the cited reference (and was not initially added by me). Any inter-sectarian squabbles are of no concern to Misplaced Pages unless they can be similarly documented. That's my position, and I'm sticking with it. I've invited Thegone to supply reliable sources documenting his assertions, but so far he has only referred to an online forum, which is of course not a reliable resource. GlassFET 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I would comment that I am not TB, or any other religion/belief system, inclined - but I will give my opinion(s).

This appears to be a content dispute. This is not an appropriate venue for that. There are other avenues you may wish to explore, and perhaps someone here will be kind enough to suggest one/some.

Misplaced Pages allows the posting of any reliable, verifiable source. The definition of reliable/verifiable is sometimes open to debate, but the fact it does not appeal to other editors is no reason for it to be removed. If another source can be found to rebutt the viewpoint of the disputed reference then post it. This best provides NPOV.

You should not request review by an admin who is sympathetic to a viewpoint. Admins are (supposed) to be neutral in their application of policy. You should get much the same advice from a good admin whether or not they follow a particular or any belief system.

Please make any further requests much more brief, and provide diffs if possible. I passed this request twice - hoping someone else would answer - before reading, reviewing and typing this.

Short answer. This is a content dispute. Please continue discussing this with GlassFET on the article talkpage. If the references provided are deemed verifiable and from a reliable source then they should stay, but you are at liberty to provide references which counterbalance the first. Please keep any further requests concise.

I hope this is of some help. LessHeard vanU 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The main contention as stated above and proved by the links to the 2 sites I provided is that the information in the linked article regarding the captioned photo is FALSE (important in practices too). Various philosophical sophistries to evade the main point of contention (repeating here for the third time) in spreading disinformation breaks the primary point and principle of Misplaced Pages.

Supporting a fellow administrator, whether organized or not, in direct opposition to the spirit, law and founding ethical philosophy of Misplaced Pages by maintaining proven disinformation should be seriously noted by the community of administrators.

Not only my main point of order complaint remains unanswered as all can see, but also I question the level of integrity of the noticeboard. Whence such adamant unaccountability by evading the breaking of such an obvious pillar is so brazenly put forward here, it remains for me to assume the standards are of an alarmingly low level that drastic measures need to be taken. As an instinctively anti-organizational creature I would be against setting up any executive or even advisory grouping whatsoever as in future it could be manipulated. However I propose that the commune of administrators look at the evading responses by the disinforming party and ally and please not allow the basics of Misplaced Pages (and justice) be so openly disregarded. This does not bode well for Misplaced Pages's future.

Finally please refrain from subtly insulting my beliefs (everyone has beliefs even if it is that one does not have any!) which by the way I do not regard as a religion. The point of the disinforming party (GlassFET) in portraying the denounced English truck driver as a Tibetan lama(!) and a sect of TB shows his bias which is only surpassed by i) his evasion in answering the main point and also ii) persistence in disinforming. I also question his (and his political ally's) interest in administering TB sections which from their tone it seems quite obvious they are completely hostile to, only made worse by their complete ignorance of the field.

I am shocked by the standards here. Furthermore my main point remains regarding the disinforming party (and ally).

_Thegone

Should I come to your temple (or place or worship / contemplation, etc) then I would follow the practices of that place as a matter of simple courtesy. It is regretable that this courtesy appears not to be reciprocated. I intended no attack, and gave such advise as I consider appropriate in the matter. I cannot, and thus will not, do any more. LessHeard vanU 07:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The main point on persistent disinformative link is still unanswered. Personally, I have opposed any brand of fascist leanings be it neo-con, or even if it is tinted red and in defense of the biggest mass murderer in history (Mao) leaving us hundreds of billions in slave shops (living camps) feeding hundreds of billions to a corrupt elite's Swiss accounts. If you and your friend are antagonistic to TB as all can see, you should be supervised by fellow admins. No take over of Misplaced Pages should be initiated, be it by right wing creeping coups or by groupings undertaking Gramscian measures. In a non-organized rhizomatic manner, all will prevent this. A third pillar of Misplaced Pages (apart from persistent misinforming & bias) you are breaking is that Wiki is not yours or anyone's 'Temple' or property.

I hope we all, specially me, grow beyond our current false fictional discourses and conflicting intentions to true non-conceptual non-dual wisdom. Personal gain and negative feelings such as envy or jumping to other extremes are quite natural & understandable. They can even be disguised to oneself as good intentions. For example I detect personal motivations as I type but I hope to outgrow them and acknowledging them is a good first step in a long path. As is compassion which I detect in your tones. I wish you and your friend the happiest of lives.

My point in case is insignificant and can remain unaddressed and this section deleted after some hours. However as a future strategy, I ask the admin community to be vigilant and raise standards overall.

'Measures must always in a progressive society be held superior to men, who are after all imperfect instruments, working for their fulfilment.' _Karamchand Gandhi

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegone (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)

Okay – I'll address your "main point of order" again, since you didn't seem to hear LessHeard vanU. I really, really do not like to bite new editors, but this is outrageous. It took me a while to figure out who you are because you don't sign your posts; doing so would be a good place to start working with other Wikipedians.

1. You and GlassFET are involved in a content dispute. This is not the place to deal with content disputes, as it says in big red letters at the top of this very page. You're supposed to use the article's talk page for discussion, and guess what? Talk:Dudjom Rinpoche hasn't been edited since April 2007. What a shock.
2. No one is going to "oversee" GlassFET's activity because you've written a near-incomprehensible essay here. No one is going to oversee anything other than the 3RR rule if this edit war doesn't stop.
3. GlassFET isn't portraying anything. He is citing a source. Read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Forums are _not_ acceptable sources. Period. If you want to rebutt that source, find another _acceptable_ source and add it according to the Manual of Style..
4. You're trying to pull LessHeard van U into your little conspiracy theory there, but all he did was answer your question. I'm answering your question too, but that doesn't mean I know anything about Buddhism, because I don't. Again, it's about verifiable, reliable sources. Forum topics of discussion and/or posts are neither reliable or verifiable.

I think it's extraordinary to post this long diatribe essay, ask for admin help, then tell us we're insulting you when you don't hear what you want to hear. LessHeardVanU is correct – this is a content dispute that does not require admin action. Resolve your dispute yourselves – the article's talk page is really, really lonely. If you can't come to consensus, dispute resolution is down the hall to the left. Don't call our integrity into question when you don't get the result you want, and stop your edit warring. Now. - KrakatoaKatie 09:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

_ _ _ _

KrakatoaKatie, It has been edited many times since April as I have witnessed and all my points remain regarding proven misinformation being allowed, bias by editors hostile to a whole cultural section and your implication to own Wiki. And above all questioning the declining standards here. signed as before:

_Thegone

User:Anonimu, thread ∞

Hi. Can anyone who can speak Romanian translate his userpage? He's just come off a block for inappropriate content on the page, and I'm rather wary of the word "fascist" and "mort-" being in the same sentence (even if it is a quote). Will 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fascists are worming between dead persons and guns - Th. Bals at Fontaine Miorita.

Who is Theodor Balş? Jmm6f488 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A little poking on Google - he appears to be a Romanian government official (b1856 - d1951). I found references to him being a Caimacam, a general (I think), and a railway director (at various times). I think. I don't speak any Romanian but I know people who do - I'll ask somebody next chance I get if this doesn't get figured - and if I don't forget. Fontaine Miorita seems to be a fountain in the Bucharest's Piaţa Unirii.

On the other hand, is it really up to us to police who/what people quote on their userpage (within other guidelines like COPVIO and NPA and so forth)? Do we scrutinize the meaning behind any quotes that might be misconstrued whenever they draw anyone's attention? Doesn't it seem like even if it's a "bad" quote that we're assuming this user meant it in a "bad" way, when s/he might not have? (These are serious questions, not rhetorical - maybe we do do all this stuff normally. I don't know.) --Cheeser1 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not our job to police what people have on their userpages. Some people tend to forget that, but what confuses me is why nobody has asked Anonimu (talk · contribs) about the quote. If I wanted to know the meaning behind something on a user's user page, that user's talk page is the first place I'd go. - auburnpilot talk 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has asked him because he's "banned" all people from commenting on his talk page which is much more troubling then the aforementioned quote. See User talk:Anonimu.--Jersey Devil 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is he allowed to do that? HalfShadow 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some might argue that he has been treated in a somewhat draconian manner, including from yourself, Jersey Devil. I think it would be best at this stage to simply give him space for a while, especially from those whom he views are out to get him. El_C 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, however, considering the circumstances it would not be wise to breach them unless necessary. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, in the long-run it isn't sustainable, but for now, it's best not to antagonize him. El_C 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're actually taking his "Disclaimer" seriously? You can't ban people from commenting on your talk page. If you have a concern, address it there. If he ignores you, move on. If he's violating policy, warn him, block him, and return to your normal editing. It's time to stop coddling people. - auburnpilot talk 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It better be a pretty pressing concern in the immediate future, however. El_C 04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are kind of right, since he did say that if you blocked him then he would just notice it while editing… — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one can ban everyone from a talk page. It's a dagnabbed talk page, consarn it. Oh, and for mean quotes on one's page, I currently have: "Occasionally...you meet a traveling Englishman who is, as it were, the incarnation of this (boredom) talent -- a heavy, immovable animal, whose entire language exhausts its riches in a single word of one syllable, an interjection by which he signifies his deepest admiration and his supreme indifference, admiration and indifference having been neutralized in the unity of boredom. No other nation produces such miracles of nature..." -- Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or ("The Rotation Method") and that's followed by "The Welsh," said the Doctor, "are the only nation in the world that has produced no graphic or plastic art, no architecture, no drama. They just sing...." -- Evelyn Waugh, Decline and Fall. (Obviously, I mean mine to be funny, but I was just waiting for a hypersensitive to come complain to me about mean Mr. Kierkegaard and unfair Mr. Waugh.) Geogre 13:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible harassment of User:Tilman by User:Misou

Tilman and Misou often disagree on content edits in Scientology related articles. Here is the dif of what I suspect as harassment: Misou links to a scientology sponsored site that personally attacks Tilman. I request that Misou get a warning or other action that an admin would consider appropriate.--Fahrenheit451 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a stern warning; linking to sites such as this to attack and defame other editors is wholly inappropriate behavior. If he continues this sort of behavior towards Tilman or anyone else, he will be blocked. Krimpet 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimpet.--Fahrenheit451 00:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RL Spillover

There seems to be a spillover of a real life dispute playing out at User talk:IsraelXKV8R, including this edit. I don't know whether WP:BLP applies to user talk pages, but it's clearly a personal attack. One neutral editor has asked the attacker to take it off-wiki, but the attacker has declined. I'd rather not get involved personally on an administrative level in this case because I have had a lot of contact with User:IsraelXKV8R (although this was completely on-wiki until I was asked in an email to take a look at the situation) and I don't want it to appear improper, so I'm posting this note so somebody completely uninvolved can review things. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved through WP:BLP here, and apologies for not knowing that BLP unequivocably applies to all WP pages, as would only make sense. -- But|seriously|folks  04:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda arbitrarily deleting the trivia section of the entry on the film Field of Dreams.

He "chainsawed" it once before--his term--and after reading a question in the talk page that had appeared in the trivia before his "chainsawing" it, I undid his deletion of most of the trivia section. He later undid my undoing, leaving a note on the talk page that only linked to guidelines, where, interestingly enough, I found the following: "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material. Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "Continuity errors"), as seems most appropriate." As this is exactly what he (?) is doing, I left him a note regarding it on the talk page. Again. Who's right? Thanks in advance. Kiloheavy 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The trivia in question that he removed was extraneous, trivial, unsourced information such as "George W. Bush claimed that this was his favorite movie" and "the outfield grass on the baseball field died and turned brown" that does not appear to be integrable into the prose sections of the article. This is consistent with the spirit of our trivia guidelines. Krimpet 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are, by definition, sort of expendable anyway, aren't they? HalfShadow 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. We have way too many of such sections that attract random arbitrary unsourceable comments. They tend to be highly unencyclopedic, especially as bulleted lists. >Radiant< 09:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have often found there is only maybe 10% of such lists that is worth integrating. The rest can happily be deleted. --John 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of admin powers, as an involved party to the dispute?

I refer to this: ] The Admin, Alkivar, participated in this title move war between the parties, favoring one version and changing it, but then used his admin power to protect the page in his version, right after changing it. But that is not all. He then blocked his opponent for one week--but no one else. From what I know of use of admin actions, this is not allowed as one is not allowed to use administrator tools to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. I agree it should have been protected, but 1. he can't protect it right after moving it to his version as he then became a party to the dispute, and 2. he can't block the editor with whom he is in the content dispute with. He did both.

I sent a message about this to the admin, but he ignored it. Then, after a couple of days, he simply reverted my message from his talk page with the comments, "removing groundless acccusations" which is not terribly civil. If he simply replied, I would not have felt a need to bring it to others attention for comments. I know this admin has been the subject of discussion in some recent questionble admin conduct on this board.

Notice he protected the page one minute after he changed it himself to his preferred version:

(cur) (last) 23:39, 29 July 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) m (Protected U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals: stop the edit war via page move ) (undo)

(cur) (last) 23:38, 29 July 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) m (moved U.S. Army and CIA torture manuals to U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals over redirect: move to npov title) (undo)

This is the editor (a newbie), who he blocked, without warning for one week: ]. I feel its an unfair block btw, since he was singled out, even though he did not start that title move confict, and was restoring it to the long term title. Again, I agree there should not have been edit waring going on, but: 1. there were several editors involved in this, and only one was singled out; 2: week a long time for a newbie; 3. the admin was involved in the diputed and issued a week block to his pov opponent (a big no no);3. the admin protected the page himself to his version;4. asking him about this yielded no response, and then an uncivil comment.

I think the block should be undone (he has already served several days), as he is a good editor, did not receive a warning, and is a newbie---but also because the admin had no bussiness doing the block himself since he was a pary to the dispute (nor should he have been the one to protect the page, right after he moved it to his version). Using admin tools to gain an upper hand is, correct me if Im worng, not allowed?Giovanni33 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the above closely (yet), as it's rather lengthy; but why did this admin move the page and then protected the page from moves? El_C 03:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The log states a move to an NPOV title. Looking at the admin's contribution history, I would say this charge is unfounded. Looks like standard action. - Crockspot 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The admin in question was not involved in the dispute, did one move, and a protect, then left this rebuke to Ultramarine after blocking Bmedley. Alkivar was just the admin who was unfortunate enough to pull this detail. Nothing to see here. - Crockspot 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Undoing an aggressively POV pagemove and then protecting sounds like a good call. Raymond Arritt 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But the admin moved to the new title. The user he blocked simply was restoring the long time established title. The admin made a move to a title he thought was more NPOV, and then protected it in his version, favored by UltraMarine, and then blocked (for a week!), the other guy, who I point out it new and learning the norms and policy. A first time block a week? If its protected, why the need for a block, and why only one side of this content dispute?Giovanni33 05:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the actions of the admin. I would have done the same thing. Calling him an "involved party" is a fabrication. Perhaps the week long block length was a bit too long but it has since been reduced to 4 days.--Jersey Devil 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It almost looks as if one side is getting favourable admin treatment over the other, including from yourself, Jersey Devil. El_C 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It more than almost looks like one "side" was violating NPOV (not to mention WP:POINT, with this very section as evidence). - Crockspot 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by there being a POINT issue here, with this section? I was not an involved party to this content dispute, and am only pointing out what I think are some irregular and unfair admin actions against only one side of this dispute, and that the edtior who got blocked for a week should be unblocked since the page was protected from moves (although I think done improperly).Giovanni33 05:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that there is a history of attempting to disrupt Misplaced Pages by bringing unfounded accusations to various noticeboards. This particular one is a pretty poor excuse. The admin you have made accusations against did nothing wrong, and was in no way involved in this dispute. The accusations you make above are fabricated. This seems to be a common thread within your small clique of editors. - Crockspot 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The other side of the overall dispute is User:Ultramarine which I have been giving significant warnings to as of late. If no other admin wants to deal with it that isn't my fault.--Jersey Devil 03:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Alkivar should have used a summary making specific reference to reverting trolling rather than moving to an npov title, so that it didn't appear that he was involved in any kind of content dispute. :-) However, I do think the block duration is a bit more than it should have been. --Nearly Headless Nick 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A 4 day block for moving a title back for a new user is a bit overkill. Especially since admins are suppose to block on a preventative nature, however after protecting the page, there was nothing being prevented in the block. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like Bmedley is a pure innocent. He has been involved in a number of questionable incidents since the first day he started editing, and he has been warned before. I happen to think that he has the capacity to become a good editor, as long as he is not lead down the wrong path by bad influences......... His block expires later today, so maybe he will learn something out of this, and move forward. But having him come off a block being encouraged to believe that he was blocked improperly by some eeevil reich-wing cabal will only tend to make him bitter. You and Giovanni are not helping him. I hope that he's bright enough to realize this, and will shun the both of you in the future. - Crockspot 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can read my statement again. The reason for the block was moving the page, a page that it is not possible for them to move again, hence a block on the grounds of moving the page as disruption is not preventative, its punitive. Where the rest of your ranting comes from is better left to a talk page perhaps, your personal issues here or bitter resentment are not at issue. I did not mention any cabal, simply stated the block was too harsh, I thought you were against "conspiracy theories" why do you spout them so often then? --SevenOfDiamonds 19:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Request sanity check: Attack page or valid use of userspace?

I'd like some outside opinions about User:Mnyakko and User Talk:Mnyakko. This editor has apparently pretty much stopped editing Misplaced Pages, but retains his userpage and user talk as a "journal" of his Misplaced Pages experience. This "journal" consists of attacks on admins and editors he doesn't like. I brought this up with him here; he declined to remove the attacks, comparing Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process to Plessy v. Ferguson (oh, snap!) Anyhow, I view this use of his userspace as inappropriate:

• It's essentially an attack page
• It violates the injunction, in WP:USER, against "polemical statements" in one's userspace
• "Using userpages to attack people... is a bad idea."

I'd like outside opinions. I'm generally in favor of allowing fairly wide latitude in userspace, but using it as a blog to attack other editors seems unconstructive. On the other hand, I'm not entirely objective, as I've found this editor quite... challenging in the past, so I'd like a sanity check to be sure I'm not being oversensitive. MastCell 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought we weren't supposed to link to ED. Oh, that user talk page is on WP? I thought I was reading a different website. Seriously (hence the name), it's clearly an attack page. It also mischaracterizes and misrepresents others' comments and assumes bad faith. There are plenty of places on the net where disgruntled editors can post unproductive critism that violates most of our fundamental ground rules for user conduct. There's no need for us to play host to that sort of expression here. -- But|seriously|folks  04:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly an attack page. - Crockspot 04:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A statement of one's experience can never, in itself, be "attack page", no matter how disagreeable.

In this case, it seems to be a disgruntled former editor. A knee-jerk response would be to censor him, to throw out his experience, and pretend nothing happened. A rational response would be to analyse his "exit interview", to figure out what happened and/or what irked him, and whether anything needs to be done. Even if only a few people are ever going to actively do the second route, going the first route is bad for at least two major reasons: first, it would deny these few peoples this option, and second, it would create an image of Misplaced Pages as a community that shuns dissidents. This, in turn, would harm Misplaced Pages in a number of ways, and from very pragmatic viewpoint, is thus, undesirable. Digwuren 05:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the content and pointed the user to dispute resolution in my edit summary. El_C 05:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call El C. Until(1 == 2) 05:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I elaborated on the user's talk page that the problem isn't with expanding on grievances related to specific editors, but rather, to having such an exposition remain on the user page, in stasis — as opposed to an approach which actively seeks to bring the disputes to resolution. Hopefully, this will encourage dialogue toward that end. El_C 05:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable. Thanks for the input. MastCell 05:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP? HalfShadow 05:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's clearly a soapbox, and one aimed at attacking other editors. My question was, really, what if anything should be done. I think El C's approach makes a lot of sense. MastCell 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check

• I have permablocked User:Dballer16 for creation of repeated realistic looking hoax articles about various non-existent sportspeople. There were no useful edits by this editor, so a single purpose vandal acct. My questions: (a) was that too harsh, (b) was the warning sufficient prior to the block. First time I've perma blocked anyone and would like to know if I overreacted (in which case I'd either reduce or unblock as others suggest). BTW, this sort of vandalism is not easy to detect(other editors found them). Carlossuarez46 05:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not too harsh. The problem is that this person will just think of a new username and use that, and until this username is identified his new hoaxes will be a lot harder to find than his old ones. -- Hoary 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a 24h block would have been better, per Hoary. If he then continued to do it, eventually the blocks would be so long that he would start to use sock puppets - and his edits until that point would give us more indications to help us identify the sock-puppets. Od Mishehu 09:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite sounds about right to me. Hoaxes are a problem, because they're hard to detect and they often need to go through AfD to be deleted. An account that creates multiple hoax articles with few or no constructive contributions is an excellent candidate for an indefinite block. MastCell 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef, hoax account with no useful edits. Durova 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that, given that there are a few similar hoaxes by another SPA a while back my suspicion is that the person has morphed accounts. I don't know how technologically we can get around that, if the person's intent is bad, other than tracking down each instance and identifying the sock puppet. So far all the hoaxes have been in the same vein: non-existent sportspeople from the former Yugoslavia winning various olympic medals for, or playing professional sports in, the US or Canada. Carlossuarez46 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh... that guy. Yeah, it sounds like a repeat offender. Personally, I think an account's first blatant hoax article should also be its last, given the amount of work involved in detecting them and cleaning them up. MastCell 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning an IP not to WP:DISRUPT

- IP blocked for 1 week. Miranda

Can someone warn an IP user that his comments can be deleted if they are not on topic on a talk page. See this. Note: The person has done this before. I know what you are going to say, deny, but I really don't want to seem like the bitch, even if I deny this person recognition on which he ignores a valid point. Miranda 05:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And, now it seems like I am a vandal. Charming. Miranda 06:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And, again. Miranda 06:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL,

VK’s WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, argument re Birmingham Pub Bombings is a simply a red herring. I believe it refers to the subject of articles and here the listed victims are not the subject. My understanding is WP:NOT prevents victims of non notable incidents (car crashes etc) getting their own wiki page which is not happening here. Removing the dead is inconsistent with List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; Columbine High School massacre; Beltway sniper attacks; Hungerford massacre; Bloody Sunday (1972); The Troubles in Warrenpoint; ] here Aatomic1 10:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It may well by a misapplication of the police per se. The "not" is a codification of practice. We initially got clobbered by individual 9/11 memorial pages. That said, there is an argument for removing lists of victims. There is an argument for keeping them. Personally, I'd rather not have victim lists unless there is some significance to a list (e.g. if political officials were being targeted, members of a particular ethnic group, and the list shows how the attackers did or did not operate) or usefulness of a list (e.g. in Bloody Sunday the victim list itself became a memorial in Belfast, and there were films and films and films illustrating the events, and so the names become characters), but, if no one links the names they do no harm in any case and do not make the article a memorial. Geogre 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

or in the case of Birmingham where there was a second class of victim, namely the Birmingham Six; whose notability rightly gives them column inches in Misplaced Pages. However to discuss them while censoring the names of the dead is too lopp sided for truly encyclopedic coverage Aatomic1 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe a list of victims and a mention that there is a memorial breaches the WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I edit a lot of crime articles involving multiple victims and have also come across some edits that are a little to zealous in their application of this particular policy. Jmm6f488 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:In23065

Continually removing tags from pages, adding large trivia sections and removing infomation from articles without consulting the talk pages. Also splitting off large parts of articles and creating them into new, yet pointless, articles; making the original pages look like a disambiguation page. Evidence-, to name but a FEW. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Really odd threats

• diff 1
• diff 2

Please note this ANI report does not concern itself with the content of the edits made to the article, but rather the disturbing language used in the talk page post. Examples:

• "now I'm off to the spain article to edit that it rightfully belongs to the jihad"
• "should I go to the U.S. page and mention that soon it will burn and its whores will be raped as rightful spoils for the righteous"

Not sure what should be done, but I find the language and the implications disturbing. /Blaxthos 15:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While they are certainly over dramatic responses. I would not label them as terrorist threats. Unless they went to the US page or Spain page, and edited them in that matter, I would just give them a warning to tone it down and relax. It seems they are getting overly angry and the posts above are responses based on a tangent in response to others arguments. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he needs a refresher Dale Carnegie course. There are no specific threats against individuals, so there's no grounds to block that I can see, but creating a hostile environment is inimical to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I'd suggest reminding him of WP:CIV (and maybe WP:NPA for good measure) and keeping an eye out. Raymond Arritt 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a job for the boys at Homeland Security. But then, I'm sure the Crays flagged those edits right off the IRC bots. ;O - Crockspot 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Those edits appear certainly blockworthy as disruptive, and indicative of an intent to further disrupt. Blocking. ⇒ SWATJester 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User preventing development of new service

Pages marked with {{coord}} can now be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:

http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/geo/get-geo.php?type=kml&uri=http://en.wikipedia.org/Netherton_Tunnel_Branch_Canal

The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map

I have just created {{kml}} to produce such links, for pages with lists of coordinates, with the assistance of the good folks at WP:TR.

Paradisal (talk · contribs) has taken to blocking any innovation with regard to this development. His reasons for doing so have been spurious, and have resulted in him reverting my edits on a number of articles today, at the same time insisting that an alternative, but currently only hypothetical, solution be used. His edits have included references to me as a troll. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Spamming Misplaced Pages with links to your favourite map service is not acceptable. Others will have to clean up your mess. Template:GeoTemplate exists for listing geographical information services. To make this KML export work with GeoHack, all that needs to be done is to have all uses of coordinates pass the name of the Misplaced Pages page to GeoHack, from which it can easily concatenate the required link. It is not hypothetical at all, as the editprotected request for {{coord}} allows just that. I am glad Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is on revert parole. --Para 15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:GeoTemplate (like GeoHack) is for single waypoints only,. {{kml}} is for collections of waypoints (as I've already explained to Para more than once today; and have just done so again after he nominated it on WP:TFD. There're not the same thing at all. Oh, yes, and there's been lots of ad hominem. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GeoHack (which uses the GeoTemplate list) exists to help people "find maps and data about the location", which covers locations defined as both single or multiple points. You can start thinking of a good description to put in GeoTemplate to make that clear to readers. The script is just another service to add to the list, and your personal preferences have no special status to make it so prominent on Misplaced Pages. Now, can we please have this discussion at a single location somewhere? I suggest Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Export_points_of_interest_as_KML.3B_see_them_on_Google_Maps. --Para 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the appropriate place to discuss your inappropriate behaviour. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• This sure looks like a content dispute, which wouldn't require admin intervention.--Isotope23 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment

Recently, User:Barneca sent me an e-mail regarding some of my personal views. When I replied, I posted personal information on the e-mail. The user didn't like my reply, opposed at my RfA, sent me another e-mail telling me to "fuck off" and threatening to publish the contents of the e-mail on-wiki, and "banned" me from his/her talk page. I am afraid that if the information on that e-mail is revealed, it would be defamation and I would probably be forever harassed by other people. I suggest someone tells the user to not reveal that information and to stop the harassment. --Boricuaeddie 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Boricuaeddie has my permission to publish on-wiki everything I wrote to him via email, as long as he publishes everything I wrote to him, and not misleading excerpts. I'll even extend the courtesy of not asking him to publish his replies. I forgive him for his violation of my privacy, and forcing me to answer this with one hand tied behind my back. All I want is for him not to email me anymore, as I do not want to have to turn off my "email this user" link. --barneca (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unilaterally publishing private correspondence (emails, chatlogs, etc) on Misplaced Pages is inappropriate, and may be dealt with severely depending on the circumstances - see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence. However, since User:Barneca has acknowledged this policy and indicated no intention of putting the email on-wiki, I don't think it will be a problem. Barneca's suggestion is probably best: just let it drop. No lasting damage is done. MastCell 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course the user has no intention of publishing it, now that everyone's watching him/her. But, in the e-mail, he/she explicitly stated that he/she would reveal the content of the e-mail. But, if the user's recognized that she/he should not do that, the problem is solved. --Boricuaeddie 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Followup question: On my talk page I reserve the right to publish Misplaced Pages-related emails. I've not done this so far as it's only meant to make people who intend to harass me by email rethink their plans. Am I doing a Bad Thing? Raymond Arritt 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that and was tempted to follow your practice there. Do you think it ever inhibits people from emailing you? And what about an email conversation with another editor which you have initiated? It's a very tricky area and one must balance privacy with approachability I think. --John 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would err on the side of not publishing any off-wiki communication unilaterally. I've sat on some pretty inflammatory emails, though the temptation to allude to or present them on-wiki has occasionally been powerful. If it contains something that requires on-wiki action, it might be worth speaking in generalities (e.g. "Blocked user X is harassing me by email; could an admin please disable the email feature?") or requesting intervention off-wiki (e.g. by emailing an admin about the situation). MastCell 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ikonik clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article, Ikonik clothing was created earlier this morning (around 9 where I live). It was speedy deleted at 9:30 eastern time (sorry I don't understand UTC), then recreated 2 hours later. It looks like one person under a different name has used three accounts and an IP address to create/edit the page. Is there anyway to stop this.

• The users involved are:
  • Englishman19345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sebastian198026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • (I can't view deleted contributions, so I do not the other user or the IP address that editted the first version of the page).

Thanks, Sasha Callahan Pats Sox Princess 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Salted. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Pats Sox Princess 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move and article delete

User:DustinRamZ has managed to move The Beginning with all it's history to Blood Stayn. He has only made 3 edits and so I can't see how he could be an admin. After moving The Beginning to Blood Stayn he replaced all the information with information about an non-notable band, presumably his own. Could an admin move The Beginning back to it's rightful place and delete the Blood Stayn page. Cheers, Jack 16:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems someone has already fixed this. Ignore this post. Cheers, Jack 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Page moves are not an administrative function, anyone logged in can do it. (See the "move" tab at the top of every page). - Crockspot 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not if it involves over-writing an existing page. The only way to do that would be copy and paste, during which the history of the moved article would be lost. ELIMINATORJR 17:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yukselgurbuz

This user's talk page pretty well sums up his history of copyright violations, nonsense articles, and vandalizations. Since his user page says that he is 15 and Turkish, it's entirely possible that he doesn't know enough English to understand the rules of Misplaced Pages, or to understand the various warnings he has received. I propose blocking him from the English Misplaced Pages, but encouraging him to contribute to the Turkish Misplaced Pages. Luvcraft 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll get a little creative here, and suggest an indef block on en.wikipedia, with unblock conditional on a report from an admin on the turkish wiki that he demonstrates an understanding of WP policy. But that may be a little too complicated to enforce outside of an arbitration. Just a suggestion. - Crockspot 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Please protect. --Ideogram 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

AfDs can't be protected, they have to be open for people to comment, and there's hardly any "edit-warring" going on. Jayjg 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my comments is edit-warring. Don't do it. --Ideogram 18:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested regarding this general topic at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. That's probably the way to get this resolved. --John Nagle 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image upload of Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg for review

I recently closed a rather complex and contentious DRV (see also here) involving attempts to discredit a photograph purporting to be from the Nanking massacre. The entirety of the discussion is a lot to summarize here, but I deleted this image that was used to illustrate the supposed doctoring of an earlier, now deleted, revision of the photo Image:BuriedAlive.jpg, located here. Another edited image has now been uploaded to Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg by Hare-Yukai, now attempting to discredit the newer revision of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. This revision was nominated for speedy deletion as a repost by HongQiGong who has also been a party to this dispute. The image is similar--but not identical--to the version that was deleted, however, so I am unclear if CSD G4 applies in this case. It does seem a bit like fringe-theory POV pushing, and would like outside thoughts and input on this matter. IronGargoyle 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe CSD G4 would apply. In a case like this, I'd apply a "substantial similarity" standard - if the replacement image is substantially similar, even if not completely identical, to the deleted original, then it should be caught by G4. Otherwise one could imagine a scenario where editors attempted to get around G4 by making minimal changes to a deleted picture, then declaring it to be a new image to which G4 doesn't apply. -- ChrisO 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels children child corpse photos

I am rather bothered at the edit warring by User:Sherurcij over these two photos and . A concensus against retaining them emerged so I removed them and requested an RFC on the photos, but User:Sherurcij keeps replacing them against concensus. There is already one longer, more tasteful shot of these poor dead children. Does it really add anything to the article to have two close-ups (one including a graphic, charred corpse) as well? Personally I find it ghoulish and sick, objectively, as the identity and manner of death of these children has never been called into question, I cannot see what the pictures add to the article. I would appreciate if an admin or two would keep an eye and advise? --Zeraeph 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Those images are horrific and disturbing in the extreme. I know all about WP:CENSOR, but geez - these are dreadful. At the very least, {{linkimage}} should be used. Can you provide links to the relevant discussions re. consensus? - Alison ☺ 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Total agreement with Alison, and I can't see how they would any add more than an extremely disturbing aspect to the article. I know Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors but it's not a shock site either.--Sandahl 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion goes throughout the talk page, it isn't very long, but recent discussions go from here . It is only a small concensus thus far, but still?

User:Sherurcij just took it upon himself to edit my RFC request to totally change the meaning! I have reverted but I have a feeling that editing other editor's RFCs in this way is so far against policy it is unreal?

I know Misplaced Pages is supposed to be objective, but I find User:Sherurcij's determination to post and retain those photographs as disturbing as the images themselves. --Zeraeph 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with any use of linkimage. Either the images are inappropriate and shocking, in which case they shouldn't be anywhere, or they are encylopedic, in which case they should be visible. To do otherwise is systematically biased. --Eyrian 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards