This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 219.90.180.76 (talk) at 15:42, 7 October 2007 (→Harassment). 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:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Current issues

Buttons for blocking/unblocking users

User:Gurch has pointed out that the button for blocking a user/IP/range says "Block this user", but the button for unblocking a user/IP/range says "Unblock this address". It's not clear whether this inconsistency is harmful, or what consistent text should be chosen if it is; more input at MediaWiki talk:Ipusubmit would be helpful. --ais523 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image protection on the main page

I notice admins protecting Misplaced Pages images before they are added to the main page. I don't believe that's necessary anymore because of the cascading protection. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm less sure about images on commons. If an image from commons is on the main page but is protected on commons, does it still need to be uploaded here to prevent vandalism? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, all images should be protected prior to being put on the main page, as it is possible for a vandal to vandalize an image right before it gets placed on the cascade-protected main page (especially DYK and ITN, as they aren't on the cascade-protected Main Page/Tomorrow prior to being on the main page). However, if an image is already on the main page (or Main Page/Tomorrow) without normal protection and it is protected on commons, then it isn't necessary to c-upload it. Basically, if you don't know exactly how cascade protection works, you should upload and full protect before placing any image on the main page. --- RockMFR 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RockMFR is correct - non admins can't upload images to the same title as an image on Commons. So if the image is protected on Commons, it need not be here. Those who are admins on Commons can protect it there rather than having to upload a local version. Otherwise, if the image exists unvandalised on a cascaded page, there's no need to protect it as well but if its possible for it to be vandalised just before automatic inclusion on such a page it should be. There's probably no harm in people playing safe and double protecting though. WjBscribe 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

One small caveat would be that the regular protection should have a time limit. Otherwise, the admin removing it from the main page will have to check that it doesn't become permanently protected. It seems simpler to let cascading protection do its job. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh absolutely - whether protection is here or on Commons, I can't see why it would need to be for more than 1 day... WjBscribe 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of items on ITN of course, which have lingered on the Main Page for over a week in rare cases. - BanyanTree 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But once it's actually on the main page, protection isn't necessary. RockMFR and WJBscribe are referring to the time before it gets to the main page. I'm not sure I follow that but I'm also not familiar with the processes involved in assembling the main page. (I know only that there are a lot of pieces to sort through!) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a technical solution to that ... create a page that displays tomorrow's main page (ie, use {{#expr:{{CURRENTDAY}} + 1}} in relevant places) and cascade protect it. That way, everything is protected 24 hours in advance and you can take a look at it to make sure that it hasn't been vandalized right before the protection took effect. --B 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We already have that I believe - Main Page/Tomorrow. Its just that DYK and ITN aren't included on that (as they aren't necessarily known in advance...). WjBscribe 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey

The Alice Bailey article needs monitoring. Some editors there are anti-Bailey and work against the development of the article and seek to undermine constructive progress of it and have continued to do so for months. James 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: Jamesd1 seems to have intended to put this notice here, but put it in the Administrators' noticeboard archive by mistake; so I am moving it here for him. As it happens,I am the "Some editors" Jamesd1 is referring to, and I would certainly be happy to have more eyes on the Alice Bailey article. I would love to have more editors participating (if they agree with my views, or not); and, certainly, administrators are very welcome editors - and the more experienced the better. Kwork 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It may be useful to note that Jamesd1 (talk · contribs) (edit article count summary), who entered this report, seems to be a single-purpose account. He has edited only the one article he is reporting, plus a couple edits to very closely-related articles. There are one or two other SPA accounts working on the Alice Bailey article also, on the same "team" as James so-to-speak. There may be a COI issue with them, as followers of Alice Bailey's teachings , but I did not report the SPA/COI activity, because it seemed to me we were working it out OK with the help of several established non-SPA editors now contributing. Also, I am not now identifying those other SPA editors, because it seems to me they are learning about Misplaced Pages, and that the problem with them is less than it was a month ago. But since James entered this report, I thought I should provide the additional information about his SPA editing. --Parsifal _Hello 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not require administrative attention. Look to Requests for comment or Requests for mediation to resolve content disputes, or the Conflict of interest noticeboard if edit warring becomes an issue. Keegan 05:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I concur that this report did not belong here, which is why I added the additional information for context. WP:CONSENSUS seems to be working things out OK on the article at this time. --Parsifal _Hello 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp re-write

I need some help in re-writing the template at Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp to where it supports more than 10 quotes from Portal:LGBT/Quotes. User:WJBscribe created LGBT/Quotetemp but said he copied it from another Portal. He said the template only supports up to 10 quotes. I haven't a clue how to do this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The template (quotetemp) itself is just a wrapper that displays content when and only when one of the values given is equal to a calculation applied to the current time. The quotes page itself has each possible number available associated with a transclusion of the template with a quote for the content. To expand the template without breaking anything, you must first have a number of quotes equal to the number of possible values a new expression will create (just add quotes with additional numbers to the page), and then change the expression to cause it to output that new set of variables. If you make a total of 20 quotes available and replace {{#expr:({{CURRENTMINUTE}}*3)/20 round 0}} with {{#expr:({{CURRENTMINUTE}}-1.5)/3 round 0}}, it should expand it to 20. The important thing is making sure that the function resolves itself to the right set of different values over the course of the hour. ${\displaystyle \operatorname {round} \left({\frac {x-1.5}{3}}\right)}$ is the function I'm using to make it work - as long as you use ${\displaystyle \operatorname {round} (\operatorname {f} (x))}$ where ${\displaystyle \operatorname {f} (x)}$ resolves to the right set of integer values using {{CURRENTMINUTE}} and a fraction, you're fine and can easily have up to 60 without making the code much more complicated. Make sure, however, that the step function starts at zero for the fraction you use, or you have to offset it with a subtraction or addition in the numerator, as I've done here. This helps ensure that all quotes are displayed for the same amount of time. Nihiltres 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Google

AfDs, MfDs and some others are a part of our robots.txt file, but due to the file not being correctly formatted, no one noticed and they were still indexed by google. It's been fixed recently, and many of us have our "WTF" faces on. The original request is seen at . No discussion? Because of this, a major tool in finding past discussions has been lost to us. How do we fix this? -- Ned Scott 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you put "Misplaced Pages:" in front of a search query, it searches only in the Misplaced Pages namespace. For example a search for "Misplaced Pages:deletion haiku" delivers the correct AfD debate. Graham87 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Which works if you just want to do a title search, but nothing else. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be taken out of the robots.txt - the stated reason for it being in there can be satisfied with courtesy blanking, without destroying the ability to search AFDs it does not apply to. —Random832 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. We have tons of non-controversial situations that have no reason to be hidden. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanked or not, no AFD discussion should ever be visible in the first couple of Google result pages for any search. Fixing this in robots.txt was a good move. You can still use Misplaced Pages's own search engine to search through AFDs if you need to. We'd need to courtesy blank a lot more if this is not in robots.txt, and that would bring a lot of other problems (Whatlinkshere would become a lot less meaningful in these contexts etc.) Kusma (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that they were still searchable somewhat recently, I'm not convinced it was ever a problem. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion this was a very good move. We have enough of a problem with abusive vandalistic edits showing up in the search engines without the vitriol that AfD can frequently be showing up as well. In my opinion the following should also be excluded if they are not: All user pages, User talk pages and article talk pages. I see little point in the first two being indexed, the first frequently associates "banned" templates with peoples real names or names that are traceable to them - and it is not our job to forever label them as someone that has been banned from wikipedia, no matter how disruptive they have been. The User talk pages frequently have the same problem as the user pages, with the added bonus of displaying every little dispute the person happens to be in at the time of the indexing. Finally the article talk pages, while somewhat more relevant to the encyclopaedia, frequently are the site of disputes that would be better left unindexed - disputes of notability of people for instance, or whether to include criticism of someone or something. None of those pages have encyclopedic value, so as unencyclopedic, potentially harmful meta pages I think they too should be excluded. Minor usability issues such as this shouldn't come ahead of potential harm to real people. Viridae 13:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Beware of unintended consequences. Our internal search feature isn't nearly as good as Google. If we exclude our pages from indexing, that makes it very hard to find things when we need to look them up. Who has that editor I asked about "red lederhosen"? Dagnabbit, the talk are no longer indexed by Google; I can't find that conversation. Am I making sense? If a user page is causing somebody problems, they can request deletion. - Jehochman 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. For practical purposes, we need a good internal search engine for our contributors which should include talk pages and project pages and the like, but outward search engines like google should ideally only see our encyclopedic content. It's not good to have our dirty laundry indexed externally. Of course, it's a shame we don't currently have a good enough internal search and we've had to rely on google instead, but the answer to that is we should try to get our own facilities improved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the foundation can persuade Google to donate a box of our own? — Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be heavenly :D -- Ned Scott 07:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking more about this, I probably should have posted this to a VP page instead of here. If I understand correctly, a developer would have to make this change. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I have to question the point of doing so. After all, if my memory serves correctly, Wikimedia developers added AFD to robots.txt on our request. They didn't do it just for lolz. Titoxd 06:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Joshd1991

Joshd1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just left this. It's based on his deleted pages from April 2007, I think. I just gave him an indefinite block and bring it here for review. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot imagine a more clear cut case for needing an indef block. WilyD 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I completely agree. An indefinite block should certainly be used in this case. You made the correct decision. нмŵוτнτ 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any gems of articles in this list. Yet he seems oddly defensive of what he's written. Yeah, an indefinite block is suitable. --Elkman 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I checked all his contributions and I strongly support an indef block in this case. Neozoon 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thomasteese

I can't see it so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the contents of this page should be cleared? He hasn't made a revision since July, 2005 as evident here. - Rjd0060 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted it as an attack page.-gadfium 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Raëlism/Raelian scheme

• Raëlism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here is the Misplaced Pages Raëlism/Raelian scheme:

• History of Raëlism
• Raëlian beliefs and practices
• Raëlian Church membership estimates
• Raëlian cosmology
• Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials
• Raelian Foundation
• Raëlism
• Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices
• Category:Raëlians
• Category:Raëlism
• Template:Raëlian
• Template:Raëlism

The above categories and templates lead to a significant number of more articles that are soapboxes for Raëlism/Raelian. It seems likely to be growing due to those with COIs. The trifecta requirements of Misplaced Pages:Content forking, that a topic is to stay focused without going into unnecessary details, and that only material that is independent of the subject be used in articles is designed to keep Misplaced Pages from becoming a soapbox for the topic. The Raëlism/Raelian topic has gotten out of hand because the editors to this topic have not complied with these requirements. It would be nice if someone tackled this Raëlism/Raelian soapbox issue. -- Jreferee t/c 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Review of block of User:TerriHamel re USANA edits

I have been watching USANA for some months, attempting to mediate between those with pro and anti positions regarding the company, as an uninvolved admin. Recently User:TerriHamel has been editing in a non-consensual manner, including partially blanking the article and emphasising comment detrimental to a critic of the company diff (the status of Barry Minkow is commented on later in the consensual version), which was caught by User:ClueBot, on 30 September 2007, and today re-inserting the various accusations against Minkow and altering other text to a viewpoint more sympathetic to the company (diff1, diff2, diff3 and diff4). I reverted the edits and blocked the editor for 31 hours, pending this review request diff. Since I am involved in mediating between the factions editing the article, and reverted edits prior to blocking the editor, I invite review of my actions and comment upon the tariff/correctness of the block. LessHeard vanU 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC) seems oddly defensive of what he's written. Yeah, an indefinite block is suitable. --Elkman 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I checked the edits and the diffs and took a look at the article and the history. I support the block. Neozoon 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

SEWilco revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie

I'm not too sure where it's best to post this since it involves an apparent misuse of admin and/or oversight rights to "massage" past diffs and a couple of quotes involving SEWilco to hide a lie. I just finished posting a long description at User_talk:Charles_Matthews, so I won't repeat it here. This is the link to it for the curious and/or more:

FYI, I guess. -BC aka Callmebc 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Callmebc trusts his memory so much that he thinks people changed many Misplaced Pages database entries in order to change the records. See Callmebc's inability to read a document in Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#Copy of "Mother's Day" talk moved from Talk:Killian documents. I assure you that if I had the powers which he ascribes to me, Callmebc would be viewing a private copy of the articles and leaving the rest of the editors alone. (SEWilco 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

User:Tianasez

I've given Tianasez (talk · contribs) a 24hr block for continued POV pushing on a (truly odd) mix of articles after a (blanked) final warning. Looking over the contribution history (and the odd edit summaries & talk posts), I can't work out if this is a hoax user or a good-faith new account; can someone else offer a second opinion, as I can't make up my mind if I've been too harsh or too soft on this one. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoax user, trolling. I fail to see a single constructive edit. In fact, most edits are vandalism disguised as verbosity . I wouldn't mind if you made the block indefinite as a SPA-vandalism. Keegan 05:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Just wanted a second opinion... — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support the block, this is bad faith SPA-vandalism. Neozoon 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Block for review

I've preemptively blocked Tennesseetrumpet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See for background. I'd appreciate it if someone gave this a second look. --jpgordon 05:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. That's a hell of a find. Keegan 05:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely a good call. Rlevse 11:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate that action Neozoon 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

possible user name problem

Please refresh my memory if this isn't the place for this. User:If you think wiki pedia is reliable you have downs syndrome does not look like a suitable username to me. Let me know if I'm overly rigorous. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disallow (soft block) the username for several reasons: it is both disruptive and offensive, violating WP:U. нмŵוτнτ 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the user went on to create more usernames that violate policy, I hard blocked the account. WODUP 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For reporting username violations, see WP:UAA in the future.--Avant Guard 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will bookmark the link. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with users' insistence on use of their images

How do you deal with users whose goal seems to be mostly to push their images on articles, disregarding presence of other, possibly better images as well as article layout? New user itsandrewomg (talk · contribs) has been mostly adding his images to Tucson, and is stubbornly replacing an image with one I strongly feel does not does as good a job on List of United States cities by population.

Problem is, I'm not sure how exactly to deal with that. It's not disruptive per se (and I admit this is a bit silly, but I'm very queasy at the idea of leaving a FL in a state I feel is less good than it was), and I'm not sure how to approach the user about it as he seems pretty wiki-immature too (e.g. "ditto. lawl"). Circeus 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to convince them that they should concentrate on expanding relevant galleries at Wikimedia Commons, perhaps? Image overload is disruptive; which image is better should be discussed on talk page, and when consensus (majority...) is reached a few reverts should end the issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Make sure that the overly photographed article such as Tucson has a template which points at the Commons material, so contributors can easily find the appropriate place in Commons. (SEWilco 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Suggestion to ask user to extend the commons section and start discussion on the talk page if he wants to replace a picture of existing article with his own. Article Tuscon seems picture overloaded to me. My opinion on that, new pictures should go to the commons and link from there as gallery. Neozoon 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

New vandal block template

Template:Vandalanduser is a template I created a few weeks ago. It's purpose is to provide a block summary that states that the block is both for vandalism and an inappropriate username, rather than just one reason or the other. Tell me what you think of it. It could be used for accounts with bad usernames that have already accumulated a few vandal edits.--Avant Guard 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think that's really a useful template. If you have a vandalism only account who also happens to have a bad username, I wouldn't even bother with a template and would just indefinitely block them. Do we really need to create a template for every possible combination of the circumstances for blocking? Cowman109 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

{{indefblocked}} usually does just fine. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit redundant when compared to the preexisting template {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. Plus, this template is already part of the drop-down-box on Special:Blockip. - auburnpilot talk 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I think it is good for the reason for the block to be on the user's talk page; it makes it easier for those coming along later. I don't like indefblocked because it gives no reason. I like the Vandalanduser one because I've come across this very issue several times and I think both reasons should be on the talk page. Rlevse 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And also, the "usernamehardblocked" template is if i'm not mistaken meant to be used for accounts blatantly inappropriate names (e.g. "I will destroy Misplaced Pages") that haven't necessarily been given the chance to edit.--Avant Guard 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, such usernames are caught before they have a chance to edit; however, whether or not they've made any edits is irrelevant. We don't treat someone with a blatantly offensive username different just because they have or haven't made edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's a vandalism-only account, just use {{Vandalblock}}. If they've got a bad username, too, it doesn't matter; first and foremost, they're a vandalism-only account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

POV anons, how to deal with

I've run across various POV anons (most likely the same individual). The IPs in question are:

• 212.158.244.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.120.125.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.34.36.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.136.30.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.153.172.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Two obvious examples of POV edits are this and this. This user almost exclusively edits in relation to categories, and seems to add the category "God" to Judeo-Christian specific articles, and removes the category "Jesus" from non-Christian articles. But not all of the edits have been this obviously POV. This has occurring since Sept. 29th. Two of the IPs have been blocked for these sorts of edits. Obviously, part of me just wants to block the user on sight for continuing this mess (just look at this history of Homosexual readings of Jesus and John). But I know it would be better to try to communicate with them and get them to stop by understanding wikipedia policies. So I guess I am writing so that others can be aware of this problematic editor so more eyes can be on the look out, but I'm also writing to see what would be the best steps to take in handling this situation. I just wrote a message to the user (see User talk:81.136.30.91), but seeing as how the address is dynamic (and possibly shared), it is unlikely that they will get the message. So any comments or advice would be great. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c  22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

More reasons every on wiki should have an account.Rlevse 11:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Maxim has blocked 212.158.244.124 for 3 months. I guess now I (and anyone else) can block any of the other accounts on sight for block evasion. An issue that remaines is of course because this is an anon user with dynamic IPs, long blocks can affect other users.-Andrew c  14:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding User:Cyborg Ninja

Cyborg Ninja is not pursuing this matter. LessHeard vanU 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone set this user straight? He appears to be trying to harass people who voted to delete List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people at the most recent AfD, for example here and on my own talk page. Both me and Melsaran have removed the notices, but he has only given kinda weird responses to my query, not to mention threatened Melsaran that there would be consequences for removing his notice on the talk page. David Fuchs 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first link should be this one. I will check it out, but would prefer more eyes on it. LessHeard vanU 22:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping proposal

After some of the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I've decided to try my hand at creating another desysopping proposal. Please read it over (a read of the RFC might help too) and discuss it on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy violations

Is there a specific wikipedia guideline on users who violate privacy by posting private info, such as offline ID of wiki users? I've having trouble finding it. I think I've seen it before, but for some reason I am having trouble finding it right now. Also, other than the general rule of thumb of talk/warn first then block, what policies are in place for handling these cases? Thanks. Rlevse 13:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at Misplaced Pages:Privacy and Misplaced Pages:Request for oversight. — Edokter • Talk • 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I had seen it. I guess my memory isn't what it used to be-;) Rlevse 13:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

I am being wikistalked by User:Parsifal, this user has repeatedly tried to get me into serious trouble. I discovered this after a dispute at this article Dir en grey when an admin protected the page, and viewed their userpage to see why. This user has fabricated serious accusations about me, and I have become very annoyed. I have repeatedly requested an explanation from them, but they deny any involement. I request assistance from an admin, to investigate User:Parsifal and please stop this nonsense. 219.90.180.76 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me the other way around, ex: . It looks like you're really User:Jun_kaneko, . If you have evidence, please present it. I'd also like to hear Nat's input, so I've asked him. Rlevse 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I never denied that, and mentioned many times I was Jun Kaneko (sometimes even adding - Jun Kaneko to my IP) I unregistered my account before, as stated I would. My contributions to the article Visual Kei provided reliable sources and after many disputes, finally put an end to all the nonsense. Direct quote from Parsifal "I would like you to know that your suggestions have made the article much better. And the history section added a lot of value. Thank you for your contributions. --Parsifal Hello 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)" The article was left in peace for awhile until certain users started vandalising the article, to the point they wanted the non-English sources removed. I had enough and decided to remove the information and sources I added, and let everyone else write what ever they want, out of spite. After further investigation, it seems it was the user Cyrus XIII who reported me for Dir en grey, and the Free-Will articles, and his reports were debunked. I will also add, that my contribution to the Free-Will was also met with disputes from the same certain users, but finally resolved when an admin who speaks Japanese vouched for my sources. So I apoligise to Parsifal for thinking they have been wikistalking me, but that users information has been misleading on Nats page. A look into the history logs and talk pages will prove this to be true. 219.90.180.76 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I do believe the anonymous user who registered the complaint is User:Jun_Kaneko. The common accusations of "nonsense" and "fabrications" are eerily reminiscent of said user. The only harassment here is on User:Parsifal, User:Cyrus XIII and myself. The anonymous users who contribute to conflicts on the articles and talk pages for Visual Kei, Skin (Japanese band) and Dir en grey, as well as User:Jun Kaneko all have the same editing style and have IP addresses logged from southern Australia. --Jacob 15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards