Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 28 November 2007 (→MatthewHoffman: longer response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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?

Did You Know is VERY, VERY late

Not resolved now! Time keeps moving on... It is now overdue Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that Did You Know is overdue. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK is over 10 hours late. This means that almost 2 cycles of DYK hooks have been lost (opportunity to post it has been lost). Admin assistance requested in moving the hooks from the next update page to the main page. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this one night earlier this week, decided to do something about it, but gave up after I found the instructions too confusing. Any hopes of a simple set of "step 1, step 2, step 3" instructions being written so that interested Admins who have a spare moment can make the occasional update? -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't WikiMedia be programmed to automatically update the page, if a few days worth of DYK's are set up in advance? Or are there already such mechanisms available in the software? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at the moment, since the pages that will lead to DYK are editable by everyone, and main page content may only be put there by admins (to minimize vandalism and embarassing gaffes). We would need an admin-only preparation page to make your suggestion possible (and probably some more things as well, I'm not versed in MediaWiki things). Fram (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dynamic anon IP stalking 2 users

• 71.127.226.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.68.125.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.76.8.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 71.127.232.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account, signed up solely to attack one article and its creator via WP:COI/N and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, has a Verizon IP address tracking to Newark, New Jersey (nwrknj.east.verizon.net) matching many others previously reported for the same pattern of attacks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for the last day or so; however there is something to be concerned about here. Definitely seems to be pursuing someone. If he starts up again, a block for disruptive editing and wikistalking should be strongly considered. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another new account - same IP origin at nwrknj.east.verizon.net - is continuing the attack as 72.68.125.254 (talk · contribs). . Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion Mangojuice's talk page, as well, This has been going on for over a month. It seems from previous discussions that there is little to do about it, but it is distressing to the prime target, Benjiboi, and those of us who are his colleagues here. Is it not possible to range block? I mean, if we can block all of Qatar from editing, can't we block a few anons who happen to be Verizon customers? Jeffpw (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Contact the ISP and tell them about the harassment and where it's coming from - I'm certain that harassing others falls under the things that can get someone's Verizon account terminated. Otherwise, we can't rangeblock except for short periods due to collateral damage. I am, however, starting an independent sockpuppet investigation page on this guy; I have dealt with him on Sister Roma. -Jéské 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The 2 IPs listed here are on 2 different /11 ranges. Blocking them both (if we could do it - we can't) would potentially block millions of people. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the intel, Z-Man. Maybe an abuse or LTA report is in order? And could we get someone to close the COI/N thread he's started as bad-faith? -Jéské 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ISI Page

I have a screamsheet on him up here. Feel free to add onto it if you have information. -Jéské 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine's block

(follow up from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive331#Sambure_and_Porcupine)

As many of you probably know, User:Porcupine was blocked for a month after this thread on ANI. Back then, we all thought that User:Sambure was a new user. Checkuser proved meanwhile that Sambure was (yet again) a sock of User:Bonaparte. Porcupine/Rambutan asked me to paste the following statement:

After consideration, while I still think that regardless of who was Sambure Rambutan was very wrong, I think that he was most probably tricked here. And I wanted to gauge the community consensus on a shortening of Porcupine's block. -- lucasbfr 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock. Will 20:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reinstate editing priveleges with the proviso that he watch his temper in these situations. I've gone through similar stuff (first with BlackStarRock, then with Dereks1x), and I did not find it hard to keep a calm head. -Jéské 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave blocked or shorten slightly. Porcupine wastes too much of our time. John Reaves 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are designed to be protective rather than punitive, as lucas. correctly points out. Unblock tomorrow, and strongly caution over the encyclopedia's requirements regarding policy and guideline obedience. If Porcupine restarts his nonsense again, re-instate the block. Anthøny 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock. I thought a month was a bit excessive anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock; whereas I agree that given that situation Porcupine should have acted differently, I though 1 month was too long and given that he was tricked by a banned user, I think it's only fair to let him go now. However he should be warned that if this happens again, a block of similar duration will be put in place. TSO1D (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there's no suggestion that Bonaparte was targeting Porcupine specifically, though it's quite possible that Bonaparte was trolling in a general sort of way. The block of Porcupine arose because Porcupine's conduct was unacceptable regardless of who he was dealing with. Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (né Rambutan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has a long history of incivility and biteyness; the fact that it was coincidentally aimed at a banned user doesn't really excuse the sheer rudeness that he was demonstrating right on AN/I. (I note that Porcupine only drew Bonaparte's attention after making a poorly-adjudged AfD nomination.)

There's no indication that Porcupine knew or suspected that Sambure was a banned editor—that Porcupine thought that his own behaviour was an appropriate way of dealing with a new editor explains why he should remain blocked. Disputes on Misplaced Pages sometimes involve editors where one is clearly in the right and one clearly in the wrong. In this case, both editors engaged in disruptive and obnoxious behaviour; Bonaparte's has been sufficient to earn him an indefinite block. Porcupine fully deserved the one-month block he received, given that he had been warned and blocked repeatedly before for the same type of actions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

An unrelated sidenote, Porcupine said that he thinks Bonaparte has 30 sockpuppets. The truth is even better, look at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Bonaparte, it turns out that Bonaparte has 120 sockpuppets. Now that's dedication! I wonder if he the greatest Misplaced Pages puppetmaster of all time? 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Further sidenote: I think Mascotguy still leads the pack with 700+ socks. Kuru 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see an immediate unblock, very much for the same reasons as TenOfAllTrades. I could understand lowering the block to a week or two, but not an immediate lift. The problem of incivility is not a function of who it is addressed to; it is a problem based in what is said. Nobody should get a free pass for incivility, regardless of who they are or who they are addressing. GRBerry 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as an additional comment here, Porcupine has been in touch with me via email, and has assured me that he will be ensuring he does not violate any more policies. I've also informed him that his contributions will most likely be getting watched, which he is agreeable too. Anthøny 23:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm okay with an unblock — he understands what he did wrong, and was provoked into it by a banned user. I don't see much more "prevention" from the block anymore. --Haemo (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How often do we have to deal with Rambutan (first one)/Porcupine/Circuit Judge? He's had several AN/ANI cases just in November, not to mention multiple blocks between the three accounts. He's been warned several times, then says "I'm sorry, I'll behave", and just goes and does it again. I agree with John Reaves, Porucupine wastes too much of our time and we should stop letting him off the hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Rlevse, I think an examination of Porcupine's history suggests that his assurances that he won't engage in disruptive, incivil behaviour ought to be taken with a grain of salt. During his last block (October 23, for seven days) he first attempted to argue that his behaviour (including calling another editor a "self-important, lazy, rude, bureaucratic prat", and misusing the term 'vandalism' after its correct definition on Misplaced Pages had been explained to him) didn't constitute incivility or personal attacks: . After that unblock request was denied, he acknowledged that his behaviour was "a little childish" and that he "may have been brusque with newbies", and sought an unblock on the basis that he would not "edit-war, revert more than three times per day or be exceptionally unpleasant" .

Less than a month later, we're back on AN/I again. He was being needlessly inflammatory and incivil in a dispute, and biting an apparent newbie. I'm pleased to see that he has realized now that his conduct was inappropriate and that he now regrets engaging in incivility and attacks. Nevertheless, there's no indication that he will consider his actions before he takes them in the future. I fear that the only way that he's actually going to take the hint is if we stand firm on these blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely.02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

People seem to be approaching this from the angle that this was the first such incident in Porcupine's past, or that we can be as rude as we like to banned users. This isn't the first time this sort of behavior has become a major problem, nor even necessarily the first time in recent memory. I don't recall seeing any blatant baiting or trolling to provoke Porcupine, either. The user was banned, but this only became clear after the fact. This is probably a mitigating factor, but given the history of problems, I don't know that it excuses the harsh response that was elicited. That said, I'm very curious about the IP addresses which returned to vandalize, after Porcupine's block -- were those Porcupine, or Bonaparte? That's a key question, as I see things. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like nobody notifed Fram, the blocking admin. I've corrected this oversight; I would urge that anyone considering any action here give him a chance to comment first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Woops sorry my bad. I told him I was considering bringing it to ANI, but forgot to link directly once I created the thread. (Rambutan can vouch that I didn't have much spare time yesterday! ;). That being said, I am not contesting Fran's block in any way, because I agree with it. I think the data changed, and that this unblock request shouldn't be handled directly by one or a small group of admins. -- lucasbfr 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this (most likely Rambutan). It just furthers my lack of faith in him. John Reaves 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that is Rambutan / Porcupine - WHOIS shows the IP is in Germany, Porcupine is in the UK. Kelpin (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That IP was almost certainly an open proxy. -- zzuuzz 13:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I whois-ed some of the IPs that Luna's referring to above, when the vandalism to Sambure started after Porcupine's block, and they appear to be from the same IP block in Germany. A computer centre in Munich, as I recall Berlin. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

IT is not my strongest subject so I have no idea whether a user in the UK could use an IP address in Germany (which is what I think zzuuzz is suggesting above) but even if they could I'd be surprised if Rambutan / Porcupine was responsible for the messages concerned. As has been noted elsewhere in this discussion this isn't Porcupine's first block and I haven't seen IPs posting abuse on the talk pages of those who asked for him to be blocked before (and I'm speaking as someone who had him blocked a few months back). Kelpin (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The WHOIS results are not in any way relevant. Anyone, anywhere in the world can use this IP address. It is the same type of open proxy that Bonaparte uses, and I am not familiar enough with this situation to say who was using it on this occasion, but you cannot rule out any one person using it because they are in a different country. I would not rule out a joe job either. -- zzuuzz 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, agreed. In fact Porcupine makes just that point on their talkpage (with justification) - in the absence of records from the proxy provider there's no way of knowing who posted the obscenities; it's unlikely to be Porcupine and is somewhat more likely to be Sambure/Bonaparte. By the way, Kelpin yes, a user in the UK (or in fact Romania) could use a proxy in Germany, thereby appearing to come from Germany. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't oppose any consensus to unblock/reduce/increase/whatever. I don't see how Sambure initially provoked Porcupine (by creating an article that has been unanimously decided should be kept?), but he of course knew quite well how to play along once Porcupine started acting the way he did. On the other hand, seeing the history of Porcupine, I don't know what value should be given to his assurances. Remember that this block came just one day after the end of his previous one week block for trolling. Fram (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Although Porcupine can be uncivil at times, (and I've had cause to complain about this in the past) I think in this instance he received more than sufficient provocation to cut him some slack (Sambure started a message on his Talk Page "Listen Pig") I might get a little incivil if someone posted that on my talk page! Kelpin (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but before that, he had already made a quite uncivil AfD nomination, and an edit summary like the one here can also hardly be called civil (it has the same condescending tone he would use throughout this episode). The "pig" edit by Sambure was only the next one. This indicates to me that he has a quite basic problem with incivility on Misplaced Pages. If you look at his unblock request

While I would really like to believe Porcupine when he says `I have learned my lesson,` we have certainly gone through this cycle of disruption/block/apologize/unblock several times before. However perhaps his offer to accept a mentor is a step in the right direction. Now if only a good mentor (*cough*Ryan Postlethwaite*cough*) would volunteer for the job! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's proposal

Porcupine invited me by email to contribute here. He may not thank me for this though.

I am inclined to nod at Fram's comments above, but they're more appropriate for a siteban discussion than a reduction of a month block.

Which is appropriate, I think. Porcupine's rap-sheet is extensive for one garnered over a shockingly short period of time. Problem users of this type are usually leopards than cannot change their spots.

However, I think there's extenuating circumstances in this case. The arguable position that Porcupine has been leniently dealt with in the past is not balanced by being harsh on this occasion.

I'd support an immediate block lift on these conditions:

1. Porcupine apologises on his talk page, without reservation for past bad behaviour
2. Porcupine agrees to fulfill WP:CIVIL - its word and spirit
3. Porcupine agrees to accept mentoring from an admin for three months
4. Porcupine accepts that contravention of any of the above points is likely to end with a full siteban

I'd be looking for Porcupine to explicitly accept these points on his talk page prior to the block being lifted. Otherwise, I do not support reduction of the block terms.

If this proposal achieves consensus (and Porcupine's agreement) I warn Porcupine that most people who get this far with incivility and other problem editing issues inevitably end up with sitebans as they just can't help themselves. Perhaps you have the guts to be the exception to the rule... I'd be delighted. Nothing makes me happier than former problem editors contributing usefully. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NB Porcupine's response to this is at his talk page. I leave it to others to decide if a) my proposal is wise and b) his response is sufficient. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, his 'rap sheet' under his previous username, Rambutan, ought to be mentioned. I note that there are entries there where unblocks have occurred on the basis of 'user has agreed to move on' and 'reducing to time served. User has indicated a willingness to improve in future'. For the record, the block that Porcupine is currently serving came on the heels of a one-week block for using his sockpuppet account Circuit Judge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to troll an ArbCom candidate's question page. He had been unblocked for less than a day before he managed to pick the fight that led to the block we're discussing now. Showing a 'willingness' to improve is an important first step—but at some point we have to expect that he actually demonstrate improvement.

Frankly, the tone of the response he's made on his talk page doesn't fill me with hope. He is 'prepared to apologise' if and only if the community 'restor editing privileges very soon...' (his italics). It's in the community's hands, of course, but I'd hate to see this turn into one of those 'Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop!' again!' situations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree. The talkpage response is less than encouraging. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was also emailed by Porcupine - I wonder if it was because I was on his side over the issue of whether his old user talk page could be deleted or would have to remain a redirect. Porcupine got into a severe dispute with a user who turned out later to be a sock of a banned user. Does that later discovery restrospectively diminish his disruptiveness? Not fully, and there is a longrunning problem. I would go with Dweller's suggestion if a competent mentor can be found. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NB Porcupine is responding to some specifics on his talk page. This is all very clumsy. Any support for removing his block now on condition he only edits this page in addition to his talk page? We can always reinstate it for the remaining period if consensus is against my proposal. And if he runs off and edits elsewhere, I'd drop this as a charade and propose community ban straightawy. --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more I see a user who doesn't get why their behavior is a problem and is going to repeat their problematic behavior in the future. I'm now tending to think that we should already be having the community ban discussion, not a discussion about lowering the block. He clearly emailed Coren, who reviewed the situation and said on his talk page that it was a bad idea to think about reducing the block. (discussion). He then says he is leaving for a while and wants to make the talk page vanish, yet appears to have emailed others shortly thereafter asking for another review of the block. His attitude in response to Dweller coveys an attitude that the community did him wrong when he was blocked, and that he has "agreed to degrade myself (!) by accepting mentoring". This user doesn't get it, and until there is a potential mentor who thinks they can and will put an end to the incivility, I don't believe there is any point in continuing the discussion or unblocking. GRBerry 15:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason to unblock at this point. I am disheartened by what seems to me to be a total and complete lack of remorse. "I'll apologize if..." does not an apology make. I do not support an unblock at this point. - Philippe | Talk 16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would volunteer if the community doesn't think me an inappropriate mentor. In full disclosure, I have no previous interaction with this user (he apparently emailed me because he thought I might be sympathetic, based on my involvement in the Bus Stop case, above). I am prepared to wear the egg on my face from the likelihood of this backfiring, in hope that the less likely resolution of the problem would fill my little heart with good feelings. And, less attractively for the rest of you, inflate my ego to unbelievable proportions. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of swelling Dweller's ego unfeasibly, well done! Given the conditions stated I'd be content (not happy, just content) to see Porcupine unblocked and let's se how it goes. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now we have a potential mentor. I've never seen a mentorship attempt that worked, but since the successful attempts are the least visible, I'm willing to let them be tried. I still think the current block should last for a week or more, but am willing to allow a last chance mentorship program. Several someones should make a note of where this thread archives to so that it will be easy to find in the likely event that we need it again. GRBerry 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bingo: "The more I look at this, the more I see a user who doesn't get why their behavior is a problem and is going to repeat their problematic behavior in the future." Glad someone besides me sees this. This is the root of his issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure if the above constitutes consensus for my proposal or not. I can see some opposition to it, so even if there is consensus, it's hardly unanimous. I'm going to reopen this thread below. Please post there, to keep discussion in one place. --Dweller (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

POV edits of User:Leftcoastbreakdown to American Apparel and others

I encountered a number of this user's edits to both American Apparel and Dov Charney (CEO of the same) and I was going to come here and ask an administrator to see if they could find out where the edits were coming from, however in this edit, that user identified himself as "Spencer Windes, American Apparel Web Communications Coordinator." Mr. Windes' repeated edits to both American Apparel and Dov Charney seem to indicate that account will only be used to promote his company, which is outside of the guidelines set forth in WP:COI. His edits to Dov Charney are especially concerning, since they have whitewashed much of that article and cast a very rosy light on his direct employer. I would ask that an administrator warn Mr. Windes against such edits or bar him from editing articles directly related to his company. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've spent the last hour trying to take out reams of POV OR and synthesis from Dov Charney and I'm inclined to just rewrite the entire article, since this user has so thoroughly corrupted it with his own biased modifications. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clouds! Assuming this is for real, it's not only improper per Misplaced Pages rules but also an unclueful and potentially damaging PR gaffe that could backfire rather seriously. I left him a message about that and will mention on his page that we're talking about it here. It has been several days since the last edit and I don't see that he was ever warned before, so despite the disruption and clean up effort I don't think discipline isn't in order. Let's just hope he gets the message. Wikidemo (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Through my continuing edits, I've noticed that that editor inserted a huge amount of information that he copied verbatim from the New York Times article And You Thought Abercrombie & Fitch Was Pushing It?. For instance, here he added the line "In marked contrast to industry norms, Charney pays his garment workers an average of over twice the minimum wage, subsidizes their health care and meals, provides free on-site English-language classes, and, at regular intervals, sends massage therapists onto the factory floor to massage workers during their break." which is cribbed almost verbatim from the article which reads "All of American Apparel's clothing is made in downtown L.A., by workers to whom Charney pays an average of almost twice the minimum wage (and sometimes much more) and to whom he offers subsidized health care, meals and free English lessons, as well as regular massages. Charney says he believes that he can have a greater degree of quality control and quicker responsiveness to the marketplace by keeping everything in house."

Here he adds the line "Charney frequently refers to himself as a "Jewish Hustler,"" which is also copied almost verbatim from the New York Times article: "Dov Charney proudly refers to himself as a "Jewish hustler."

In that same diff, the editor adds "In the summer of 2003, Charney rented a storefront gallery in the Echo Park section of Los Angeles to display a selection of photographs taken by his friend Luca Pizzaroni. As an afterthought, he sent over some T-shirts to sell at the opening reception—the next day, seeing that he had made $1,500 in T-shirt sales, he began planning to expand American Apparel into retail sales. " The Times article reads: "In the summer of 2003, when Charney rented a storefront gallery in Echo Park for an exhibit of photographs taken by his friend Luca Pizzaroni, it only occurred to him as an afterthought to offer some T-shirts for sale as well. The next day, when he discovered that he had rung up $1,500 in sales, he began signing more leases in hip neighborhoods in other cities."

Other editors may want to review more of User:Leftcoastbreakdown's contributions and revert any suspected plagarism. Cheers. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! I found another. This is identical to the final paragraph here so I deleted it. Users can be banned for persistent copyright violation - I would give him a single final warning for that. Thank goodness he's made less than 50 edits, to four articles in total. I think we'll have to go through every single one to look for copyvio. Might as well manually undo the remaining effects of all his non-clerical edits while we're at it. Wikidemo (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote articles

Based on the above concerns I rewrote the American Apparel and Dov Charney articles. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's prior edits, and I can't claim the results are actually great articles, but I did try to help things. I looked at each of the edits done by the company employee, and the anonymous IPs, and restored any negative information they deleted. I went through the articles and removed anything that sounded like advertisement, marketing/PR speak, or POV defenses of criticism against the company and its CEO. I can't promise I found every copyvio, and there are still some verifiability/sourcing problems. Wikidemo (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• It looks a lot better than it did, thanks for all your hard work. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Are the articles de-POV-ed enough to mark this one resolved? I doubt the user will do it again and if it happens it's on my watchlist and we can act then. Wikidemo (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe this is resolved, yes. Thanks again. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Administer is trolling and threatening to block me

I would like to file a complaint against Admin User:Swatjester, is this the right place in order to air my grievance and show proof so I don't waste my time? - Jeeny 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If administrator attention is required, yes. -Jéské 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He has threatened me with a block because he says I'm "trolling". He deleted this with the edit summary that I was trolling and uncivil. I really wanted to know why I and others of the community should trust his judgment when he is up for a trusted position of ArbCom. I have problems with his attitude, and he is exaggerating in his wording to me, and that I have "strong feelings" and need a break. He is abusing his power by intimation, and this needs to be addressed right now. See his message on my talk page. I have a troll that is following me around and has now responded to SwatJester's warning to me. So, I'll be blocked and the real troll is free to come back again and again to disrupt this project. Swatjester has to be kept in check on this issue. That if he blocks me, he is abusing his "power" that is supposed to be no big deal, and a trusted member of this community. This admin is calling me a troll, which is very offensive to me and not true. Are you sure this is the right place? I have more. - Jeeny 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You were warned for referring to another person repeatedly as a moron. After the first warning, you blanked it with the edit summary "If it fits...". You then proceeded to troll my arbcom candidacy page. That is unacceptable. You seem to have a disdain for the policies and procedures on this project. You would do well to heed them. Also, please note at the top of the page here: This is not the administrator complaint department. This is not an incident in which administrator attention is required. The only attention that is required here is for you to calm down, relax, take a deep breath and a nice cup of tea, and edit civilly without personally attacking other editors as you have repeatedly done in the past week. ⇒SWATJester 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He even admits he is an asshole (see my talk page). He doesn't mind being called names. Unlike you, I have more respect toward the a "real troll" than someone who cannot admit when they are wrong, and is all high and mighty. Cannot read between the lines, and has no flexibility. - Jeeny 10:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I will note that in the diff that I reverted from my candidacy questions, in one single edit you referred to me as arrogant, flippant, accused me of false representations, compared me to Essjay, accused me of making things worse for others, accused me of disrupting the project, referred to me as "Mr. Defender", accused me of lying, called me egotistical, called me a "babe in the woods" and made statements that could be interpreted as a threat against me off-wiki. You're lucky I didn't block you right there. ⇒SWATJester 06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Who would interpret that as a a threat against you off-wiki? That's ludicrous and you know it. In fact you seem to be threatening to deliberately misinterpret things in order to use your powers.

And none of the admins who read this board thought to say something to you about you throwing serious accusations like this around in bad faith? That's just great, guys. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What? There you go exaggerating again. You repeatedly say I repeatedly call people morons. And where or what did I say that made you think that I made a "threat against off-wiki"? You called me a troll. I did not accuse you of lying, show me where I said that. I said you exaggerate. Big difference, because it's difficult to know the motives of others when on the internet when you can't see their face, body language, etc. And now your saying I should be "lucky didn't block right there"? Is that not proof that you are a bit trigger happy? - Jeeny 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I exaggerate nothing. Typing words on a computer is one thing, but actions proves another could be construed as a threat, especially since you were talking about how you are "better than me" off-wiki in the sentence before that. Here, you change another persons edit summary to Scumbucket. Here, you call someone a moron in both edit, and in edit summary (hence, repeatedly). Again, you call someone a moron, accuse them of adding bullshit, tell them to get a grip on life, call them a troll. Here you call them the Perfect Troll. And even when blanking the conversation, you call them trolls. This incivility is unacceptable, and it is symptomatic of the pattern you have shown over your 14-entry long block log. It ends now. ⇒SWATJester 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I was better than you. I feel I am no better nor worse. See, that's what I mean about exaggerating. I can't trust you to be in ArbCom if you continue to misconstrue statements like that and turn them into something against YOU. - Jeeny 07:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? What was the point of "(BTW I have more experience than you in mediation, conflict resolution, and arbitration, and with many awards to show for it, in REAL LIFE)." then? Chopped liver? ⇒SWATJester 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact. I've lived longer than you have. I have 8 years of experience in THAT one job. Just the facts. Not better than you. As you can accumulate the same time in 8 years. See that's fair. - Jeeny 07:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been advised several times to cease conversing with SWATjester. I really suggest you take that advice. FCYTravis (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What!? I have asked HIM to stop with me. Where was I "advised several times to cease conversing with "? Oh, forget it, you don't need to answer that. I'm done for the night. - Jeeny 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Then oppose him when voting starts. I don't think this discussion is going to be very productive — everyone just needs to walk away and cool down. --Haemo (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right Haemo, thanks. I'm done. You show a reasonableness, and I can deal with that. :) - Jeeny 07:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, that's only really 4 valid blocks. --Haemo (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and Phil's shouldn't count. - Jeeny 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, you really need to cool down. I hate to say it, but the concerns Swatjester raises appear to be valid. While I'm not sure whether or not he was entirely cool dealing with you, just remember that when you get frustrated with a user, you shouldn't resort to calling him or her a troll. It's best to take a break for a little while, or go edit something else. Maser 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See, he was the one who called me a troll. - Jeeny 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The diffs Swatjester has provided are compelling. There is never an excuse for "a few bad words" directed at other Misplaced Pages editors. I've had death threats before on Misplaced Pages and haven't replied insultingly. What would be the point? --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The "diffs" Swatjester is using are against a KNOWN troll, which even he called him himself. This is crazy. - Jeeny 07:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Personal attacks are never acceptable against anyone, even a troll. ⇒SWATJester 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

O'rly?. I can find many more where this is accepted from admins, MANY more. Don't you see that you're helping to make Misplaced Pages a joke more than it is? Do you not know any people in academia? They laugh at this place. I'm trying to help that not be so. Also for the essay; "There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Misplaced Pages structures and processes are not trolls". Again, I take offense being called a troll, and should not be acceptable for admins, ArbCom wannabees, or in any others in "trusted" positions to use that word without good cause, if at all. Stop the insanity! - Jeeny 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you just use the word "troll" in your edit summary? Seraphim 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because that was what I was called. - Jeeny 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Jeeny, your continuing this discussion is becoming disruptive. You need to calm down or write articles instead. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to make a comment along those lines a few hours ago but I forgot to save (too many tabs). Jeeny, you are wasting our time and disrupting the encyclopedia. Please stop before you get blocked. John Reaves 11:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm disrupting because I see an inconsistency? Didn't you say once that if an admin abuses his or her power than to speak up? Do you not understand the implications this has? Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but it is not anarchy either. I'm truly trying to understand the dynamics here. I'm not disrupting for the sake of it, but to understand. Threatening me with a block is counterproductive. Honest to goodness I do not get it. I'm a degreed academic, and do not understand this place. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? - Jeeny 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are a degreed academinc haven't you ever taken a course on harrassment and appropriate behaviour or do you resolve your off-line problems by calling your colleagues and peers trolls and morons? Spartaz 11:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing such as a course in harassment, maybe a seminar, or for law enforcement. Also, it's spelled "harassment", one "R". I don't work here, I'm trying to help, but this harassment by young persons who have very little life experience, and little education is frustrating, and disruptive. Don't you see that? Plus they are in a position of power? Just because you did not call me a "name" does not mean you were not intending to insult me by your comment.- Jeeny 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes it is. Now go work on it. John Reaves 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing. - Jeeny 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No you're not, now you're harassing John Reaves on his talk page. Moreschi 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. I have blocked Jeeny for 48 hours, not only because of his disruption and trolling but because he has a long history of it and is showing every sign of not learning. I think everyone concerned needs a couple of days of peace from this. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• He's been blocked for a couple of weeks, and presumably left the project as well. It appears my predictions were entirely accurate about the outcome of this situation. --Haemo (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For all our claims of supporting the actual editors of this encyclopedia we're supposed to be all out to write, we very rarely actually do it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop extending the block and then protecting the page. This backwards approach is needlessly punitive. El_C 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jeeny does not handle blocks well. Either protect her talk page when you block her, or ignore her, but don't leave it unprotected and then protect it later. Picaroon (t) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, instead of provoking Jeeny with a warning about personal attacks, I think next time you should block the banned neonazi who is provoking her. Her blowup, her disrupting your candidate page, was caused by your "personal attacks" warning in which you threatened to block her for calling a self-proclaimed troll a -wait for it- troll. I'm astonished that we have blocked a good-faith contributor for two weeks when we could have simply blocked the IP who was harassing her. Hayden5650 has been stalking her for months, and warning her for personally attacking him while not doing anything about the IP was not helpful at all. This block was entirely preventable. Picaroon (t) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That does not give her the right to redirect her frustration towards anyone. We can blame and block Hayden5650 all we want (which we have done and will do), but being trolled does not give you a free pass to suspend civility at your pleasure. —Kurykh 02:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue of cause and effect. It's like this: a banned user trolls her. She insults him. An admin she has previously been in conflict with warns her about personal attacks, while not doing anything about the banned user. She gets angry and begins attacking him. She wouldn't have been incivil towards anyone if Swatjester hadn't left her a pointless warning. Things kept escalating because Jeeny thought (and rightly so, I note) that the troll was being ignored and she was being targeted. None of this would have happened had she not been given a pointless warning. It was her fault that she didn't stop herself from escalating the situation, but the situation itself is not her fault at all, which is why I still see this as a completely preventable block. Now, she's angry, and we can't unblock her till she calms down. Picaroon (t) 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Then Swatjester should have blocked the troll, but that still does not give license to Jeeny for being uncivil. —Kurykh 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, we heard it the first time. That's why she has been blocked for two weeks (and has probably quit the project altogether); the issue is why Swatjester, rather than addressing the problem initially, escalated her frustration, called a prolific editor to the ENCYCLOPEDIA (remember what we're all here to do?) a troll, has damaged the project as a result, and NO ONE IN THIS THREAD could give two shits. As I said above, it's sad how little we actually defend the editors of the encyclopedia. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a similar observation here just recently. This was appallingly badly handled however one looks at it. Alun (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon: My warning was not for her calling a troll a troll. My warning was for her calling an anonymous IP a moron. That's unacceptable no matter whether it's a troll or not. Do not feed the trolls. Jeeny is a clear problem user, NOT a "prolific editor". Prolific GOOD editors manage to edit without continuously stirring up trouble, they manage to edit without repeatedly receiving blocks, both valid and invalid. You can dress it up and hide it however you want, but Jeeny has an EXTREME problem with civility and personal attacks, that is unacceptable no matter what her contributions are. As for you Bbatsell: nobody gives "two shits" here because Jeeny is not an innocent victim. What do you expect me to do here? I block her, you guys whine and complain "ohs noes, u r hurting good contributar!!!!". I give her warnings INSTEAD of blocking and it's "ohs noes, u r provoking her into torolllinggz!!!one1". Obviously the only remaining solution is to let her just personally attack anyone and everyone she feels like. Instead of repeatedly touting about how she's helping the encyclopedia, lets step back and take a look at the following diffs which clearly show that she has other things in mind rather than being a worthwhile contributor: scumbucket. moron edit + edit sum. moron edit, refers to edits as bullshit. feeding the trolls. more feeding the trolls. Obviously this is EXACTLY the kind of behavior we want to support. ⇒SWATJester 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester has been placed in an untenable situation here. Every move he made has been second guessed, while he was doing the best he could. This is one of the reasons I would not want to be an admin.

I have discussed the situation with Swatjester and he has agreed to unblock Jeeny if she agrees to mentorship. If the community feels this is a good idea, I am prepared to do this. Jeeny and I get on well, and she listens to me. I want to thank Swatjester for being so open minded in our discussions. I would be hard pressed to react in such a way if I had been in the same position. Jeffpw (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to help out as well; I've encountered Jeeny before and our interaction was generally genial. (oh the pun) --Haemo (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Haemo. Swatjestor mentioned to me in our discussion that mentoring was usually done by admins, due to the occasional need to enforce actions, but was willing to give it a go with me. It would be beneficial to have an admin on board for the process, though, and I am glad you are willing. Jeffpw (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

. That says it all, really. I don't care what "bad word" you were warning her for using, Swatjester, nor whether she was "feeding" him; to use a comparison applicable for multiple reasons, your approach is like criticizing Poland for defending itself the wrong way during the blitzkrieg. We need to be protecting our good faith users from harassment, not warning them for responding with insults; if Jeeny removed the trolling immediately, he would have just left her a new message. When admins willing to block ban-evading neonazis aren't online, there isn't really much for non-admins to do but wait, and criticizing Jeeny for insulting him while she waits is ignoring the issue. Again, says it all. Let's stop defending people like that from the oh-so-terrible insults of "troll" and "moron", and start blocking the banned neonazis. Simple, really. Picaroon (t) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good precedent. Only neo-nazis get blocked whilst established editors get carte-blanche to break the uncivility rules. Thanks for the heads up. Hmm, thinks, who can I insult first... so little time, so many to insult! --WebHamster 00:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know you don't care for our policies Picaroon, I'll keep it in mind. While we're on the subject of "protecting our good faith users from harassment" how about protecting our contributors from a user who self-admittedly refuses to assume good faith, has no concept of what being civil and not attacking people is, and thinks that "fuck you" is a perfectly acceptable response on Misplaced Pages?⇒SWATJester 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Glad to know you don't care for our policies"?(!) You know, a bit of grace won't kill you. El_C 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a sockpuppet (presumably) of that banned user is trolling Jeeny's page again in an effort to provoke her into another outburst. Could somebody please do something about User:Phral Phrallington? His hurtful comments will only make this situation worse. Thanks. Jeffpw (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

While we must do our best to keep good contributors, let me offer a reminder that we are not Editors' Ego Protection and Emotional Support Services, Inc. —Kurykh 06:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, Kurykh. Was that last comment in reply to me? If so, I find it an odd response to a post that a~banned user is trolling talk pages. Could you clarify that, please? Jeffpw (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was, and am, concernced about a statement Jeeny made. Is it trolling to ask her to confirm or deny what was said? --Phral Phrallington (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your interest in it? You're asking some pretty private questions of another individual; why would you want to know this? Because asking intensely personal questions without a good reason is harassment. --Haemo (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you think if a user created a new account especially for the task? Especially one who is clearly aware of the inner workings on wikipedia, as shown by your presence on this page. What is wrong with your normal editing persona, IP or not? David D. (Talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Template edit

A user has asked me to make some edits to Template:Infobox_Company as I pressed the protect button. But that template is really complicated and used on a lot of articles, and I am pretty confident I would bugger up a few thousand articles inadvertently (not being particularly good with all that complicated wikicode stuff) despite the best of intentions. Could an admin who is wise and able with template syntax take a look? The thread is User_talk:Neil#Request_for_Additions_to_Template:Infobox_Company. Ta. Neil ☎ 10:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. — Edokter • Talk • 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Edokter. Neil ☎ 10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Anonimu

Anonimu, currently the subject of an ongoing ArbCom case, is showing no signs of slowing down his tendency to violate WP:NPA at the drop of a hat. Three times (, , ), he referred to Romanian author Grigore Caraza as a "fascist". In and of itself, this is unacceptable: Caraza is still alive (see WP:BLP), and he spent over two decades imprisoned in horrific conditions for his anti-Communist resistance activities. However, he has compounded his attacks by referring to me as a "guy who considers fascists heroes". That is a gross insult. I have never seen evidence that Caraza is or was a fascist, and I consider him a hero purely for his resistance activities and the time he spent in prison. I hope such incivility will not be tolerated. Biruitorul (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these comments of Anonimu's are not acceptable. However, considering that there already is an arbitration case open in regards to him, it would probably be best to add these latest statements to the evidence page of that case. TSO1D (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The sad thing is that people would lawyer for his unblock if he were blocked for this, even though it's a continuing problem. No wonder Misplaced Pages's going down the crapper. Will 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I'm not overly concerned by the fact that there's an Arbcom case going on. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated, and there's no need for such disruption. I've blocked Anonimu indefinitely. Such behaviour is ridiculous --Maxim_(talk) 02:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I welcome discussion of this block, but I'd prefer that there be no unilateral overturning, as that will just create more drama (of which we have plenty, and of which we don't need more). Maxim_(talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the best solution would be to let the arbitration case take its course. In my view, Anonimu's case is not so straightforward that a permban is self-evident, and the arbitration case would have permitted a much more extensive analysis of the entire situation (as Anonimu was by no means the only user whose behavior in those disputes can be questioned). TSO1D (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be consensus on the AC workshop between myself and four of the participants (I proposed it directly as a consequence of this). Still, given there's an AC case, it'd be best for AC to deal with it. Will 09:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, given the Arbcomm case, shouldn't the block and reasons for it be introduced into evidence? And given the ArbComm case, they can handle review; I don't want to look at it. GRBerry 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The block was correct, but I have no doubt someone will unblock him without any attempt at discussing it. Being on arbitration does not give one free rein to spread incivility and personal attacks in the meantime. If Anonimu cannot conduct himself civilly, then blocking him (indefinitely does not mean permanent) while the ArbCom case comes to its conclusion is entirely appropriate. The block and the above diffs need to be added to the ArbCom case by, I suggest, the blocking administrator. Neil ☎ 10:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The block was correct, we should not tolerate this behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering he has begun to use sockpuppets (Anonimul‎, Anonimu din Constanta‎, and A CT Romania‎) to continue his disruptive editing I see no need to unblock. IrishGuy 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt those are Anonimu's. Don't forget that there is a famous puppetmaestro who has had strong issues with Anonimu, and this could be his way of trying to discredit him further. The nature of the edits is much more in line with the behavior of the latter IMHO. TSO1D (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I bet you a fiver those socks was another cheap Bonaparte impersonation stunt, not Anonimu. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I'm not the only one. But I guess it is pretty obvious. TSO1D (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. why does Biruitorul exclaim that Caraza does happen to be a hero. Moreover, you have yet to adduce any evidence that he was a "fascist" when he wrote his book (so he was a fascist at some point then? Is that what he's saying). Earlier he writes in an edit summary that Caraza is a HERO in the fight against Communism! Do we really need to be exposed to that; I mean, I gather Maxim might have no problem and perhaps may even approve of these exclamations, but I, at least, would prefer evenhandedness on his part.
2. Why do everyone except those who dealt with Bonaparte assume these sockpupets are genuine? Maybe thet are; maybe not? Did anyone bother to request a checkuser to see if the ips match the sets used by Bonaparte? El_C 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I gather Maxim's notions of "drama" does not include anti-communist exclamations, but I'm still waiting for him to do the responsible thing and enter the block into evidence. Though somehow, I suspect that he will only note Anonimu's exclamations — as for those exclamations by Anonimu's opponent/s, I'd like to assume the best, but I suspect Maxim will say nothing about that. El_C 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I find this a rather slanted presentation of what happened. 1: Anonimu was already well into a slow-moving revert war where his only argument for adding unjustified tags (a favourite tactic of his) was that Caraza is a "fascist". 2. I have never seen evidence that Caraza is a fascist - in 1949, at age twenty, he founded an anti-Communist guerrilla movement, and was arrested a year later, spending over two decades in prison. However, even if he was a fascist in 1949 (which I'm sure he was not), his book was written in 2004, when he definitely was not one. 3. There is nothing especially untoward in either of my edit summaries. By contrast, Anonimu's first three were attacks on Caraza and the fourth was done against me. The attempt to draw a parallel between the two situations is misguided. Biruitorul (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he was a fascist in 1949, that would be absolutely decisive for me. I added a record of events into the evidence page, but this really should have been Maxim to step up and inform the arbitrators. And, take the evenhanded step of doing something rational about the socks. Also, this should have probably been brought directly to the arbitrators attention on a motion, since a case is already ongoing, as it does somewhat comes across as forum shopping; you think that one disciplinary venue is enough. El_C 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So 55 years isn't enough to rehabilitate a fascist? What about the capacity for political evolution? What was the US government (the very same that helped defeat Nazism) thinking when it hired tons of ex-Nazis to work for it right after the war? But the point remains: no evidence has been adduced to prove that Caraza is, was or ever has been a fascist. Biruitorul (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject in this discussion -- the revert war mentioned above was started by Anonimu's insistence that the total number of people who died in custody in Communist Romania was in the hundreds, and not several orders of magnitude higher, as reliable sources indicate (as I made it clear in the article, by bringing references such as the books by Tony Judt, Anne Applebaum, and Adrian Cioroianu, which back up to a large extent the estimate given by Grigore Caraza). For the record, I gave more indications about what happened here, in case anyone is interested. Turgidson (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

GVnayR

I'm not quite what to call my concerns about User:GVnayR. He has created a glut of articles that are border line notability and possibly hoaxes or partial hoaxes (many seem to have just enough real info to get them past a quick check, but the content itself is sending off warning bells). Every article he has created or heavily edits are full of NPOV, original research, or just stuff he seems to have made up. Almost everything he works on is of little notability and pass under the radar because of the small focus and readership. A sampling of articles he's created with questionable content:

• the history section of Pine Grove, Norfolk County, Ontario and the picture (I strongly believe he created this article under an IP, then continued being the only real editor to it for the last year or so).
• Norfolk County municipal election, 2010
• Daibakushou Jinsei Gekijou - Ooedo Nikki
• Calebopolis
• Yonezawa PR21
• Tao (video game)
• Booth's Harbor, Ontario (survived AfD with no consensus; some sources said it was just a trailer park, others said a small village)
• Addition Elle - (it actually is a real store, but I suspect they'd find that article insulting)
• Woodview Manor (CSDed, but if possible, view deleted article to see the types of things he's creating)
• Simcoe, Ontario another one where the history, and other section appears to be unverified, uncited, and probably stuff he's made up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This type of content seems very circumspect to me, and in looking at his talk page, you can see he has dozens of articles deleted, often for being joke articles. He's also been banned indefinitely before for creating hoax articles, but it was lifted as a "mistake". I suspect, however, it was not. Also, despite multiple warnings, GVnayR marks is marking all of his edits as minor, even when completely changing an article's content.

I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done, but I do think this editor needs to be brought to someone's attention and dealt with somehow. Collectonian (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I concur, both that something should be done, and that I have no idea what it might be. I put him/her/it on my watch list, without specifying why. I think I found him because he put a link to one of the clearly speedyable articles in one of the articles I normally monitor. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could figure out too...just looked in the Category:Norfolk County, Ontario and he's been a busy boy. Already have AfDed some articles that seem to be pure hoaxes or that don't seem notable, CSDed a few more. For township articles (including some mentioned above), I've stripped out all of the stuff that was circumspect, marked as stubs, and put in the Ontario project. In a way, I do have to almost admire his ability to write so many articles that are like 99% bull and 1% truth, but it certainly doesn't look well for Misplaced Pages for anyone who may actually know anything about the stuff that is real. Still, unless something is done, I suspect such efforts will be in vain as he'll just keep making new ones or messing up other ones. Collectonian (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier on I noticed this troubling edit. I didn't really know what to do, so I asked the reverting editor if they'd reported it. They haven't replied so I thought I better post here so everyone else could decide whether anything needs to be done. Seraphim 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably nonsense, but according to Jimbo, to be taken seriously. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

According to a search I did, they are in Richardson, Texas, which I think is weird for the mention of Chicago in their edit. — Save_Us_229 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Jimbo has made it crystal clear that even if it's not a credible threat, it may still be a crime and thus unacceptable within WP or elsewhere. It should be followed up but I am neither an admin nor in the USA. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Call batman. 1 != 2 00:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I ain't Batman, Spiderman, Superman or Wonder Woman (thank god) but I can contact authorites near where the IP originated from. — Save_Us_229 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, they know about it now, and will hopefully look into it, rest easy. — Save_Us_229 00:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am quite certain that Jimbo never meant to suggest that this sort of "threat" should be reported to anyone. Even as I certainly can't raise any objection to anyone's reporting the threat—each of us is, after all, a volunteer who is entitled to do whatever he should like with his own time (I, for instance, for various reasons, ignore any threats of violence or suicide that I encounter here and would certainly never seek to involve myself in any IRL activities relative to those threats)—but I cannot imagine that such reporting should be remotely useful. Joe (Wake me from my food coma) 05:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you see a maniac screaming that he intends to use a bomb to kill himself and kill others, would the police not arrest him and take him in for questioning? This should be treated no different. I think situations like this, and for this fellow, is a wake-up call that editing Misplaced Pages with this kind of mentality has real-life consequences. — Save_Us_229 06:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe, you should have seen Jimbo's comments here last week in relation to a similar incident. He made it quite clear that it is not up to editors or admins to judge the merits of this type of thing- it is the proper function of LEA to do that. Reporting is useful for three reasons (a) it might save life (b) it might prevent or detect crime and (c) (probably least important) it prevents WP being criticised for inaction. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To update on the above archived thread

Just to update the above thread that was archived a little while back: I was just updated by the authorities on the situation and it turns out the editor was using a network hub making the suspicious edit seem like it was coming from Richardson, Texas when he was really coming from Chicago, Illinois. The resident of Chicago was contacted by the FBI, the issue was addressed and cleared. Regards, — Save_Us_229 06:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm glad I reported it. Thanks for the update.

Seraphim 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user returns

69.132.198.186, who was blocked until February for, among other things, usurpation of my old account has returned to the Julianna Rose Mauriello article to make the same unsubstantiated claims. Can an admin handle this? His new IP is 69.132.161.21. Thanks--Sethacus (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:69.132.161.21 has been blocked for 3 months for abusing multiple accounts by administrator User:Ryulong. — Save_Us_229 06:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. The account doesn't appear to have edited since July, why is this appearing now? And the block was in July for six months, not recently for three. Am I misreading something? Corvus cornix_talk 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. We're now talking about User:69.132.161.21. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, same prefix, obviously same user which is why I hadn't gone for checkuser. Anyway, much obliged for the quick responses.--Sethacus (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine - resolution

I am concerned that I cannot determine if there is consensus for my suggestion above (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dweller.27s_proposal) and don't think that this is something to be bold about. Please indicate below if you support or object to my resolution and/or my mentoring of Porcupine. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's proposal

• I think it's a good idea. -- lucasbfr 10:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Porcupine should do the 4 steps you mention, but I do not support an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• I could support this iff it includes a proviso that Porcupine/Rambutan/Circuit Judge's original 1-month block will be reinstated and restarted from zero at the first sign of any breach of WP:CIV or WP:NPA, and Porcupine agrees to accept any admin's call on that without question or further discussion. Honestly, he was unblocked for less than a day before drawing his current block; how many second chances do we give him? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Dweller, if you're willing to act as mentor, then fine, but based on his previous account and this one, I really don't hold out much hope for Porcupine - he must be on his fifth or sixth "last chance" by now. Neil ☎ 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• As I said above, I'm willing to accept an unblock with mentoring, despite total disbelief that it will work. I'd prefer that the current block run longer than the last one, i.e. more than a week. By the time there is a clear consensus, we'll probably be beyond that :). I would not object to adding TenOfAllTrades' provision also. GRBerry 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• I fully agree with this proposal. TSO1D (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dweller as mentor

• Since you both are ok with it, I think it's also a good idea. -- lucasbfr 10:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• support this once his one month block is over. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Try it, at worst the behavior repeats and we will have a clear consensus when time to lower the banhammer comes. GRBerry 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, and reduce the block to three weeks, so Porcupine has the chance to (hopefully) calmly investigate edit wars, AN/I resolutions, AfD discussions and all the other places where dispute is (again, hopefully), resolved without sarcasm, incivility and basic nasty snappiness, then edit productively. As I said in an email to Porcupine: "WP:AGF is a very important thing, IMV, until it's blindingly obvious that GF can no longer be A" - I'm content to give Porcupine a chance to prove that his GF can be A. If he screws up this one last time, that's the lot. And hopefully other editors involved here will contribute to mentoring as well as Dweller. 86.129.70.18 (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Sigh. Now logged in. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

Having reviewed the above, there seems reasonable consensus for the proposal and certain consensus for the latter. Given the consensus for my mentoring, I am more prepared to boldly go where perhaps I shouldn't. I will unblock Porcupine and watch his actions. A repeat of bad behaviour will, as I have previously stated, see me back here requesting a community ban. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is giving me a hard time

User:Jalen - On Slovenia (); after hours of work to improve the article, this user keeps reverting my edits to random previous edits all the time. Giftoffer (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to resolve the dispute is underway on the Giftoffer's talkpage. Please note that he has been removing content and images from the Slovenia article for no justifiable reason. Regards, --Jalen (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is a troll. He's not even trying to resolve this issue at all, since he is the one causing it despite the warnings. But yeah, go see my talk page. Giftoffer (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of agreement - Icsunonove

Several weeks ago, Future Perfect at Sunrise mediated between myself and Icsunonove for a permanent topic ban on editing with regards to the South Tyrol page/talk page. In a very short time, it now seems that Icsunonove is showing his true colors by ignoring/violating the ban with no regard to what was reached. He seems to be hoping the few short weeks have subsided and he can go back to status quo. With this, it seems there is no honor to such an agreement? Or is it that Icsunonove does not think that he was mentioned for a permanent topic ban and can just go about his business without regard? Rarelibra (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Showing my true colors?" There was never any topic ban, and I really don't know where you get this. Can you show me where this ban was made? If not I think you should take back those offensive comments you can't seem to keep to yourself. I personally think any sort of permanent topic ban is ridiculous, unless a user is truly malicious. On this topic, if there were to be any such bans, one would have at least a dozen Editors to censure. Icsunonove (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Rarelibra has been banned from editing this topic because of the edit-war between him and User:Icsunonove, it indeed raises questions. Either User:Icsunonove honours the agreement, or User:Rarelibra is free again to edit as he pleases. Gryffindor 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to prior discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive320#User:Rarelibra

(copied from my talk page): Sorry guys, but as far as I can see, my proposed ban on both parties didn't at the time gain the consensus support it needed, and there certainly wasn't an "agreement" he subscribed to that he could be expected to "honour" now. I guess that's mostly due to Rarelibra's freaking out as he did, and his offence overshadowing those of Icsunonove in the perception of other admins. So, upshot is, Rarelibra's ban was a no-brainer, Icsunonove's not (unfortunately, I'd still say.) Right now, I see him editing more or less constructively, so there's nothing much to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically I am honoring the agreement and Icsunonove isn't - because he can go around and throw all kinds of insult around (as was proven) and provocation, yet continue to do as he pleases - just so I am totally clear and understanding this. It would be more suitable to ensure that he does not edit on that topic again - especially when there were more users who noticed how callous and insulting he was - whether or not my own actions overshadowed. I owned up to my actions, he NEVER has. But that's fine - I'll walk the high road. I only ask that the moment he starts to insult and slander someone off-topic that he is quickly and thoroughly stopped. Rarelibra (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, and I really thought your apologies were sincere from a few weeks ago. Take the high road? Like you are doing on here? I really thought you were going to go and do your own thing, and I had plenty sympathy if you have issues at home/work. You say I'm callous and insulting, and yet you guys are not? If you indeed want to take the high road, why did you find it necessary at the time to make those insults of "Italo-Fascist" when I was not even active on Misplaced Pages? Thought you might get away with it? You completely instigated this, you used profanity, you made legal threats on Misplaced Pages, you sent that sick e-mail. I defended myself, and I've apologized more times on here than your lot combined. So, that last sentence you wrote, I think it would be very wise if that applied to you. I just find it incredibly thick-skinned that you can do what you've done on here, offer up an apology, and then continue to try and point the finger at someone else. Find some way to relax... Icsunonove (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the thread Future Perfect linked to, I see no agreement and no community decision. I do think an RfC on Icsunonove might be a good idea; but it would be better if Rarelibra is not one of the certifying editors. Future Perfect, do you think that you and Septentrionalis/PMAnderson are both in a position to certify an RfC? GRBerry 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure (although I haven't got the time and energy to bring it forward myself). And, as I said, right now I can't see much need for immediate action. With his main opponent removed, Icsunonove seems to be currently editing a lot more constructively. Whether that is because he now has free reign for his POV-pushing, I can't say right now.

I'm also not sure whether RfC would really be of much help. We really don't need more talking about who did what and who thinks what of whom. If and when this needs action again, the only thing that will need talking about, in my opinion, is who will be banned, from what, and for how long. Be that at admin/community level or at Arbcom. No more "intermediate steps" in dispute resolution, it's been going on for long enough that this should go straight to sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I really can't figure out what you have against me. "free reign for his POV-pushing"? You told me you are not involved in this topic, nor taking any side, but it seems you have some issue with me personally? Rarelibra is not some main opponent, and I don't even know why this stuff has to be stated in such a way... Icsunonove (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Before I get attacked on here yet again, lets do a little review here. I was on break from Misplaced Pages for quite awhile. I came back to see that Rarelibra and PhJ were slandering me to a new user, calling me an "Italo-Fascist". That's called instigation. I defended myself by pointing out that these guys have their own "history" on here, and are by no means neutral. This was returned to me through profanity and multiple threats of taking legal action. Rarelibra told the Admins he did not mean real legal action, but then sent me an e-mail through Misplaced Pages stating real legal action. I don't believe this was ever fully addressed. Then Rarelibra made an apology to both me and Septentrionalis/PMAnderson, stating that he had issues at home/work, and I left it at that. I'm easy to forgive and forget. Somehow he assumed that there was a topic ban, and I guess he was actually satisfied that he had taken one for the team to get at least me off of the discussions? Maybe that is why his apology was so forthcoming? I see no place that I've ever agreed not to work on the subject I care about; does he want to stop making maps?? Lastly, if there was ever to be a topic ban on this subject it could not be simply two editors. There have been many involved, including the Admin Gryffindor who arguably started a lot of these nasty debates back in 2005, and has been reprimanded many times by other Admins on his dubious actions. If you really want to start asking for RfCs I would suggest starting with Gryffindor on this topic and Rarelibra on the continued threats of legal action over e-mail (I still have the messages). They seem to have a need to go around Misplaced Pages stirring things up on multiple topics. I've worked a lot on these pages to come up with neutral solutions that have finally started getting the arguing to calm down and have pages that incorporate the multi-ethnic backgrounds of these places. What have these others done? All I get now is being made out as the bad guy by the German crowd? All along I've supported preserving both the Italian/German/Ladin language nature of these regions. Lastly, I do not understand why I keep getting accused of harassing Septentrionalis. I have no problem with Sep, it has been Rarelibra that has gone after him. Also, I don't know why out of the blue Future Perfect at Sunrise has laid his target on me. I have no problem with this Admin, except I do take issue with being singled out like this. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is, I don't instigate or get in any trouble making maps. Nor do I offer up insults, personal attacks, or other such negative behavior. Just know that any such behavior will be swiftly reported in the future - and I'll be the 'nice guy' (I guess) in avoiding the topic... no matter how POV. Rarelibra (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that all sounds very nice, but you and PhJ were still the ones who found it necessary to go around calling me an "Italo-Fascist" when I wasn't even participating in the discussion. I guess you can sweep that fact under the rug, even though it is -- you know -- documented in the logs. Or did I misunderstand you, and you are actually saying that you don't instigate or make trouble when you make maps? Ok, I'll give you that one... :))) You can accuse me of being "POV" all you want, I've always attempted to be all inclusive and not biased to either point of view. That is nice that you'll be monitoring me; though I still think you should spend more time dealing with your own behavior and addressing those legal threats with the Admins. Anyway, lets see if this time you all can leave me the heck alone... Icsunonove (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You fail to address your own actions. You come in acting like you are innocent. Your words of "I've always attempted to be all inclusive and not biased" smack of irony. You need to focus on your own actions. Just know that we'll make sure you stay respectful and professional - because it is easily proven across many talk pages of your own instigations and unprofessional slanders and personal attacks. Rarelibra (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Executive summary

There was no topic ban.

Icsunonove has violated no agreement.

End of story.

—Ian Spackman (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone dispute Ian's executive summary? If not, I will simply close this thread with the comment that dispute resolution is right here.--Isotope23 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ClueBot

ClueBot has malfunctioned and vandalized Super Mario Bros. 3 Please Help! Ice ball player at timezone (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, I don't see any sign ClueBot has malfunctioned at all. It appropriately reverted an act of vandalism. Collectonian (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ClueBot

ClueBot has malfunctioned and vandalized 205 (the car) please can a admin turn him off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobes66 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof, please. Without proof we can't stop the bot. -Jéské 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Danman666 (talk · contribs) blanked the article. ClueBot reverted him. There would appear to be nothing to see here. --Onorem♠Dil 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Aight, then, resolved. -Jéské 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Korean cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just came from this article because of an RFC request. The article has been subject to an ongoing feud between Korean and Japanese editors. This war relates to the cultural issues between those two peoples and is, to put it mildly, acrimonious. the main point of contention is over Dog meat, and I am not going to list the full details but it is not pretty.

The feud has been going on for three months now with no end in sight. The fued has resulted in several warnings to and blockages of editors on both sides over incivility, rudeness and derogatory comments. There also seems to be some serious ownership issues.

Several of us over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink have tried to mediate the issue as we have no real connection to the article other stated desire to see a well written, NPOV article on international cuisine. This hasn't worked out. What I am requesting to be done involves several different things that only admins can do.

There really needs to be a cooling of period, and this is what I think needs to be done:

1. the divisive section needs to be excised;
2. The article needs to be put on full protection for awhile, 2-4 weeks;
3. the editors involved in the pissing contest need to be warned, or even blocked to allow them to cool off;

I think this may need bouncing up to the arb committee, but I am going to let the admins decide on this.

editors that appear to be involved in the edit war:

• Appletrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not blaming any of these people for the war, it just seems that it has gotten way out of hand over there. These people genuinely want to get the best article, but are allowing their passions get the better of them.

-Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

OMG, Jerem43, you have no right to do this. I haven't reverted any single edit on the article. FYI, I was trying to meditate between some editors at their disputes but simply I failed. Besides, Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC and Bsharvy is missing on the list and you think threatening block is suitable method?--Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris and Bsharvy have been the ones trying to mediate the issue and you, as one of the editors involved, have not been helping. I looked through three months worth of the war before posting this request. I did this because someone who was disinterested had to make this call. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

As far as I've known, you're the most unhelpful editor for the article. You originally came to 'fix'(as you think) the order of the cuisine template and then you failed to persuade editors to relocate it to the way you want. As the consequence of that discussion, you post this? I don't think you behave properly. Of course we need a meditation from admins, but You're acting like a teacher to lecture editors. In addition, I don't also think Bsharvy has been meditating or helping for the article. He is the one consistently reverting edits between others and brought wrong statics and infos--Appletrees (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

...all of whom look to be the same people who got South Korea protected and in response went on a witch hunt on the talk page. A lot of these ultranationalist editors have already been involved in one arb case, and we're headed straight for another. east.718 at 10:06, November 27, 2007

east718, I acknowledge you're one of admins but don't think your scornful comments on the South Korea talk page and the above are good to listen to. Two days ago, I considered to ask you to meditate the dispute because you were there to make a protection on the article. But after seeing your cynical comments, I gave up the thought. You could've also meditated the dispute as an admin but simply label ultranationalists and making article under a protection for fun? That is very offensive. I want you to withdraw the comments. The disputes were initiated by a vandal and another editor as you call "witch" to have wikistalked so long made things worse. --Appletrees (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're not one of the warring editors, I apologize for painting you with my thick brush. Once you realize just how much of a problem nationalism is on Misplaced Pages, you start to lost patience fast. Granted, the editors involved in the East Asian conflicts have been better behaved than most, but the situation is deteriorating and barrelling towards a huge Balkans/Armenian-Azeri/Troubles style flashpoint. east.718 at 10:57, November 27, 2007

• Comment. I was involved in this a while back on a purely editorial / local interest / attempted mediation level, but just got sick of the carry-on. Somebody say pissing contest? Pretty much. Protection, arbcom... do it, because to pursue a long edit war on such a controversial topic - as divisive as various ethnic, political and religious debates which get locked down quick on WP - shows disregard for how visible WP is, and how we must visibly co-operate to present great articles. I am singularly unsurprised to see Melonbarmonster still involved. From a recent comment on the article talk - Talk:Korean cuisine#Melonbarmonster (troll) - his popularity does not appear to have risen since I was keeping a closer eye on things. I am surprised that he hasn't added to his rap sheet for a while. Deiz talk 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think blanking the section, even temporarily, is a solution. The main problem with editing process there is the lack of any effort to work toward consensus. The editors tend to insist on black and white solutions, e.g. deleting the whole section, deleting whole paragraphs (on the grounds that there are some references they don't like). There has been little discussion of the form: My concerns are... etc. Very little effort to find out why the author put that seemingly objectionable material in the article, and work toward a more consensual way for the article to reflect that concern. In short, little communication. The only real edit-warring I've seen has come from melonbarmonster, who has consistently shown a lack of interest in any sort of open-minded conversation. (P.S. I'm not sure how much nationalism is involved. I'm neither Korean nor Japanese....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I wish folks could see that this is edit war is part of something bigger. This incident is simply one small battle in a war between editors who strongly identify with extreme and vulgar ideas of what it means to be Japanese or Korean. In other words, this IS part of a long-term war in which some of the editors identified above are continuous disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. They are nationalists and they have refused to follow Misplaced Pages policies. This editor has been blocked 9 times. At the very minimum this editor should not be allowed to edit any articles about East Asia and this one and this one should be blocked indefinitely as highly disruptive editors. Some of the folks (but not Badagnani, a good editor) listed above have frightened away good editors and have created an ultranationalistic and racist atmosphere. Please do something. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I dually agree. In viewing the Korean Cuisine article and similar articles, many that wish to see "offending" texts deleted are Korean nationalists. Then the Japanese nationalists step in and have it restored. Then other editors, like myself, see no reason for it to be deleted, and then an ensuing edit pattern continues. It's been ongoing for quite a long time, because no rationale is given for the text deletion most of the time, and a talk page discussion usually dead-ends. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia, I respect your concern but you got the wrong point. Japanese editors were not involved in the series of the incidents at this time (but as Banagnai said once, a Japanophile editor is involved). I think your accusation against Good friend100 is fatally wrong. He has to get by the painful lessons from the past disputes, but he was not involved in the edit warring. I assume you're a newbie and the dispute looks tediously long, so that you seem not to look through the every detail on this. I also don't think Melonbanstar should be infinitely banned for the dispute as you wish. In my opinion, Melon and Banagnai have equally responsible for the endless edit warrings. But on top of that, I think the reporter exaggerates the problem too much. He stopped by to make a cuisine template placed right top of a picture depicting Korean foods. But he failed and then made this report. How transparent. --Appletrees (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, Good Friend100 does not appear to have breached the conditions imposed on his editing. I have been watching his edits and I have had no cause for concern. Spartaz 16:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I had planned on placing this article up for arbitration as the RFC was getting no notice, so I believe that this was Jerem43's intention after going to the discussion page, not just because of the edit he made was argued. I was also not mentioned in his list for the edit war, as from what anyone can clearly see, I am not involved with it, I came in the help stop it. I'll address a number of the major issues here. This article has clearly been in an edit war, anyone who can read can see the constant back and forth of reverts and then the insults aimed at the persons doing the reverts, or can see the response of others who take the edits as a "personal insult." The edit war only ended after I placed a note on many of the users discussion pages to calm down in case someone would report them for incivility or revert warring and then I added the RFC to the article.

These issues I have long attempted to address in Misplaced Pages articles, people should stop acting like articles belong to them, just because you are form a country does not make that countries article yours. This brings the comments to what some attempt to call "consensus" on the article, but I think some people need to look the word up in a dictionary. A raising of hands is not a consensus, a discussion to a final resolution with well fashioned arguments, not "I'm right, you're not" while using numbered statistics that have a possible manipulation to them. Internet sources are a poor source for editing a controversial topic, especially from the BBC which is a television channel looking for ratings, not accuracy.

There is little civility amongst the major contributors to this article (unless you agree with them) which is why I personally went on there to personally arbitrate. I made one edit a while ago and it was jumped on and I left the article for awhile and came back to put in some information on the history of the cuisine but realized that there was so much volatility surrounding the article, I would attempt to calm the editors down before attempting to add anything of merit to the article. This is the inevitable outcome of that attempt.

I stick to my position that the dog meat information should become part of the history section that will discuss the evolution of consumption of dog meat in the country dating back to the pre-modern era. Statistics do not contribute to the article as they just provide controversy. Dog meat is clearly not a "staple" of the diet and does not warrant it's own heading. It would be likened to having a heading for each food item in any culture. Would you suggest in the French cuisine article we have a heading for frogs, snails, horse meat etc. just because other cultures find these items taboo? No, because these items are clearly small parts of the ingredients found in the cuisine. Anyone who states that each cuisine is individual (I see the argument coming) is flawed in that argument because each culture has food taboos, they just are not a major part of the cuisine as a whole.

Clearly the regular combatant editors have scarred away not only editors who may contribute a small amount of information to the article that are not major contributors from the article, but they have also pushed away largely contributing cuisine editors such as myself from editing as we do not need the added stress. What happens instead however, is much valid academic information on the whole article, not just single sections are lost because we would rather not get into arguments with combative editors. I think some people have lost the idea of enjoying academic work to further education for others, in favor of as Jeremy has stated, a "pissing contest" to see who can win an argument to put their agenda forward. I would hope that multiple administrators with no cultural bias would help to arbitrate the situation.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Melon is currently not here, but most of flames are toward him. --Appletrees (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Response I did not post this because I was unhappy with the "discussion" over my edit, but because I realized that issues of ownership by the editors was a serious issue on top of the edit war and it was getting in the way of a serious discussion. The way in which in which the editors disregarded the MoS over their own opinion of how things should be done was just simply the last nail in the coffin. I had been mulling the posting since shortly after reading the Talk:Korean cuisine threads on the matter, as well as the flame wars going on on your individual talk pages. This issue has gotten way out of hand and as Chris stated it needs to be resolved by individuals who are not vested in the issue. That was my intent by posting this message, and nothing more. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

• Comment - Actually, the fact you found you needed to build consensus at "Discussion" rather than simply barging into a page and insisting on your way does seem to be the reason you began this. Your constant cursing, in nearly every post, did not endear you to other regular editors there, nor assure others of your good faith. Finally, repeated edits were needed formerly at the Korean cuisine article to avoid blanking of an entire section outside consensus (usually by a single user, Melonbarmonster). That has been ironed out and consensus regarding the "dog meat" section is being built, with some very good proposals being evaluated in a calm, thoughtful manner by most of the editors. The "edit war," further, is long past. I suggest you exercise moderation and actually read through the discussion, including the discussion in the past few weeks, and you will see this--a vigorous discussion, something that is encouraged at Misplaced Pages. I do not believe you have done that, although you say you have. Badagnani (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to ask you to please take the time and point out the incidents of me cursing. You cannot because you will find at no time did I swear. The only swear mentioned was in my quotation of Mark Twain: There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. I did read through the discussion and saw what you call Vigorous was what I call inappropriate. People were dismissing commentary by disinterested parties who were trying to help, the only "consensus" was being made by 3-4 individuals with a vested interest in the article. Your comment about me swearing, is indicative of the problems with the "discussion." - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

• the fact you found you needed to build consensus at "Discussion" rather than simply barging into a page and insisting on your way does seem to be the reason you began this. And this is a bad thing? Corvus cornix_talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - In addition to the profanity you mention, your vulgar reference to urination was so uncalled for I will not repeat it here. It is simply indicative of what appears to be a hot-headed attitude in general on your part. I do not believe you have read all the discussion carefully in the Korean cuisine article, or you would be working to build consensus there (which we have already been doing) instead of here. From the tenor of your edits (i.e. your appearance and insistence that your version of the article be implemented immediately, with no dissenting comment permitted, hence you begin to issue profanities), the "ownership" and "urination" seems to be emanating from your direction rather than from the Korean cuisine article, at least at the moment, I'm sorry to say. Badagnani (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The term pissing contest does not refer to urination, but in fact refers to an argument, usually without purpose or value. You live in Ohio and have never heard this term? It is American vernacular that has been around for years. My usage of the term ownership refers to the tendencies of the editors to brook no dissension on "their" article. My commentary was simply a statement that the WP:MoS, specifically WP:IBX, should be followed regardless of the opinions of the editors- not that "my version" is correct. It is not "my version" of the article but the the MoS standards for articles. The policy is there for a reason and you and the others felt that it does not apply to you. That is not me being rude. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Vandalism and incivility

I think the edit wars on the South Korea article is far from a ultra nationalistic battle. The first one is a matter of dealing with User:Jjk82's bogus and false info regarding Korea's environment, education level, possible discrimination, and dog meat. The second dispute is a civility issue of Sennen goroshi.

• Involved party 1
  • Jjk82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Involved party 2
  • User:Appletrees, User:Patriotmissile, CJ DUB, User:Good friend100

• other
  • User:SpigotMap

Discussion

and perhaps, if one editor constantly makes complaints about someone, and encourages other editors to do the same, constantly gets his complaints resulting in "no action taken" he should rethink his attitude towards the editor in question, and try to enter some form of civil discussion, rather than continue his neverending complaints.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the very neverending story unless you cease the misconduct. Well, take more time to think about what you have just caused. I couldn't help to report it this time again, because admins above are mentioning the South Korea article dispute and connect with it. I strongly object the link between the Korean cuisine and South Korea article caused by your disruptions. --Appletrees (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't distort my initial edit and just write down your opinion here. Beside, your civil acts include YOUR CONSTANT WIKISTALKING and REVERTING my edit blinly and vandalize the discussion at CFD? You're so you. Just accept the truth, you never act civil to anyone. --Appletrees (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

any comments made by me will be in the Sennen Goroshi section. thanks.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Sennen, this is my report, please don't misplace your opinions into the original report. Dividing discussion is easy way for people to distinguash the context. The reason I report here is to make things clear among the chaos and unnecessary blame for the Korean cuisine dispute. You have strong civility issue, but judging by the past, maybe you can escape again, but not for the vandal, User:Jjk82. So, you might want to brush up your old memory like below? OK. I made a new thread for you, so don't complain and distort my report any more--Appletrees (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, if it makes you happy to move my comments, then feel free. As long as my words are not changed, and people can read what I have to say, for the sake of peace, it might be better not to argue over such small issues.Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in 2 minds about say what I am about to say..however BE BOLD !! it seems that Jjk82's comments are content disputes, not vandalism, perhaps if he is a new user, he is a little unaware of NPOV, and the requirement to use NPOV terms, however it might be better to enter into some form of discussion with him, point out that facts need a verifiable and reliable source, and give him a few lessons on what is and isn't acceptable in wikipedia. I do agree that some of his edits are not acceptable, and of course should be removed, but give discussion a little time, and see what happens, before branding him to be an out and out vandal. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, well there's an old Korean saying, 'He that commits a fault thinks everyone speaks of it.'. It looks that your behaviours and comments may fit into this old saying. Since most users in Misplaced Pages have sound mind, not like some small parts of impurities here. Sennen goroshi, please remind that it is exteremely easy to harm others by using particular references by absurdly magnifying rare cases with prejudiced tone. Even I can start let people know darker side of any countries using those kinda references like you and your friends used. However, I won't do that, since I and most wiki users have normal and sound mind. As you may know, it is common sense that you and your friends' behaviour will sculpt other users' one toward you and the Japan article. At last, I'd like to tell you that we have tried and will try to solve this problem with only legal channels in accordance with wikirules. So why don't you stop trying to entrap us to be categorized into witch hunters? I will also report your this kinda disregarding and disrespectful attitude, too.

In addition, you said wikipedia is open to the public, and regardless of shameful facts anyone can upload anything to wikipedia if it is based on facts. In part, may be you're right. However, you disregarded something huge. The ultimate spirit of free-uploadable Misplaced Pages is rooted from belief of users' sound mind and aspiration of sharing knowledge, not for tools to attack any objects simply because of personal hatrism. Moreover, you are urging that South Korea is a dirty place and South Koreans are racist, right? As I told you numerous times already, regardless you cited some news articles referring to daily-basis tiny little cases involved in yoor claims, but you just cannot generalize and define the South Korean society based on those rare cases. In any country, those kinda accidents happen all the time, and news from any countries are always full of accidents and crimes. In accordance to your logical flow, in Misplaced Pages, anyone can describe any countries where the places are sick and dirty & full of racists using those kinda news as references.

I think it is inappropriate use the terms, such as nationalist and personal attack to the users who claims vandal charge on the following users; Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez. Please check the previous traces of those users issued here, and contour the overall pictures of this situation. You will see what has been and is going on in the various South Korea-related articles in Misplaced Pages. Like you said, Misplaced Pages is not a battle field. I totally agree with it. However since we are living in imperfect world, so when there are numerous disputes occurred in Misplaced Pages, please consider the people who start and are caused problems.

How many countries could possibly avoid downfalling into a dirty and racist country in Misplaced Pages if described as those issued users, Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez, with supporting by daily-news articles? As I remember, the US is the most country in which fossil fuel are used, and consequently generates much higher amount of pollutes any other country in the world, plausibly. You can see the news everywhere referring to this fact, even from Al Gore's speak. However, is there anyone who claims that US is a dirty country? In addition, about the issue of racism, can we conclude that most of Western countries where minor racist clans are being there, such as KKK, neo nazi, and skin heads, are all racist countries?

Please please my fellow editors and administrators, I would like to deeply ask all of us to see the cores of current issue with more intropective and sound views and approaches. Misplaced Pages is definitely not the place where people freely excrete hatrism toward any objects due to personal feelings. Please please check the traces of those users,Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez, and see what has been done to the myriad South Korea-related articles in Misplaced Pages.Patriotmissile (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sooooooo not involved with this. Sennen goroshi whatever comes out of nowhere accusing me of uncivility, and follows up doing all this wikistalking on matters resolved on articles eons ago. He made a few unsolicted or warranted comments on my talk page. I made some comments about his behaviour in the sincerest, politest terms on his talk page that have since been removed. I have nothing to do with the Korea thing although I noticed Sennen goroshi's edits were at the very heavily biased and he is a frequent violator of the 3RR and makes uncivil edits, racsist comments. For my own part I am a tough editor and I am ruthless in my edits of fancruft from Aarvarks to Zimbabwe. Take me out of your discussion. CJ DUB (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion appears to be a fork from the Edit War posting made above. This is indicative of the problems stated in that section. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Jerem43, you are a bit out of civility to alter this report with your own way. I've seen your such behaviors already though. Therefore, you are as an observer, I relocated your wording here. --Appletrees (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* It seems as if the Korea nationalists and the Japan nationalists continue to battle it out. But instead of being at least civil and diplomatic with their edits, they would continue to edit war, mass-delete, and introduce POV on both sides. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what I put myself into the middle of trying to resolve the situation. I have now been accused of things I have not done so they may prove a point, this is really ugly. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Would you guys please provide opinions on this situation after thouroughly proofreading all those disruptive revisions made by the Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez? I can understand that even just obsering this situation may lead such an annoyance, and also can mislead you guys to be recognized as a war between nationalists of Japanese and Korean. However, as I have iteratively told, before appearance of those Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez users, South Korea article has maintained in peace. In addition, no Korean users above have vandalized Japan article here. I also explained many many times about the reason why the claims made by Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez are unjust.

Would you guys please shift your observative ground to ours at least once? Please consider if your mother country is trampled and downfallen into a dirty and racist country and become known to whole world, simply by those kinda users with supportive by such news articles where any countries have, what would you do? Will anyone who tries to defend such acts automatically become a chauvinist and be treated like obsessive small-minded nationalists here in Misplaced Pages? If so, I'll be greatly disappointed. I am not gonna ask a huge favor, I'm just asking sound and generalized common senses.Patriotmissile (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what you just wrote? My point is that while you and the others were trying to correct any inaccuracies you lost touch with the point and got caught up in societal and historical feuds. Remember the Japanese attacked the US in 1941, they did horrible things to American POWs, many of us have grandparents that fought in WW2 that have strong feelings against the Japanese and many of us who grew up in the 1970s saw negative view points spouted by our parents against the Japanese. Despite all of that stuff, Chris did not let that cloud his judgment when he redid the Japanese Cuisine article.

The same can be said about the Mexico cuisine article, the Cuban cuisine article, the Vietnamese cuisine article, the Russian cuisine article and the Iranian cuisine article. We Americans have issues with all of these peoples, going to war with many of them and yet we do not allow it to get in the way of helping to write those good articles. Both sides are pushing their POV and it needs to stop. Let someone who is a neutral observer with a proven track record (Chris has upgraded several cuisine articles to "GA" status, including the GA article French cuisine) help and make the article better. (And, yeah there are Americans with a jingoistic POV who do go around spouting nationalistic vitriol. Chris and are not amongst them.)

We want to help you but you are not helping us. That was point all along. Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Jerem43, I have read what you wrote, and I also read your above comment, too. However, I can't get the point you are trying to say. what's all those cuisine stuffs for? Have I asked you about the old relationship between US and Japan? Have I asked you how US citizens are so fair and lenient to embracing various reluctant topics? Do you mean that me and several users are blinded by chauvinistic patriotism, so have lost reason? Do you mean we Koreans should shut up and accept whatever others describe at us, just because you and some of US citizens still consider Iranian and Japanese cultures in a positive way? That's pretty nonsensical, I guess. Moreover, I guess I haven't seen any unfavorable opinions toward US made by users from those countries. Will you react the same way as you are reacting now, even though those issued users denounce the US scathingly as they did to South Korea? I'd really like to see how you will react if such situation actually occurs.

Please read what I have said carefully. I provided the reasons why those claims made by Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez cannot be acceptable and used as defining the whole society of South Korea.

Jerem43, you said you wanted to help us, but we would not help you. Please tell me in a what possible way you want to help us, and what exactly you want us to help you. May be I am not that keen guy, so please list what exactly they way you want us to do, and what exactly you have helped us so far with your mysterious way. As I told you, accoding to some of the references used by Jjk82 and sennen goroshi whom you may be supporting, your great country can also be defined as a dirty and racist country just like what is desribed for South Korea now by those users.Patriotmissile (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In my memory, "We" haven't requested your specialty in cuisine here though. So thank your for your "interest" so far.--Appletrees (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Sennen goroshi blocked yet? CJ DUB (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

While I welcome comments from all civil users, I think CJ DUB is not qualified to give an opinion regarding my civility and his comments should be seen for exactly what they are - the comments of an offended editor, who responded badly when being told not to tell other users to FOAD (fuck off and die) I think his own comments are so far from civil, but please, judge for yourself. "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That page has donjon but its an obvious mistake made by a moron. " " DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT HOCKEY, or even know how to write an article. It just means you know how to push a button to join. Good for you. Don't EVER post on my discussion page again" "Firing order‎ (→Cylinder numbering - what moron added that...rm)" - these are hardly comments that show his civility, and therefore his goading and claims should be taken with a pinch of salt.Sennen goroshi (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is you, Sennen goroshi, who can judge other users' attitude. As you may quite know well, may people made complaint about your attitude. However, strangely, you're still here. Please remember you are the one practically elicited whole this situation along with your clans, Jjk82 and Keyngez.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why is my name on this list? Because I told you Sennen Goroshi is free to remove comments and warnings from his talk page? I hardly find that reason enough to get me involved with this. Mostly what I see is incivility towards Sennen, not the other way around. You guys are claiming ownership to articles when they are free to be edited by anyone. Unless something is going to be said about me being uncivil please remove my name from the discussion, as I have done nothing wrong. SpigotMap 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy, don't distort my report any more, you're not a admin. If you keep doing the disruption one more time, you have to deal with more than you're doing now.--Appletrees (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested block of these users

I hate to do this, but this needs to be resolved now.

Patriotmissile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You hit the nail on strait on the head, I am saying that you are being blinded by hostilities towards the Japanese contributers and guilty of insular thinking. This shows in your (as a group) communications with these editors (and theirs with you, this is a two way street of hostilities), I made a point to research all of the people who are at the root of this conflagration and none of them are innocent. The various user discussion pages and their contributions to the main talk page of the Korean cuisine article show the outward hostilities.

The inclusion of the other articles of countries the US has had serious issues with is a demonstration to show that conflicts with other nations should not get in the way writing good articles. You and the others cannot see the forest for the trees and because of that we are at this ANI page.

Of this group, you are the only one who has not been blocked in the past and I believe you to be a truly committed editor but this whole affair has gone too far.

Appletrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"We" do not have to consent to or request permission to edit anything, as the whole purpose behind Misplaced Pages is that it can be edited by anyone. You do not own the article and others do not have to seek your permission to edit it; you, as a group, are demonising others who wish to contribute to the article; you have removed the contributions of those who feel they have something worthy of addition; you have ignored the MoS; you are being uncivil; and you cannot reach a consensus with the other editors of Misplaced Pages, only with yourselves. That is a significant point in these discussions.

Several times in this very lengthy discussion you have shown outward hostility to the people commenting in this thread, as well as shown bad faith by editing the discussion and moving my comments from where I put them. You have tried to lay the blame for the edit war on editors who have made good faith efforts to improve this article, such as Chris and Bsharvy.

You have been blocked before because of this and failed to learn from the experience.

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You have been blocked nine times because of this type of behavior. This pattern is indicative of a wider issue of your failure to make productive contributions to Misplaced Pages.

Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You have lied in an attempt to discredit me and my proposal, that is a true example of uncivil behavior. You twisted one of the most famous quotes by one of the English languages greatest humorists in an attempt to claim I was swearing, and you tried to claim that a term which means a pointless argument as me being vulgar. Your lie was to have claimed that I engaged in this behavior as a matter of discourse in all of my communications.

You have a pattern of behavior that suggests you only follow WP policies as you want to, and when those policies go against you you do every thing to discredit them or the contributors who applied them. A prime example of this behavior is here.

You have been blocked five times for this behavior, and like Good friend this shows a wider patter of unacceptable activities.

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sir, as per CJ DUB's comments, you are guilty of numerous violations of the standards WP. You have been blocked three times, and you should be banned for the egregious nature of the edits you have made. The ichor you espouse towards the Korean contributors in some of your postings is vile.

Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Your edits have at best been unproductive, as you have personally caused more friction on the Korean cuisine article than any other editor. You have been blocked more than a half dozen times for this behavior; a trait of consistent abuse towards others that you share with the aforementioned contributors.

In a summary of my thoughts on this issue, all of you are guilty of violating most of the following WP policies:

• WP:MoS - You have ignored the accepted policies of this site in favor of your own personal tastes.
  • WP:IBX - I and others have shown you that this is proper way to do things, this is an example of your behavior.
• WP:Civility - Your interaction with the rest of the Wiki-community has been brisk at best, openly hostile at its worst.
• WP:Consensus - Your groups' view is not the only opinion that matters, other view points must be considered when making a true consensus.
• WP:3R - The issue with the info box edit was just the latest problem, the only reason it wasn't removed for a third time was the article was locked before that could be done.
• WP:Good faith - By not trusting the intentions of others who only want to contribute, you have show the nothing but bad faith.
• WP:Edit war - This is why we are here, and it is a shame.

Also, this behavior is carried over from an arb case over the South Korea article, as stated by East718. Many of these contributers mentioned here are continuing the conflict that got the South Korea article locked down.

For all of this behavior, all of you are need to be blocked, some of you permanently.

Yes there is anger in my post, anger because this has dragged on for three months and not a single person has tried to compromise. These individuals have claimed that they are willing and are in the process seeking a productive consensus, but there are always some codices, conditions, objections or plain old passive aggressive behavior which belies their claims. Their posts in these threads are perfect examples of how they have been behaving, which is like children.

To the admins that monitor this page, consider this a request for blocks on each of these editors. I would like to see a permanent ban on the worst offenders, Melonbarmonster, Sennen goroshi, Badagnani and Good friend100. The others should be blocked for enough time that they realize the depth of their behavior and its affect on the general Misplaced Pages community.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

*Jerem43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With his bad faith, He has caused a serious chaos to Korean cuisine, distorting the separated incident report and his serious incivility, inappropriate usage of language like urination.

Jeremy, I should ask your responsibility to have cause a serious of chaos to Korean cuisine article as you report without any consensus and notice to editors into the article, and took inappropriate examples like urination, and distorting my seperated report with your special edits. I think you're doing more than wiki policy. You need to be banned for these ongoing disruptions. --`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have't ignore the MoS, besides, that is a matter of perspective. Several people don't agree with your insufficient rationale and do agree with my rationale instead. You're the one to consider what is civility. Weren't you jumping from the ongoing discussion on the cuisine template, you reported the Korean cuisine and demanded editors to be banned for your retaliation. That is highly disruptive. I think you need to take time to think about your disruptive behaviors as taking a responsibility. --Appletrees (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint about my relocation of your right(?) comment to the discussion subcat, well, the report is filed by myself, not you. You're not the reporter at all. --Appletrees (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I should make sure I understand this correctly, is Jerem43 suggesting that just about every gets banned? I would say that the vast majority of the users named above have been responsible for many good edits, and despite a little friction, overall they add to wikipedia. Melonbarmonster, Badagani, Appletrees, Goodfriend and myself most certainly do not deserve a ban, let alone a perm ban for all but one of us. Since goodfriend got given another chance, I think his attitude towards reverting people has changed hugely, Appletrees has a ratio of about 50 to 1 of good edits/disruptive edits, Badagani is an excellent editor and mediator, and while melonbarmonster might be a touch stubborn, he is still an editor who tries succesfully to make wikipedia a better place with his edits. I find the suggestion that a large group of constructive editors get perm banned, a million times more offensive than someone 3RR reporting me, or calling me biased. As for myself, I am gradually learning to keep my POV to myself, and not to take the bait offered by some of the more annoying users. I don't think any of the users listed by jerem deserve any form of block, and that dispute resolution is a better place to solve these issues. BTW I've been blocked once, not three times, one 48hr block, reviewed and taken down to 24hours. thanksSennen goroshi (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to be a little skeptical regarding the latest suggestion of Jerem43, that a huge group of editors bet perm blocked. First of all this seems to be like nuking a mosquito. Secondly it is hardly in line with normal wikipedia sanctions against minor discretions. Finally I was wondering how much canvassing/coaching/plotting is going on behind the scenes between Jerem43 and Tanner-Christopher. Call me untrusting if you wish, but when I read people asking for an E-mail so they can discuss something that cannot be discussed on wikipedia, and then the user who was asked to contact, suddenly is appealing for perm blocks all round, it seems as if something might be going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=prev&oldid=174200562 There seems to be something strange going on anyway. If I have made an assumption that is incorrect, then I sincerely apologise for that, just at the moment my spidey senses are tingling, and they are telling me that there may be more to this situation than is being shown. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy and I both live in Boston, so honestly the way I communicate with people about other things is none of your business. I communicate with a number of people outside of Misplaced Pages and if you look at different discussion pages you will see the same thing posted on their pages, it is called having "friends" seeing how we are both in the hospitality industry, I don't discuss personal information on Misplaced Pages and I have a number of people who contact me on a regular basis besides for my expertise in the field as well. This however is actually indicative of some of the excessive incivility I have seen on your discussion page that when I have gone to comment on certain items, has been completely deleted. I am amazed from what I saw on your discussion page that you haven't been blocked more than once, but I think people have given you a lot of leeway in hopes that you can be civil. Finger pointing instead of discussion is a huge thing going on here by all of the editors for the Korean cuisine article, I honestly don't go over to other Korean articles as I am not an Administrator and my expertise is in cuisine and culture interaction, I am sure I could properly edit that article without a bias as well, but why bother when there is so much friction on the cuisine article. I can only imagine that it is worse on the article for the actual country. As for Jeremy causing serious "chaos" to the Korean cuisine article, this process has stopped editing on the article until "this chaos" is finished.

So actually there is a calm on the article until some level headed editing process for the article can go forth or some administrator steps in. It seems any edit that goes into the article other than done by Badagnani or Appletrees is pounced upon with the overuse of the term "consensus" when they don't need consensus at all to add what they want to to the article. Actually most edits for any Misplaced Pages article do not need consensus at all, see WP:Bold. I am not usually into bringing out controversial things on Misplaced Pages, I do what I need to do and go about my business as I don't like arguing with people, but I guarantee as soon as I were to edit this article in the manner in which I have brought other cuisine articles up to B and GA status through reorganization and addition of history and relocation of giant lists to List of Korean dishes, I would be pounced on, oh wait, I already was when I made said "list" article. I however let it go at that time and now that I feel the desire to work on the article, I think the issues need addressing as this is a bigger issue than just the "dog meat" section. The silliness over the tea section is yet another banter back and forth that was just pointless because people didn't understand the use of the word "fragrant" and as such, became accusatory.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have recently had a discussion with an other contributor in regards to this issue, and agree with him. I will be back after work with an amended proposal. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

Bad faith of User:TSO1D

To whom it may concern, and namely to responsible persons of English Misplaced Pages, preferably neutral, not related to Romanian propaganda on English Misplaced Pages administrators, who have some time to spend and to look on the arguments presented below. Thank you in advance. Unfortunately I was unable to write this at the time of the events, as I was blocked by User:AGK without any explication following the request of User:TSO1D, but immediately unblocked by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry upon my unblock request (which was kindly indicated to me (as I did not even know this was possible) by User:Anonimu.

Summary: User TSO1D edits against consensus reached on a number of issues on the Balti article (about Moldavian city), manifestly with bad faith, intimidating me as a new user, by threats to block, and re-editing controversial issues right after I am blocked, saying (for example) I did not intend to block you, but I can unblock you if you do (this and that)... Please give me a reason to beleive in TSO1D's "good faith" or take necessary actions in the regard of TSO1D.

Details:

TSO1D openly lies and I have nothing to hide or to improve. Unfortunately I had no time to write anything on the ANI page, where TSO1D put a comment on me. TSO1D bad faith is manifested by the following:

1) Intentionally enducing in error readers on the Balti talk page as the discussion was started on move of Balti article and ended, thanks to TSO1D ill manoeuvres, in discussion of general move of eastern European localitis and general debate on diacritics. Hence the significance of the initial debate was lost.

2) TSO1D lied, as TSO1D filed a block request against me, that I do not support my arguments with a source, whereas me and other users (Illythr) confimed and reconfirmed this (please see the Moldova page, last days edits), TSO1D also lied on Moldova talk page that I do not provide sources, right after my sections and references with sources.

3) TSO1D has immediately reverted Balti article to the strongly contested pro-Romanian version deleting all Russian names of districts, which is against consensus reached on the Balti talk page previously.

4) TSO1D does not make the necessary effort for a constructive dialog and pushes through a personal opinion both on Balti article and Moldova article.

5) User:AGK please review your decision, as, by the way, neither I nor anybody else had time to post anything on ANI page. However, if you blocked me to let TSOD1 make dirsuptive edits, immediately after I was blocked, against reached consensus on Balti article and probably other articles, I understand your decision.Moldopodo (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

If you want to request to be unblocked, write below {{unblock|The reason you ask for a review of your block}}, although i wouldn't advise it. You could use these 24 + 7 hours (?!?) to find more sources to support your case, preferable secondary ones. (i.e. not official documents) Anonimu (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I actually did not wish for you to be blocked. I simply wanted a review of your recent actions and whether I indeed acted improperly with respect to your case. I will post these concerns of yours on the ANI page and if you wish anything else to be added, please write so here. As for the Bălţi changes that I made, simply undid your last two edits. I don't wish to get into a detailed discussion here, but you had changed all mentions of the city to the form without diacritics, added as official the names "Balti and Beltsy" without consensus and then you added the Russian names alongside all Romanian names. I don't believe that they way I acted went contrary to the consensus of the talk page. TSO1D (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Even in the last reply on my talk page, TSO1D lied numerous times. To support my statement on lies by TSO1D uttered in my regard, please see the following:

As for the Balti article, TSO1D has at 21:44 immediately, after I was blocked at 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC) by Anthøny, purely and simply reverted all my edits to TSO1D's previous edits. In case of doubt, please see the comparison here, where you will find no difference between TSO1D's edits as of 17:09, 25 November 2007 (going back to an earlier version, Moldopodo, careful the infobox is all messed up) and as of 21:44, 25 November 2007. This reversion of TSO1D is by the way identical to the previous edit by TSO1D as of 18:47, 23 November 2007, with the only difference that at 17:09 on 25 November, TSO1D, against the consensus reached on the Balti talk page to delete the spam reference, which is anonymous amateur free hosted site with an imaginary and irrelevant history of Balti (which was initially copied in the English Misplaced Pages, and later, according to the consensus reached on Balti talk page deleted or modified in parts), "covered" the reference to this site (balti.atspace.com) (which again, according to the consensus reached on the Balti talk page was decided to be deleted, see the comment of Anonimu on Balti talk page).

As for TSO1D's allegation that TSO1D simply undid your (my) last two edits, please see here that TSO1D has, against reached consensus on the Balti talk page:

- deleted all Russian names of Balti districts, leaving them exclusively in Romanian

- deleted the sentence on the Balti rawing channel, (which shows again that TSO1D knows not much about Balti), which is working for many years now and is not a project at all

- deleted the sentence The district that was built during Soviet Union from scratch and called BAM (because of the similar undertaken efforts as in Baikal Amur Mainline) in the northern part of the city was renamed Dacia, however is colloquially referred to as Bam.

- re-inserted These schools teach either in Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, English or are mixed. The later case was inherited from the Soviet system, which provided for education in Russian and Romanian languages (at that time Moldovan language), where mixed schools were created with the administration being carried out in both languages. Today, both Romanian and Russian languages are used in the administration. instead of previous version These schools teach either in Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian, English or are mixed. The later case was inherited from the Soviet system, which provided for education in Russian and Moldovan languages, where mixed schools were created with the administration being carried out in both languages. Today, both Moldovan and Russian languages are used in the administration. The striking evidence was shown by me on the Moldova talk page, that not only the site www.edu.md of the Ministry of Education refers to Moldovan (just as Constitution and laws of the Republic of Moldova do), but the Ministry refers on its site to the Law on Education, which itself refers to the languages of educaton/teaching via references to the same legal provisions: Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and Law on Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR.

- and since it was a pure and simple immediate revert, TSO1D did not even pay attention that Elizavetovca was modified by me into Elizaveta (which TSO1D claimed as well) and changed it back into Elizavetovca (I have explicitely apologized for the previous confusion on this issue in particular with my last edit of Balti talk page and explained as well to TSO1D where and how the proper legal references should be done for Moldovan legal documents (lex.justice.md) at 18:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo.)

- deleted the reference that "balta" is translated as swamp from Romanian and that even in Russian it means the same (by the way, the provided link to the article in a Romanian dictionary refers itself to Slavic origins, even though the given reference is not to a translation dictionary but to an etymology dictionary)

• Upon the request placed by User:TSO1D on the ANI (also, why TSO1D indicates ANI, being an experienced user, TSO1D could have provided direct link to ] or this or this: 18:30, 25 November 2007 TSO1D (Talk | contribs) m (167,791 bytes) (→Behavior of User:Moldopodo - title above) (undo)?

• In my last edit on Balti article, I have not changed all mentions of the city to the form without diacritics. Please check for Bălţi here, already in the introduction, second and fourth sentence, this goes without mentioning the rest of the article where diacritics appear, contrary to the lies of TSO1D.

• I repeat, TSO1D has purely and simply reverted this article right after I was blocked following TSO1D's request.

• On the Balti talk page, TSO1D had intentionally enduced in error participants in the discussion on the move of the article to the proper English name Balti, which resulted in total confusion from the side of those who voted against the move, as they voted against general move, refering to general policies, general application of diacritics to Eastern European cities, and have said basicly next to nothing on the question of the move of Balti city proper. I try hard, but cannot think of TSO1D's "good faith" here as well...

• On Moldova talk page, I have always provided the reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and to laws to which it refers from the officially updated only one legal governmental portal of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Moldova. TSO1D has openly lied in her/his first request to block me for the alleged violation of the three revert rule that I do not provide sources for my statements. I have also placed the reference to the laws and to the Constitution in the article on Moldova proper, but TSO1D had deleted the references in the article, please check the history of Moldova article. Not ony I sourced my edits, moreover I have oversourced the talk page on Moldova, as recent users requested to regroup legal references as there are too many.

• Finally, this is second request to block me from TSO1D in last three days. When TSO1D says TSO1D's intention was not to block me, I guess all I have to do is to assume TSO1D's "very good faith"... just like User:AGK (Anthony) "assumed my good faith", by the way, before blocking me....

Moldopodo (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Answering Anonimu, Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan laws are the supreme source available to anyone. These sources were voted by the Moldovan citizen through their representatives in the Parliament and are of highest value for me, as a Moldovan citizen. I cannot imagine what importance may have in this case any secondary, tertiary source? Also, for the format of English Misplaced Pages, the English Wikipdia provides the definition of official languages (to have a legal status and/or to be official even in a region of a country). In Moldova, Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz fully correspond to both elements of the defintion. Moldovan legislation uses the word official only once, in the law on Transnistria of 2005, and in that case it refers to three languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Moldovan.Moldopodo (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

No, I honestly did not wish for you to be blocked. This has nothing to do with good or bad faith, I just didn't think that was the best way to resolve the problem. In any case, if you promise to discuss your changes on the talk page first, both in the case of Moldova and Bălţi instead of reverting for the next 24 hours (which would be the remaining time of your block appx), I could unblock you now. TSO1D (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You honestly prove your bad faith with this statement. Were you full of good faith, there would not have been the first bad faithed unjustified request to block me, nor the second (this one here), nor would you stipulate conditions for unblocking me. Moldopodo (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Moldopodo (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Is there any reason why we shouldn't disregard this as trolling? I don't look kindly upon people who waffle about how an administrator is abusing his power, especially in a controversial subject such as Eastern Europe, especially if they have histories of edit warring. Will 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So how do you select then "the right and the bad edit warrier"? Moldopodo (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Well, your block logs for one. TSO1D has been around for over two years and has only been blocked once, and the blocking admin rescinded that ten minutes later as it was borderline. You registered two months ago and have been blocked twice for edit warring. Will 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the arguments above on this talk page, that's what I kindly asked to comment on, what do you have to say on what I explained above? I have not asked anything about a competition who was blocked and how many times. TSO1D might have been a very "good faithed" user during the past time, but my questions refer to the clear facts of today, that are described above. Thank you to pay attention to this.Moldopodo (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

User:Taylor21

User:Taylor21 appears to have tried to try and change his username by moving his userpage to User:SeanTaylor21. As SeanTaylor21 isn't a registered name, can an admin please revert that move and explain username changing to this user? — Save_Us_229 12:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notified, but not moved back. Will 12:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the recent death of Sean Taylor, is this an appropriate User name? (Note that Sean Taylor wore number 21). Corvus cornix_talk 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The page was moved two months ago; it's just a horrible horrible coincidence this was found out about on the day of the player's death. Will 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

POV fork

I have just made these two edits

• to WP:PSTS
• Misplaced Pages:Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

I think thes edits that I reversed by user:COGDEN by are way out of order. But now I've made the reversals my hands are tied as I am a party to the dispute.# If either of these edits are reverted by user:COGDEN please could another administrator block user:COGDEN or protect the pages now. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what actual changes he has made, beyond splitting the section into its own page? "There is no assurance that this resemblance will be maintained" is the strongest argument anyone has made against it, which tells me there's not anything _right now_ in this "POV fork" that has a different "POV" than what it's a "fork" of. You haven't explained why it needs to not have its own page. WP:RS has its own page. Any protection seems like it would be premature at this stage in what is essentially a formatting dispute. You should both discuss it on the talk page. —Random832 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Altering well known well publicised redirect from a policy page to a page that has not status that was created by the same person who created the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at again, it looks like he was bold, you reverted - and then you went to ANI with demands rather than , you know, that third stage in the consensus process, hmm, what was it again? - he hasn't even reverted back yet, except in the case of one sterile revert by User:Kenosis in WP:NOR.—Random832 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In defense of myself, this was not a fork. There was discussion on the talk page about moving a section to its own article, and the question never really got answered. So I was bold and just did it, and the move was reverted, basically without any legitimate explanation. I stand by the original edit, but I have not re-reverted or made any additional change, or attempted to prolong any sort of edit war started by the reverter. And if there is any "forking" effect, it is caused by the reversion, not by my original edit. COGDEN 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PSTS is a redirect to a policy page. If this is allowed then all redirects to policy pages become open season. For example someone does not like the wording in WP:PROVEIT (it redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden of evidence) then they can create a new page put whatever they like in it and then alter the redirect WP:PROVEIT to that page. In this case I am not accusing User:COGDEN of acting in bad faith, as the section he copied was a copy, but the potential for abuse is huge ,and a look at the edit history of Misplaced Pages:No original research (and its talk page) show that COGDEN has been very heavily involved in discussing changes and altering the section WP:PSTS all of which, to date, have been rejected by most editors. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

84.9.187.95 and Umran Javed

84.9.187.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is consistently vandalising Umran Javed to remove details of his conviction for soliciting to murder (relating to London protest marches against the Danish cartoons portraying Mohammed). The IP is registered to Cable and Wireless and appears to be at least semi-static, but trying to rport this sort of vandalism at WP:AIAV tends to being told that too much tim ehas elapsed between warnings on an IP. Please could an admin take a look at this and then either block the IP or semi-protect the article. David Underdown (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Curlin and Non-NPOV edits

Curlin is an article that I personally think can get to good or featured article status (there's enough recent info to reference everything), but I don't know what to do as many of these edits are being done by registered users.

There are incorrect edits, peacocky edits, edits removing referenced content, edits changing the wording of referenced content to give them content contrary to what the reference presents and crystal ball edits that keep happening...and I'm really close to violating 3RR to keep them off. --Smashville 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I soft-protected the article for 24h. Please explain your reverts in the article talk page with as few as possible and post the notices at the user talk pages, as well as in edit summaries. YOu must always do so when the erit war erupts: since you are a more experienced wikipedian, it is your obligation to initiate a discussion, especially when dealing with newcomers. `'Míkka>t 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of both the article and of the registered editor (who I believe has been the most recent IP editor). --Smashville 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User responded by editing "Maybe you should check your facts" to my user page...which is kinda the problem...because I did...which is why I went to ANI... --Smashville 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo

This user has already been brought once here because of PA remarks against me on his userpage. He had then opposed the admin's deletion of questionable text from his page, reintroducing the text, until he was threatened with more severe action by the admin who handled that.

Nevertheless, he has reintroduced the remarks under a different form: "My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76." I have asked him nicely to remove them. However, he does not want to respond to this, despite the fact that he has been online for many-many hours in the last 4 days, since I asked him.

Could you, please, see that the remarks are removed. I have stated clearly to the user that I have no relation to Moldorubo, and I dislike being suggested that I am related with a banned user. I asked that all references to me be removed from his page.:Dc76\ 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• You may delete my post if I am not allowed to post here. All I wanted to say, User Moldorubo used exact same edits, exact same language, exact same places, exactly at the time when user Dc 76 was off line, right after the heating with editing on Balti article, and right after Dc 76 publicly declared "I will not edit for the next hours". When I have publicly mentioned all thse details on one of the talk pages, User Dc 76 reappeared and pretended to have an imaginary dialog with User Moldorubo on Balti talk page with personal references (which may as well fall under personal attack policy) in my regard (which were at a certain point deleted from the talk page, but I brought them back). Should you (the neutral person who will review this) need more references, exact diffs, etc. please let me know on my talk page by a short notice request and I will spend the necessary time and find them all. In the meanwhile you can find all of them on my talk page and on Balti (as referred to Moldavian city) talk page. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the user apparently plays with I.P. addresses (we had just as Polish IP users editing the same edits as Dc 76 or Moldorubo, as well as Tanzaian IP users doing exact same dits at exact same places while Dc 76 was "officially offline", who surprisingy know so much about Moldova in general and even about Balti (city in Moldova) in particular, being either in Poland or in Africa, interesting coincidence. Thank you in advance.Moldopodo (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Article missing but can't find deletion review

About a week ago I found that the William (Bill) Nuti biography listing was missing from Misplaced Pages. The bio used to be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/William_Nuti

I'm certain the article was still on Misplaced Pages as of early October. On November 16 I tried my link to the article and was taken to a Misplaced Pages page with this message: Misplaced Pages does not have an article with this exact name.

I've reviewed the deletion archive logs for November, October and September but have found no evidence of a deletion review for the William Nuti article.

I believe this bio has been on Misplaced Pages for at least a year and meets Misplaced Pages notability standards. Mr. Nuti is chairman and chief executive of NCR Corporation, a Fortune 500 technology company. Mr. Nuti has been quoted in dozens of news articles on the subject of the self-service revolution.

I'd greatly appreciate if Mr. Nuti's biography can be restored to Misplaced Pages. If a deletion review did take place, I'd appreciate if an administrator can direct me to it so I can see the reasons for deletion.

Thanks for any help with this appeal!

Gsanders77 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This from the deletion log indicates the times of deletion and brief reason. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See the deletion log for the article itself (it's linked on the page you mentioned): deletion log of William Nuti. It seems that the page has been deleted twice, the first time due to the main deletion process, which was then known as VfD and is now known as Articles for deletion, the second time speedily deleted as 'bio spam'. Here is the original VfD discussion, although as it was in 2005 it's somewhat out of date by now; you might want to talk to User:Danny (you can contact him on User talk:Danny) about the second deletion, as he's the admin that did it. --ais523 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(2x ec) The first deletion debate was 31 months ago and is located here. The second version of the article got killed by Danny unilaterally. Hope this helps! east.718 at 16:42, November 27, 2007

The article in question is written in tone inadmissible for wikipedia. It reads as a blatant promotion. I suggest you to forget about it and rewrite it while avoiding "peacock terms" (such as "leading provider", "impressive track record of achievement") and thoroughly footnoting the claims about achievements. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines to be met about the notability of a person in question. `'Míkka>t 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are the external links used in the article:

• Interview in SelfServiceWorld on new self-service movement
• Profile in NYSE Magazine
• NCR press release announcing Nuti's appointment
• Great Nuti interview from his Symbol days
• Report of Dundee Redundancies

To avoid needless conflicts, I suggest you to write the new article here: User:Gsanders77/William Nuti: draft and let me know (by writing in user talk:mikkalai). I will review and point to possible problems. `'Míkka>t 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR block review

I recently blocked User:Avfnx for 3RR violation and edit warring on Dominican Republic when the user was reported to WP:AN/3RR by User:CubanoDios. Can I ask some experienced admins to take a look at this discussion which I found and ask for opinions on whether User:CubanoDios should also be blocked. According to the contributions and the discussion, this seems to be a content dispute which has been going on for a while now and I would like opinions on the best course of action. Thanks. Tbo (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Greatartists210 and other accounts -- Regis Silva‎ issues

Users:

• Greatartists210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is artist Regis Silva, and his IP
• 71.139.11.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Artinovation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sock:- though clueless rather than malicious)

Articles:

• Regis Silva
• Hotel des Arts

Please read these two short posts: Talk page explanation of page creation and User talk page warnings to date.

The bio article is at AFD, the hotel article isn't at the moment. Notability is unsure for both. The creator (obviously the subject) is a new editor and it's unclear right now if he is wilfully ignoring notices and policy or just hasn't yet got the idea in a big way. The relevance of the hotel is he painted a room in it, and created the hotel article partly to self-promote. He has also done other constructive edits.

The ANI concern is a watch on this editor and the repeated addition of promotional links and text, and removal of tags (COI, AFD, etc). The former seems to have slowed with my requests, suggesting a willingness to learn, but the main problems and multiple account use are of concern. Since I've edited, I'd like someone else to manage any administrative action that may be necessary. Try not to WP:BITE initially.

Given the above, these two articles and the users contribs could do with an eyeball or two. They may need further action if this persists. The 2nd account needs shutting down, too, with attention drawn to the fact we don't allow multiple accounts to co-edit on the same articles/s this way. FT2  21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war in process

There was an ongoing discussion of several days about restructuring the article on Transcendental Meditation. One editor made a suggestion and a second and third editors commented and agreed in part with the initial suggestion. There was no disagreement from the initial editor, and no disagreement from anyone else, so it seemed like we had a tentative consensus. Further, it was agreed that the restructuring would take place after problems in one of the sections were addressed. A new editor showed up, ignored the discussion, and began making major changes to the structure of the article. I reverted and pointed out that there was an ongoing discussion of the structure and a consensus to which no one had objected. The editor reverted. I reverted again, explaining in more detail about the ongoing discussion and also in more detail about why I didn't think the new version was effective. He reverted again. And now i've reverted a third time, something I've only done on one other occasion in my time in Misplaced Pages. I feel like this editor is acting outside of process. I have directed the editor to the guideline on consensus. He's just reverted again. Maybe I misunderstand the process. TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What you've just described is an edit war. I've protected the page for seven days to allow everyone to dicuss future changes to the page and to come to a consensus about the format. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Long-term blocks on anons?

Looking at 64.5.154.146 (talk · contribs), it's quite appalling at how the talk page is literally stuffed to the brim with nothing but warnings for almost three years worth of vandalism. Given that nothing good (to my knowledge) has emerged from this IP, and considering that the user has no problem waiting and regularly vandalizing, how long of a block may be acceptable? I understand the reasoning against indefinitely blocking an IP, but would something on the order of a year be an appropriately measured response? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not unusual for persistent school IPs to be blocked for 6 or 12 months. I'd do it here but that's just an opinion. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a long-term block would be in order. The WHOIS says that the address is non-portable so a long-term block should have limited consequences on outside parties. WHOIS search. Woodym555 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the ISP, WHRO? Their T&C appears to frown upon their user's actions here. spryde | talk 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A low-level but persistent vandal... I blocked the IP for 3 months, which should give everyone a break. Next time 6 months would be in order. MastCell 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, that addresses are marked as non-portable doesn't mean much with respct to blocking. A portable block is one where the owning organization can keep the addresses if they switch ISPs. Portability would only matter if we were range-blocking an organization for an extended period, and even there it doesn't help us much. William Pietri (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am emphasizing: non-portable does NOT mean not shared AT ALL. That only means the end users can't keep the IP if they change their provider. -- lucasbfr 13:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Three years of vandalism more than justifies a 3-month block. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd have given even more ;). That's just that I see this mistake often. The only way I see to guess if the IP is shared or not is behavioral. -- lucasbfr 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism from 74.62.72.98

Less two weeks out of a one-month block, Special:Contributions/74.62.72.98 has been reengaging in vandalism. I reverted two vandal edits today amongst others; a couple with racial/ethnic remarks. The user has stacked multiple level 4 warns since last block and no valid edits are in recent history. My last reverts were more than one hour after the vandal edits, and I hadn't time then to make an immediate report, meaning WP:AIV is likely to decline any report as not now ("now" is not well-defined, but can run <= 30 minutes there depending on admin), so I'm posting the report here if further action is deemed appropriate. Michael Devore (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Three month anonblocked. This IP seems never to have made a non-vandal edit Tonywalton  | Talk 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moving and blanking - possible BLP issues from previous block

Could someone review Special:Contributions/Martinlh and look at what has happened to Talk:David Howell (chess player) (moved to ZincBelief) and David Howell (chess player)? The previous discussion is here. There was some suggestion there that Martinlh might be a relation of the person the article is about, hence the BLP concerns. Note that the real-life incident in question was discussed on the talk page that has been moved and blanked by this user, so they may be attempting to remove any mention of it from Misplaced Pages. For my views on this, see the discussion on the talk page (if you can find it after all the page moves and blankings). It is possible that courtesy blanking of the talk page may be required, but the page moves need to be repaired. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Account blocked indefinitely: malicious intentions became obvious when the user blanked warning in their talk page. `'Míkka>t 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Now I feel vindicated :( -Jéské 04:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. But it might be best to at least explain on their talk page why they are blocked (and that talking calmly and engaging in discussion will get them unblocked), and to explain to them how they should address any problems with the articles. ie. Tell them that they should discuss on the talk page, or make an OTRS complaint. My view is that the incident in question is verifiable but borderline notable. I'd be inclined to remove it, except that the article only reports the ban that resulted from the incident. It is the talk page that has gone into detail, and it is the talk page that should probably have a section courtesy blanked. This seems to be an all or nothing case. Either report the incident fully, or remove it as a minor, non-notable incident (non-notable as far as the rest of the world is concerned, though notable for the people involved) that recieved some coverage on the chess news sites. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Remember, it all started with this edit. This still looks to me like a BLP issue where the so-called "vandal" hasn't had someone politely explain to him how things work on Misplaced Pages, and they are resorting to page blanking and moving as the only way they can see to remove content they object to. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • And I failed to see that Mikka removed the contentious edit from the article, thus satisfying BLP concerns. Discussion on the talk page has restarted. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-opening this incident, as my explanatory post on Martinlh's talk page resulted in a post from him expressing his concerns. This is unclear enough that it probably needs further discussion. I've put a note on the talk page stating clearly that the material in question should not be restored until it is clear what is going on. Could people here review what I wrote here and offer advice? I've also notified Mikka (the blocking admin). Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Etheltrust.

To my understanding, userpages still fall under speedy criteria due to the fact that they are still classified as a main space, per here and here. I have marked this page for deletion multiple times and it has been denied, would like over all opinion.

Also take a look at this convo i had with an admin. Tiptoety (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was the second admin to decline to delete. The main part of my reply to Tiptoety about this was: "Hi there - I've no problem with deleting userpage spam under G11, or userpage attack pages under G10, but if someone wants to have a bluelink for their username and is happy with just having "la" on it to prevent it being a redlink or as a test edit, I don't see the problem personally. If there's a real problem, why not ask the user to add something in line with WP:USER rather than go for the speedy button? Technically, you may well be right, but frankly WP:BITE applies too. This editor got whipped with a speedy delete warning the very same minute that the account was created!"

Comments welcome about whether I'm misapplying the criteria but, to me, trying to delete one brand-new editor's user page three times is, well, perhaps over-enthusiastic. Bencherlite 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above, but I would like to add that the user page seems to have nothing that would constitute as a page worth of deletion. It is not like the user pressed every key and then cussed on the page. The user simply added "le" I see no problem with that. Rgoodermote  02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:CSD should be revised so userpages are exempt from G1 and G2. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I declined as well, and removed the warning templates; I've been known to tag or delete attack pages or spam, but "la" doesn't make me want to delete. There are pages like this all over userspace, and it hurts nothing. Acroterion _(talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to fall under the speedy criteria, but the possible harm of scaring away a new editor vastly outweighs the benefit of saving 2 bytes of space on the Wiki servers. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that is rash, no simply put it is two letters. If it is a problem instead of speedy delete suggest to the user that they need to make it more than just two letters. But again it is not like every key was pressed and they typed random racial slurs. Rgoodermote  02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you for your comments, i guess i have just read the policy and was tagging it deletion because it did not meet it. I second the idea of re-writing the CSD policy. I did not mean to violate WP:BITE, and try very hard to welcome users, which i have proven i do quite often. You are right that the deletion warnings on the users talk page were a bit much, and if i could get WP:TW to stop doing that i would. Tiptoety (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't need more rules. A user-page is an individual's for however they feel like using it — so long as it helps them collaborate. If they think that adding "la" to their page helps them collaborate in whatever way then we should be okay with it if it doesn't have any demonstrable harm, even if we don't understand it persay. --Haemo (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts that a re-write would be affective, but I will third it if a reasonable re-write can be decided. Good Night Rgoodermote  02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• How about these:
  • G1-Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. Pages in userspace are exempt from the criterion.
  • G2-Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?"). Pages in userspace are exempt from this criterion.
    • Just remember, userpages can still be deleted via PROD or MFD if needed. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A user planning to take any action should ask himself or herself whether, apart from technically complying with policy, there is any purpose to that action? Tiptoety, what did you think that seeking to have this page deleted would actually accomplish? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As i stated above, i do not think it would accomplish anything, yet it violated policy so i tagged it. And that was that, after re-thinking maybe i could have just ignored all rules. I am all up for fixing up the CSD. Tiptoety (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would never put a speedy delete tag on a user page for something like that, especially not soon after creation. Not all of us is handy with a keyboard. The user may have been thinking up something to write when the speedy delete tag went on. I know from personal experience how confusing and alienating that can be-- the first article I tried to create was speedied because I had saved an empty page. My next edit would have created a stub, but the speedy delete tag scared me off. , Dlohcierekim 03:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion do not, and were never meant to, require that any matching pages be speedily deleted if doing so would otherwise be counterproductive. Since WP:CSD did not actually clearly state that anywhere on the page, I've added a paragraph about it to the intro, for the benefit of any other newcomers who might otherwise end up similarly mistaken. (Feel free to improve the wording.) I've also added a specific exemption to CSD G2 for test pages created in users' own user space. I think that ought to be sufficient to address this issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:StopTaoSpam

...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs) has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. -Goodshoped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

These are the links that he is attacking me. -Goodshoped 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure StopTaoSpam's remarks on his userpage regarding Goodshoped qualify as an "attack" exactly, nor do two edits to Good's talkpage qualify as trolling. It appears that StopTaoSpam means well, but he may be harboring some resentment ever since Goodshoped reported his username to WP:UAA. Other opinions? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, [[28 November 2007 (UTC)

This user name is in appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I know! I wrote him up at UAA, administrator failed to block him, and he made an attack on his user page. -Goodshoped 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to voice my extreme complaint concerning Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I will request arbitration or resolution concerning the use of "harassment" and I was annoyed with Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with his report at WP:UAA however It has growned to frustration. The first thing is I was not harassing Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was Harassing Me.
For example with the policy of good faith and civility. My first edit resulted in a instant revert. With a edit on my talk page with ] He doubted whether it was spam yet went ahead and reported me at WP:UAA. Not enough in his report he stated "StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) — Violation of username policy because: Is an attack on an specific user, includes profanities, obscenities, or references to genitalias or sexual slangs, matches the name of a company or group, promotes a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view, is defamatory or insulting to other people or groups, invokes the name of a religious figure/religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promotes one religion over another, refers to a violent real-world action, and refers or includes allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera; User was removing links that were possibly spam, but also was kind of directing a personal attack on the Taos.. -Goodshoped 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)".
When I quested him talk page concerning his reasons for the revert and in the laozi article discussion. He responded first contradicting himself last. It was when I edited my OWN userpage on the problem. In which case he proceeded to abuse my talk page with progressive threats. I responded with a warning on his talk page and you can read it yourself. I have listed my points. Now look at this post by his supporter ] Isn't that a clear threat? If my name is a large concern than discuss and correct it but be aware I find this situation to be inexcusable and request arbitration with Goodshoped35110s and Gp75motorsports.

Well, the name got deleted from UAA without any action, and I am now forced to go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names. Would StopChristianSpam or StopMuslimSpam be acceptable user names? Corvus cornix_talk 03:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed if from RFCN. We do not create discussions there unless the user has been asked to discuss the username specifically, and the discussion was fruitless, or he ignored it. Neither of these has happened. If it has been rejeceted from UAA, then it is not blatant. If he is being disruptive, then he will be blocked for that. I (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

He ignored the requests on his Talk page, and he came here, right above my posting above, to abuse the person who brought it up there and here. Your removal of the discussion was blatantly inappropriate. How the hell are we supposed to get this offensive user name blocked? Corvus cornix_talk 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If it has been reported twice at UAA, and declined both times, it is obviously not that inappropriate. I (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's crap. The User name policy says, Misplaced Pages does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive. This name is all three of those things. The only reason it was removed from UAA the second time is because it was removed once before, not out of any consideration as to the validity of the complaint. The name is obviously promotional, and I am offended by it. I ask again, is StopChristianSpam an appropriate user name? What do we do now? The proper processes have been thwarted for inappropriate reasons. Are we just going to allow this highly offensive username to be used with no consequences? Corvus cornix_talk 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am making no comment as to the validity of the username. I merely removed the report, which was invalid, from RFCN, where there are criteria that must be met before adding, which this request did not meet. Take it up with the admin who removed it from UAA. I (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If it has been reported twice at UAA, and declined both times, it is obviously not that inappropriate - sure doesn't sound like you're not taking sides. But you still haven't explained why the removal from RFCN was appropriate, since the user has been asked to change his name and has decided not to discuss the issue, but to attack the person making the request. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, that comment is merely deductive reasoning. And I have read his talk page. At no point was discussion with the aim to resolve issues with his username started. Merely a "I'm reporting you to UAA". I (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So you didn't manage to read your username is an insult toward somebody, even if it wasn't intentional? I admit it isn't particularly cordial, but it is an attempt at discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion implies you are open to the idea my name is not blatant and offensive but you may have expressed your opinion to be the contrary. The name was an simple enough to login and edit the problems I saw in the articles. However this post was about harassment. I refute such statements. Any name change can be done after arbitration StopTaoSpam (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

←I did. However, that comment was only made a few hours ago, and he has only edited once since then, here, and I don't see that as a refusal to discuss. It was not an attempt at resolving the username issue. The dicussion that needs to happen is not a "your username is bad". It's a "I have concerns about your username. Would you be willing to try to resolve them?" I (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on StopTaoSpam's page, as well as Goodshoped and Gp75motorsports pages, suggesting that everybody step away. I don't like agenda-based usernames, but I don't see a flagrant violation; it's a WP:RFCN issue. Some de-escalation would be good. I've been working with Goodshoped on his tact and diplomacy - obviously, more progress is needed. StopTaoSpam could be less touchy, and it would be good if he'd change his name, for diplomacy's sake. Acroterion _(talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is clearly disruptive I have softblocked the account and recommended to find a neutral username Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Very bold. I don't think it is clearly disruptive, but we will see how well this de-escalates the situation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has been unblocked and is changing the username. I really appreciated your help. -Goodshoped 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

{{unlikely}} that you are an AN/I clerk. east.718 at 04:58, November 28, 2007

Yes, I know. I just kind of like to do that for some reason; it looks cool. No offense to the real clerks, and I'm not impersonating them. -Goodshoped 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

{{unnecessary}}, as there are no clerks. east.718 at 05:08, November 28, 2007

OK...it's a clerk war and we're supposed (aren't we?) to talk about this particular user? -Goodshoped 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

{{clerknote}} He has filed the request at WP:CHU. Since I don't see any need for me to clerk there (everything there is in apple-pie order), I'll clerk here instead. :p Jéské 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>{{clerknote}} Why not have him cool down at this page? -Goodshoped 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)?

{{clerknote}} Resolved for the night, don't play any games with him (for now.) (yawn!) Good night! -Goodshoped 05:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

{{clerknote}} Not yet; he just filed an arbitration request with me, Gp75motorsports, and Corvus cornix. -Goodshoped 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to consider blocking him indef; I don't think he'll stop. -Goodshoped 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, stop making new threads, and stop doing things that disrupt the flow of this page. There's no way the arbitration case would be filed, and that is why I was bold and removed it myself. Nothing is going to happen here to either of you—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to those who stepped in and resolved this. Corvus cornix_talk 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of anti-vandal tool by disruptive editor

Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly disruptive in the Sri Lanka conflict (last time) and just used a vandalism tool to revert to his POV. Can I, as an admin, take away the vandalism tool, or does someone else have to do it? — Sebastian 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe you can convince him, or you can have them blocked. I'm not an administrator, but I somehow happen to know this for some reason. -Goodshoped 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And I can really use your help with the section above this (stoptaospam). -Goodshoped 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a precedent for ripping out abused tools from one's monobook and protecting it. east.718 at 02:59, November 28, 2007

Can I do this? How? — Sebastian 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to User:Snowolfd4/monobook.js, remove the tools, and protect the page. But it might not be a bad idea to warn him first, as I've done now. Ral315 » 03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! — Sebastian 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(copied from Ral's talk) Just to explain, I removed the section as I saw it was not at all backed by the citations given, and said so clearly in my edit summery, which was

"entire original research. None of the citations mention a "controversy""

I didn't believe it needed further explanation on the talk page.

User:Taprobanus then undid my edit, without any explanation, either in the edit summery or talk page. As you know, when you undo an edit you clearly see the edit summery given by the previous editor, and he decided to simply ignore it and undo my edit, simply adding his extremely POV, uncited section back. It certainly was not a good faith edit, and I saw that as vandalism, pure and simple, and reverted it as such.(end copy from Ral's talk)

None of this was mentioned in the above post, and Sebastian's claim that I "reverted to my POV" is blatantly false. Even User:Black Falcon has agreed the section should not be in the article, and should be removed, as I initially did.

Like I told Ral, I stand by my edit, and would appreciate further input from neutral admin's on what they think of this. --snowolfD4 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon merged it's non redundant content into another paragraph, he did not totally remove it. BF also reworked the entire article. The para Snowolfdr was sourced too. Interested parties should also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#2006_Mannar_massacre. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

User talk:Npnigr8477 acts as a vandalism-only account; I believe it should be blocked permanently as such. —ScouterSig 04:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to go to WP:AIV. You'll get a faster response there. -Goodshoped 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget the warning set, we don't need people like that around here. east.718 at 04:13, November 28, 2007

Thanks for the advice—and the block. —ScouterSig 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:G-Dett's civility issues

Could someone please look at this edit summary -which is just the latest in User:G-Dett's routine behaviour, and remind her that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is in fact WP policy. Thanks. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling a point made by another editor "deceptive, insulting and stupid" seems pretty uncivil to me. Perhaps if G-Dett had left out the "stupid" part it might be different, but she didn't. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that anyone could defend G-Dett's behavior in any situation, let alone in a routine content dispute when the other editor did nothing particularly unusual.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Note Phral Phrallington has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Cliché Online, racist comments

Hello, I would like to request User:Cliché Online be blocked to stop him making racist comments like he has repeatedly done on Talk:2007 civil unrest in France. I don't know what the specific policy is on this, but in France at least inciting racial hatred is illegal, please do not let wikipedia be a breading ground for this kind of thing even if it is legal in the US. This page is linked to from the main page, in the news section, so it doesn't give a very good image of wikipedia when people see they are all africans. the dead were two muslisms, a blackboy and an arab as read in L'Express. the same as in 2005: same scums, same riots, as in the Watts riots. he obviously has an agenda to disparage Islam and immigrants. He is also spreading more libel calling people scum, even though they are yet to be proven guilty of anything, and is generally trying to stir up racial hatred. Here is another one of his comments: here's another one, just for your viewing pleasure. this is an official media Rue 89. what there are black people there too?! that's impossible! which blacks you said? african blacks, the others you mentioned are french from centuries, catholics and have nothing to do with these scums. He is also spreading false information about the 2 children who died calling them scum (see above) and Muslim (even though nothing shows this, sources only indicate they are children of immigrants). Requesting block per will to disrupt the project for a personal agenda, and violation of WP:BLP. Do you realise how bad it makes wikipedia look when the first item in the news section contains false allegations based on apparent ethnic background, such as Arabic = Muslim, and the talk page is filled with racial hatred posts? This is not just a case of someone being racist he is deliberately trying to incite hatred. Jackaranga (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note. --Haemo (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

She Who Photographs (talk · contribs)

Can a neutral admin please look at the contributions of She Who Photographs (talk · contribs)? To me, it appears to be a SPA whose purpose is to add disparaging and POV content to Woodburn Company Stores and Image:Woodburn Company Stores.jpg. The content added to the article is non-notable incidents while the image content is a straight copy of a self-proclaimed "Employee support group", which is really more like an employee rant forum. I've tried to contact the editor, but they have been unresponsive. The editor has just reverted my changes for the third or perhaps fourth time and I would prefer that somebody else intervene. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, this editor has made edits that blatantly misrepresent the information from a cited newspaper article. I have left a warning message, as have others. — Satori Son 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

William Rodriguez

Edit war in progress. People calling eachother vandals. I didn't go through the edits to see who is actually making legitimate contributions, but see the history for yourself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, it appears that Jrandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the one who is being disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then again, Jazz2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have some ownership issues with this article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is a huge mess, but it looks like the edit war is over. --Haemo (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be...for now. I left Jrandi a 3RR notice, and he hasn't edited since. Maybe those warnings actually do work? Thanks Haemo. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrandi (talk · contribs) has been blocked for twenty-four hours for edit warring. — madman bum and angel 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So has Jazz2006 (talk · contribs). — madman bum and angel 06:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrandi (talk · contribs) has requested a review of my block. — madman bum and angel 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrandi is an imposter of James Randi. The manner that the account edited (grammar/writing style, POV, edit warring) is definitely not the manner that Mr. Randi would behave. I have contact with Mr. Randi and have confirmed it is not him editing. It's a hoax or imposter. The block has been extended indefinitely. --Aude (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Has Jrandi actually claimed to be James Randi? Mr. Randi is not necessarily famous enough to be an "open and shut" WP:UN#CELEBRITY case anyway, and the username only has "J", not "James".—Random832 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rodriguez used to work with James Randi, as an assistant. This is noted in the article. --Aude (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible it's a coincidence, but that seems pretty unlikely. I think a username block is entirely appropriate here. Natalie (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppety vandals

These two accounts appear to have been working together:

• Mehk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sygtalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've blocked them both as vandalism-only. Another set or two of eyes would be nice, though. --Masamage ♫ 07:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Even if they hadn't been working together, there's nothing remotely controversial about either of those blocks. Both accounts hardly have a non-vandalism edit between them. ELIMINATORJR 07:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I definitely won't be losing any sleep over that. I'm just not very experienced in dealing with sockpuppety concerns; I'm not sure if there's anything else to be worried about here in terms of sleeper accounts, etc. --Masamage ♫ 09:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Endorse. If they are working together perhaps they can help each other out off wiki. Pedro :  Chat  09:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Excellent block. east.718 at 11:00, November 28, 2007

Sygtalia is the master account, it was created a week earlier. I've adjusted the tags. The oldest account is generally tagged as the master puppeteer, or sometimes the most prominent one if the oldest has little activity. I've adjusted the sock tags.15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

Arrest pol pot stoogerance (talk · contribs)

This new user is continually vandalising articles relating to communism and islam with the same message. Do we have to wait to block him or can we do it now? His account was created tonight and he was vandalising within two minutes. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him - obviously a sockpuppet of User:Runtshit who is just here to harass User:RolandR. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sneaky Vandalism of A. Philip Randolph by User talk:71.212.230.167

Whenm doing various anti-vandalism patrols I noticed that this user had changed dates on this, article, however my knowledge of subject is almost none. I am posting this here in order for someone knowledgable on this to check the dates that were changed. VivioFateFan 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not sneaky vandalism, it's simple vandalism. east.718 at 13:36, November 28, 2007

Warned -- lucasbfr 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Block for review

I've just blocked Danaullman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely, requesting review. Rationale - all his contributions consist of serious POV-pushing, edit-warring and fringe science advocacy on homeopathy-related topics. I've seen plenty of SPAs exactly like this and I seriously doubt we'll get any productive contributions from this quarter. Please also note he has something of a COI in this area, being, according to himself, the publisher for an advocate of odd views on homeopathy. Moreschi 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? Neil ☎ 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• From what I can see, specific diffs would not be useful; the whole edit history is obvious POV pushing, and no attempts are made to discuss any of those edits. I'm not unblocking. — Coren  15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aron Tendler

Lobojo (talk · contribs) is readding content to this article that I feel is clearly in violation of WP:BLP. The content concerns rumors of sexual misconduct by a Rabbi who has not been charged with any crime. The reporting of rumors has no place o Misplaced Pages, in my opinion, and I would ask an impartial admin to review. I would note that two other admins have been involved, one of whom reverted to the rumorless version, and the other to the version including the rumors. However, the latter admin did not respond after discussions on the talk page and let the version without the disputed content stand. This is not a content dispute, as i see it, but a policy dispute. Jeffpw (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I also do not care for being called an "lazy academic infant". This user seems to have something to learn about WP:NPA. That's just one of several diffs directed at me. I also don't think it's kind to our project to be told that Misplaced Pages is "worse than tabloid journalism", as a rationale for adding rumors to a BLP, and referring to Misplaced Pages's owner as "Jimbo Christ" because of his position on BLP. Jeffpw (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This individual is apparently a brother of Mordecai Tendler, whose article was recently AFDed. The AFD, history, and talk page of the brother's article are relevant context for understanding inter-user disputes here. GRBerry 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the Mordecai Tendler article was Kept at the AFD.DGG (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, the article in question is Aron Tendler, not his brother. The only things relating them are the fact that they are brothers, the articles were created by the same editor, and both contain rumors which have not been substantiated. What separates the two is Rabbi Mordecai Tendler denied the rumors (apparently, anyway--there are no inline cites in the text), while Rabbi Aron Tendler has not commented on the rumors. The fact that the Rabbi did not comment makes the rumors unfit for his biography, in my opinion. Jeffpw (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

are you saying they are more likely to be verifiable if they are denied?DGG (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that the fact that the subject has spoken directly about them makes it allowable in the encyclopedia. The fact that the subject of this article has not commented makes it even more so just rumor and speculation, and thus a violation of WP:BLP. There is precedent for this position: Just look at the discussions on the talk page of the Clay Aiken. Though media sources speculated about his sexuality, that didn't make it into the article, because he didn't directly confirm or deny it, Only the quotes he himself made were put in the article, per BLP. That same principle should be applied here. It frankly amazes me that there is even a debate bout whether this material shoudl be excised. It is against policy, pure and simple. Jeffpw (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove (talk*contribs)

Editors have agreed to disengage.--Isotope23 15:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple attacks towards myself and User:Direktor. Also suspected of sockpuppetry and POV pushing od theDalmatia article for some time now. Has been reported to ARBCOM, who restricted him to one edit per week per article, with discussion, a restriction that he has deliberately disobeyed, making FOUR eits to the Istrian exodusarticle in one day, with absolutely no discussion. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia 2 for evidence. Best,--Gp75motorsports (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You two really need to disengage. Giovanni's restriction was 1 revert per week... not simple article edits. The "attacks" towards User:DIREKTOR would appear to be in response to being labeled a sockpuppeteer, sans any evidence (and as someone fairly familiar with the situation I'd say that the claim is somewhat unlikely). Direktor and Giovanni have a history of complete inability to work together, exacerbated by the fact that the are editing the same articles from 2 different POVs. I realize you are trying to help here Gp75motorsports, but all you are doing is ratcheting up the situation by calling his edits vandalism and accusing him of sockpuppetry.--Isotope23 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

_{I have disengaged, I don't know if Giove has. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)}

Odd behavior from a sock farm(?)

There are a number of odd accounts:

1. Jimbopheel (talk · contribs)
2. Pheel's appeal (talk · contribs)
3. Wikidont (talk · contribs)
4. Pithecusson (talk · contribs)
5. Per2343o9 (talk · contribs)
6. Trypanopediac (talk · contribs)
7. Tyranopediac (talk · contribs)

I was about to block the whole lot; but I wanted at least a second pair of eyes. None of them have made significant contributions, are relatively recent, and they all seem to be interested only in criticizing Misplaced Pages to make some sort of odd point. They are obviously related to each other: (2) is a straightforward sock of (1) made to "appeal" the username block; (7) and (6) are obviously related; (5) and (6) bolster each other in Islamabad; (4) and (6) make POV edits about religion and all signed the "petition" to unblock (1).

I wanted a second pair of eyes because I'm the one who did the original block of (1) for the username so I didn't want to act further in the "dispute", but also because I suspect those may be either only part of a sock farm, or all of them socks of some other editor that's trying to make a point of some sort. — Coren  15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know they're all connected? For example, what is the connection between (6) and (1) besides signing the petition?—Random832 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, hence this thread.  :-) — Coren  15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(added) More precisely, it seems fairly clear that (3) to (7) are all the same puppeteer, but (1) and (2) might be different— it's just odd that they would just happen to stumble upon (1)'s block and linked advocacy— especially since none of them are very active. — Coren  15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, that it isn't totally clear per the duck test, but it is very suspicious. I'd recommend a checkuser before blocking as socks other than maybe Pheel's appeal. Of course most of them could probably be blocked just based on vandalism, and other nonsense edits...--Isotope23 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There's technically no cause to block user:Pheel's appeal (well... not based on sockpuppetry anyway - he doesn't necessarily appear to be here to build an encyclopedia) unless he's connected to the other accounts, username-blocked users are free to make a new account. I would suggest checkuser.—Random832 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • True... or he could simply be a friend of the blocked editor. Checkuser is the way to go here. Most of the accounts have been dormant for a few days, so there is no rush.--Isotope23 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think a CU is possible; there's obvious pointy disruption, but it's not large scale or rampant. What I'm worried about, is that they are all part of a sockfarm owned by a bigger puppeteer; probably a banned editor: they all are recent, and jumped in with obvious knowledge of wikimarkup, wp terminology and wp policy— someone else is behind them (sock or meat). — Coren  18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Isn't that what CU is for?—Random832 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Arguably, but if you check the rules you'll see that the privacy concern greatly override the desire to find low-damage socks unless they are ban/block circumvention. Not necessarily a bad idea in general, it's just not convenient in this particular case. — Coren  20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I have been personally attacked several times over the past two days. The user in question, Alice.S, called me:

• "ignorant" 1
• "spasm reverter" 2
• "mindlessly and ignorantly using the undo facility" 3
• "mindlessly and ignorantly using the undo facility!" 4
• "stop your mindless and ignorant reversions!" 5
• "mindlessly and ignorantly"

• When I asked her to be more civil, after her first two personal attacks, she responded with this.6 She was recently blocked for a WP:POINT violation. Jose João (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Solar energy Rfc ignored

I initiated a Request for comment of some confusing content on the Solar energy page about a month ago. This seemed like an easy fix and the results of the Rfc are clearly in favor of removing said picture but one editor continues to bring it back. This picture issue follows several months of disruption on the page by this editor. I'd like the picture issue settled.Mrshaba (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible legal threat re: Marc Ostrofsky

Yesterday I made this addition to Marc Ostrofsky: using the following pages as references: and . I believe that the references, which are to arbitration cases overseen by the .eu domain name registry, support the edits. I received this edit from a person who more or less admitted to being hired to edit the Marc Ostrofsky page by Ostrofsky himself, which appears to contain a legal threat. Are my edits unsupported by their sources? Am I reading too much into this? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a legal threat. Jose João (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it a legal threat. The threat is to "report you to Misplaced Pages", not file a lawsuit. I think a friendly note cautioning against their making stronger threats would be appropriate though. --Onorem♠Dil 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's oddly worded. The disputed edits are described as "slander" (verging on a legal threat, but no threat actually made), it then talks about "taking formal action" (again, no legal threat as such), then it talks about being "forced to report you to Misplaced Pages" (whatever that may mean). The"deadline" mentioned is up in 2 minutes; I'm curious to see what'll happen... Tonywalton  | Talk 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes me wonder is that if this is a legal professional speaking, why is he referring to "slander", when (and if it was the case) it should be "libel" due to it be being written word that is published. Makes me think hot air is being blown by someone who doesn't have a clue. --WebHamster 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether they are good sources is an intersting one, but more suited for Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the article's talk page than this forum. Normally final arbitration results are effectively final court decisions, and could be used the same way final court decisions are used. The reason that it is doubtful is that in part, those sources rely upon the Misplaced Pages page on which they are being used. In case #4014, this occurs in the Complainant's complaint, paragraph 28. In case #2438, this issue doesn't appear to occur. GRBerry 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire sectionMarc Ostrofsky#Conflicts with the .eu Domain Name Registry needs more justification in my view. These arbitration decisions are primary sources. In general we are supposed to avoid primary sources, though exceptions can be made (in my opinion) if they are essential to the article. It's not clear to me that a narrative of whatever applications Marc Ostrofsky may have made to the the .eu registry is essential to getting a full picture of his significance or his career. If they are included to suggest some ethical lapses on Ostrofsky's part, then the burden of proof rises (since it becomes a real BLP issue) and relying on primary sources alone becomes even more questionable. Why should we be the first published source to consider that Ostrofsky's role in ask.eu was not proper? As an encyclopedia should be summarizing what's been published elsewhere on that issue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Creditng image authors in main space?

I noticed on Bridget Moynahan that the image says "copyright Rebecca Murray", with her name being a link back to http://movies.about.com. On the image itself at http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Bridget_moynahan_int.jpg, it says:

Copyright Rebecca Murray; http://movies.about.com/

The image is from an interview with Bridget Moynahan, and she has informed me that the image may be freely used on Misplaced Pages provided that copyright is indicated and her site is identified.

Does this mean every visible page it appears on has to bear this identification, or is sufficient to have it on just the image page but not the article? I hadn't seen a credit like that appear in any other article before, and wasn't sure if violated any image or content policies, as the link back to the author source there isn't very encyclopediac. Does this happen on any other articles? Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, yes, but it would need a fair use rationale, if one can be made, for every page. Adam Cuerden 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the photo credit and link the website should only be on the image description page, and not in the article body. Also, "Misplaced Pages only" images have to have a fair use rationale anyway, because they won't stay Misplaced Pages only - when other sites mirror Misplaced Pages they mirror the "Misplaced Pages only" photos along with everything else. Natalie (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the image, it seems like the uploader may not understand that the CCSA license means that anyone can use the image provided they follow the terms of the license, not just Misplaced Pages. Natalie (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just put copystatus tags on the image page? Easy. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, Lawrence Cohen is asking whether or not the image needs to be credited in the article text, as opposed to on the image page, which is an issue not addressed by any tags. And I'm not claiming that the image is not licensed CCSA. I'm just saying that I don't think the uploader correctly understands what the CCSA license entails. Natalie (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

MatthewHoffman

MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs)

I've been asked, by e-mail from a Charles Matthews, whoever that is, to have this block reviewed. I only vaguely remember the details, but reviewing, it seems a fairly clearcut case, and the e-mailer hasn't given any reason for it to be lifted. Anyone think there's a problem with it? Adam Cuerden 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Prior AN/I discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#User:MatthewHoffman. GRBerry 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My problems with this can be seen firstly in the block log

• Account making outspoken Talk page comments is labelled "vandalism-only"
• First block on 3RR is presumably within the rules; second block uses the word "harass" which is bitey.
• The second block is upgraded to indefinite with a vague accusation that it is probably a sock. Evidence?

Adam has little or no recollection of this. The AC heard directly from Matthew Hoffman, protesting that he is a real person. This I believe, and it's not hard to document.

The expressed views are shared with others, and are no grounds for saying it's a sock. We should all be sensitive to this kind of accusation, especially when used as here to take out a dissident voice. (I'm not saying that no blocks should have been isssued; we have WP:BITE for a reason.) Adam seems altogether too close to this for my comfort. I have been trying to get any response at all for some time.

What is more, I don't accept that the AN is some sort of standing committee handing down indef blocks. It seems clear that Adam, by refusing to discuss the block with me privately, feels that the buck doesn't stop with him, but here. That is not the basis on which admin powers are given. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to raise the issue of people moving too quickly to indefinite blocks here, but got little response. Blocking so-called vandals indefinitely straightaway is too bitey, in my opinion. It is difficult to distinguish between someone experimenting and someone playing around. The case you point out is clearer, as the talk page edits should not have been labelled vandalism. Regarding the buck stopping with individual admins, I agree. That is one reason why people are sometime reluctant to unblock after they have blocked. What might help is in cases where discussion between two admins has occurred, is that the blocking admin passes the block over, and allows the second admin to unblock with the proviso that they will reblock (if present) or endorse a reblock (if not present) if the unblocked editor causes trouble. The problem comes when such offers are rebuffed with a "no, I don't think this editor should be unblocked - take it to ANI/AN/ArbCom if you want to pursue this" (take your pick). As Charles says, agreeing to let someone else unblock is different to unblocking yourself. In the former case, you are passing over responsibility, in the latter case, you are continuing to take responsibility. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by all my decisions, but am willing to change my mind, and if Matthew Hoffman wanted to discuss his block, then I would happily reconsider and might well give him another chance. But I fail to see what the point is of unblocking a disruptive user after several months because a random user asks me to, no offense to Charles Matthews intended. Adam Cuerden 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam, if you don't know who a "random user" is, check! That is why people have userpages. In this case, even a cursory attempt to check would have revealed that he is someone who you should listen to and you should have treated his concerns seriously. GRBerry 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think Charles was acting in his arbitrator role, but just as another admin. Still, the "random user" comment did cause me to raise my eyebrows, and is particularly ironic as, if all goes "according to plan", Adam and Charles could be colleagues in just over a month's time... What will the "random user" comment be worth then? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(ecx2) Charles, thanks for bringing more of the story to light. The prior AN/I conversation can best be described as thinly populated; only Adam, Moreschi and Jehochman participated, and noone other than Adam commented more than once. Looking at Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 04#Serious Violation of NPOV I see that other users were also somewhat incivil toward this user, which should generally be considered a mitigating factor. I don't like the combination of that conversation with the block; the combination clearly has a chilling effect of implying to any future readers "if you challenge this view, we will block you for it". I also think there was an easy compromise that should have been suggested at the time, and wasn't because too many editors were edit warring instead of seeking consensus.

Checking, the 3RR block is legitimate in my eyes, the violation clearly occurred. The harassment block is not legitimate in my eyes as harassment didn't occur, and neither is the extension, as there was not adequate basis to believe the editor was a sockpuppet. I believe the block should be lifted. GRBerry 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after two months, it is somewhat odd to have this suddenly resurface. I see I received an e-mail from Charles Matthews at the time, checking my inbox, but I fear it got lost in spam and was never read.

Oh, fine. I'll unblock him, if you feel so strongly. But I'm putting him on a short leash and probation. Adam Cuerden 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, you ignored one email, you made no answer to a User talk question whether you'd had an email, you didn't try find out what my locus standi for asking was (I'm an Arbitrator investigating an indef block). You turned away another email saying you didn't recall anything. Admins are supposed to be reasonably responsive, in relation to their admin actions. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mentioned in your e-mail to Adam that you were "an Arbitrator investigating an indef block"? That makes the "random user" comment even more strange. On the other hand, this is the first time in this thread that you've said you are an arbitrator. Maybe saying that earlier might have resolved things a bit quicker? Not everyone knows who the arbitrators are, though Adam has no excuse really, as he is a candidate to be one. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't mention my status. Revealing, isn't it? Stonewalling all the way. Anyway, I suggest Adam withdraws from the AC election. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion." - My second e-mail to you. Your response was that this was not good enough, so I brought it up here myself, but upon some review, the block seemed justified and had been declared so by several admins. And, after two months, I think that it's reasonable for someone to only act on an indef block after finding out there's a reason why it's still relevant to look into. You seemed to expect me to jump through hoops on your sayso, without finding it necessary to talk about the reasons for your concerns, and so I see no reason to withdraw from Arbcom elections on your sayso. Adam Cuerden 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, SPA, edit-warrior - why are we talking about second chances? Why are we wasting our time? I had a look at this first time around, saw he was not someone to get hot under the collar about. Please, ArbCom has enough problems with disruptive editors without adding to the casload. Moreschi 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if you respect your fellow admins, and one of them approaches you suggesting an unblock, you will be prepared to let that admin take over responsibility for the block. If that admin is wrong, and the unblocked editor immediately goes on a rampage, it is their reputation and credibility that will take a hit, not yours. Lacking a convincing response and stonewalling a good-faith request after it is clear further discussion won't get anywhere, is just being stubborn. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, how do you justify the sockpuppet and SPA accusations from Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman? Spending 11 days and 20 edits on a single article doesn't make an account a single-purpose account. Give them longer and they may widen their interests. Or is a requirement now that all accounts start off with wikignome edits on unrelated articles? Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is an example of an admin doing absolutely everything wrong (a block logged in a deceptive way, and defended by the bureaucratic runaround), and given that saying "an obvious sock" on no evidence at all is somewhat discredited right now, the fact that Adam's actions in an area where he is not really uninvolved at all find defenders conveys a message to me. The "noticeboard culture" is corrupting proper administration of the site. It seems entirely clear here. The phrase "random user" is the arrogance of power wrapped for Christmas.Charles Matthews (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Woah, wait a minute. Adam above says that he brought the block to other admins for discussion. Was it here, Adam? Can you provide a link to the discussion? and was upheld, you're certainly coming on a little strong, aren't you? And it seems to me that you are being arrogant, by assuming that everybody, even every admin, even every person running for the Arbcom, should obviously know who you are and obviously should stop what they're doing and kowtow to you, when you didn't even bother to identify yourself nor to explain your concerns, apparently. It seems to me that somebody as arrogant as yourself should be the one to resign from the Arbcom. Corvus cornix_talk 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not asking for name recognition. Five seconds due diligence? I'm not asking for obeisance. I'm noting that even plain editors of Misplaced Pages deserve something more than a brush-off. And why not read the whole thread before diving in? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read the whole thread, thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the link you asked for is a few lines from the top. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue for this forum isn't lack of name recognition, it is lack of due diligence and the lack of openness to review. (The lack of recognition is a current issue for a different forum, and I posed it there a while ago.) As I said above, if you don't know who someone is, check before ignoring them, especially before ignoring them repeatedly. Even the most cursory attempt to check would have revealed that the question was coming from 1) a long term editor in good standing, 2) an admin and 3) an arbcomm member, any one of which by itself is enough reason to respond seriously to the question. GRBerry 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and guys, don't spam filter your Misplaced Pages mails, and if you do, don't ignore User talk messages "did you have a mail from me?". Charles Matthews (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've now read every single edit that MatthewHoffman made before being blocked, and I agree with GRBerry and Charles Matthews that the block was unwarranted. I am concerned that the (unwarranted in my view) sockpuppet and harassment accusations remain in the block log with nothing more than a laconic "second chance" unblock notice (which implicitly shows that Adam still thinks the initial indefinite block was justified), and I'm also concerned that Adam has placed excessive probation restrictions on MatthewHoffman (one revert per article per day), with no indication of when the restrictions will end. Thus an indefinite block has turned into an indefinite probation, which is hardly an improvement. Adam's initial block notice on MatthewHoffman's talk page referred to "extreme rudeness", but I have failed to find any such thing in MatthewHoffman's edits, and I looked through all of them. I'm seriously concerned at the lack of judgment shown by Adam Cuerden in placing the block, Moreschi in calling for an indefinite block, and Jehochman for backing up that call. Unless Adam can provide diffs demonstrating the appropriateness of his block (specifically the "extreme rudeness"), I think Adam should retract his probation conditions and leave MatthewHoffman to edit under no more restrictions than any those any editor faces. I would urge anyone questioning this to read Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman and judge for themselves whether those edits tally with what Hoffman was blocked for. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems finishing a discussion

Can someone politely tell JzG and the other admins to let me please, pretty please finish my conversation with Haemo on my talk page? I got a sneaky (no warning, nor even a notice) 7 day block for 3RR, which was then made into a 1 month block for just using a "mocking" tone, which oddly became an indefinite block, again without discussion, nor warning, nor even a notice on my Talk page. Now bear in mind that even my worst detractors can't point to any "sins" by me apart from very vague accusations regarding my attitude -- which was the topic being discussed. Try to think of any other editor who got indefinitely blocked and has drawn such hostile comments without doing anything bad-bad -- no vandalism, no sockpuppets, no obscenities, no direct insults, nor any such nonsense -- just edits that have been accurate and consistently supported by refs and discussion on the appropriate Talk pages, with the only fault -- maybe, perhaps -- of not showing enough diplomacy at times. If you follow the discussion I started regarding my getting unblocked, you will see that it gets interrupted twice right in middle of my chatting with Haemo, first by MaxSem and then by JzG. Despite somewhat disengenuous claims to the contrary, there was no "soapboxing, etc," -- just go check.

I hope I'm not asking for too much -- I basically just want to be allowed to finish discussing my case for removing the indefinite block. I think December 1st would be a reasonable deadline -- it's just a couple of days off. And it is just my Talk page. Some of you might know that there could possibly be underlying off-wiki reasons for some of the things going on, but I promise to avoid bringing those up in this discussion -- I'll just stick to Misplaced Pages only topics. Thanks in advance for your consideration. (By the way, I'm not using any real "tricks" to post here -- my block is just kind of weird). -BC aka Callmebc 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're bypassing your block to request it reconsideration? I have to say that this is not very likely to help your case. If you wish to appeal your case, you can do so on your talk page or contact an administrator by e-mail to make a posting here, but you should not do it yourself. TSO1D (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

His user talk page has been protected by JzG with the comment 'Changed protection level for "User talk:Callmebc": Incessant trolling, no realistic chance of an unblock. ', so that avenue is blocked. I agree that he could have e-mailed an admin. I think we should be very cautious in protecting the talk pages of blocked users. Bovlb (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point out the reason he was originally blocked?—Random832 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Which time? He's been blocked ten times. See Corvus cornix_talk 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jajouka/Joujouka

Could someone please help at this long-term dispute? The conflict can be described in a whole as a coflict of interests as per the definition at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.

Two groups of Musicians with almost similar backgrounds exist in real world and both have their own article in Misplaced Pages. The bands in question are Master Musicians of Joujouka and Master Musicians of Jajouka. Many related articles are still being tagged w/ {{Not verified}}, {{Primarysources}} and {{totallydisputed}} templates.

It should be noted that these 2 groups have been directly associated w/ other biographical articles of a few notable writers such as Paul Bowles and William S. Burroughs, painters such as Mohamed Hamri, musicians such as Brian Jones and Bachir Attar photographers who were or have been associated w/ the Beat Generation somehow.

Lately, some of these articles have been subject to edit warring again. Apart from the accounts of some of the users involved (User:BKLisenbee and User:Frankrynne), many IPs were edit warring as well. These IPs hail from both Europe (Ireland and France) and the US (NY area and Florida).

I've been directly involved in maintaining some order and there have been many discussion between editors at the articles talk pages and some have led to concensus. However, the following infringement and disrespect of policies and guidelines are still being noted (WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and it seems that my 1 week blocks for both users (U:BKLisenbee and U:Frankrynne) have done little to curve tensions and enhance contibutors' behaviour toward each other.

All details can be found at User:FayssalF/JK -an informal mediation subpage i created back on May 2007 to help both camps stop edit warring and build a relationship based on mutual trust. That helped ease tensions but not all the time. I am just therefore requesting from any volunteer admin to help out since i've been a bit busy lately. It still can go through a formal mediation process but any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

-- FayssalF - 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

possible immflamatory comment on User talk:ElKevbo?

No admin action necessary at this time

Hi. An anon placed a comment on this user's talkpage, calling him/her a jackass and mental. I then posted a comment after it, asking if it should be removed per WP:RPA or something. Should it be removed, or perhaps just rephrased? I see the anon has a talkpage, but I didn't check to see if it was warnings or whatever. Can someone check, and either remove the comment or do something about it if nessecary? Thanks. ~AH1 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd let ElKevbo deal with their talkpage as they see fit. I will warn the IP about civility and I did remove the poorly sourced text in question.--Isotope23 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

COI editing on Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

The main editors to these pages are admitted employees/devotees of Maharishi, who is the originator and marketer of Transcendental Meditation. Recently, two RfCs have been lodged requesting additional non-TM editors evaluate the pages for NPOV and COI concerns. The TM editors are closely allied in their edits, and are most vocal in refusing any large changes to the article (some edit-warring on this took place yesterday - so TM is now protected). They also are insistent that their conflicts-of-interest should not dis-qualify them from being the main editors to the page, and seem to mis-understand consensus and neutral-point-of-view. One editor in particular, User:TimidGuy, has said that anyone who thinks he shouldn't edit the page should lodge a complaint with ArbCom. ArbCom shouldn't really be bothered by this, but the talk page posts approach flaming levels, so could someone please take a look at these editors and decide what is indicated?

The relevant accounts are User:TimidGuy, User:Littleolive oil, and User:Spairag, although the last hasn't been very active recently. Based on their edit histories, I would put all three right on the edge of being single-purpose accounts Michaelbusch (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:The Matrix Prime

Hiya. A few months ago, The Matrix Prime and I had a dispute about whether a fair-use image he wanted to add to Optimus Prime (disambiguation) was appropriate. Ever much undo-ing and teeth gnashing, the image was axed and the guideline updated to more emphatically preclude those images. I've generally moved on from Transformers-related pages, but a few were on my watchlist as part of a to-do. Category:Primes/Primals cropped up on my recently-edited watchlist pages, and I removed a fair-use image from it. The category was recently deleted as empty (there seems to be an edit dispute abrew between TMP and User:mathewignash), but TMP recreated it with the fair-use image. I removed it; TMP restored it, and I again excised it and left a message on TMP's talk page. In the last 30 minutes or so, TMP appears to have gone through my edit history and undone some of my recent good-faith and appropriate edits (). These are generally trivial or maintenance-tag related, but considering previous head-butting with TMP and TMP (as far as I can tell) not having previously edited any of these pages, it appears to border on harassment. I'd appreciate a third-party's perspective and possible intervention. TMP's restoration of that disambig page image, the restoration of the fair-use image to the category page, and this comment in response to my aforelinked post on his talk page unfortunately seem to show this editor's reluctance to abide by guidelines and/or consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Metis1 and Metis TransPacific Airlines

This editor has claimed on his userpage that he worked for Metis TransPacific Airlines, which has been claimed by Skytrax as "spoof operation". Today he has blanked the page twice , , and once removed warning tags . I have reasonable reason to request this person to be banned indef.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards