Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crossmr (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 4 January 2009 (→User:Theblog). 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:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Edit war at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

There seems to be an edit war, that has lasted several days now and counting, going on between Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) at the above article. Would someone who doesn't mind dealing with these things look to see if protection and or some user warnings are warranted? Kelly 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Endemic" is the proper word. "Several days" understates how this article has been handled for several months now. Collect (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux   19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, I just looked at the history. Yeesh. Enough. How about this:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned from the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 for a mininum of three months. They may use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Misplaced Pages policies. SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate is like the hot-stove league, debating how someone's favorite team could have won the pennant if only thus-and-so hadn't happened. Content disputes, like they can somehow change the election results if they just get the article "right". Baseball Bugs 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I'd expand that to each other's talkpages, Joe the Plumber, William Timmons, and List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, based on editing intersections for the past couple of months. Send them back to their separate corners. // roux   20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, you just made me cry. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, We can simply make and related pages part of any topic ban to cover that, I think, but I agree that we need to keep them from interacting with each other. (and Bugs, or a more recent version, why the )!@*@+$*@_$ did Grady leave Pedro in so long! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. Endorse community topic ban with respect to pages related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election for at least 3 months. This may give them something more productive to do. Will notify the two.  Sandstein  20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse the expanded community topic ban. Suggest that 'related' include any person related to the 2008 campaign, to the extent of any congressional figure NOT representing the two editors' directly, Foreign personalities commenting on the matter, State races in which either candidate was endorsed by either presidential race, any article on any interaction between any candidates, and so on... Can we just ban one to articles on insects and the other to articles on french cars, ensuring ZERO communication? ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell yes. This has gone on way too long. McCain campaign and related articles, broadly construed, and if we have to bang heads together to make it stick then let's just do that. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• YES! It's way over due. See my comments here and here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanded version based on comments:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:

• any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
• Each other's talkpages, with the sole exception of any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads. Users are required to keep such notices brief, formal, and polite.
• They may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
• This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Misplaced Pages policies.

Seem about right? // roux   20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the summary. That's about right.  Sandstein  20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Bob Hope coming to mind just now? :) Baseball Bugs 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A topic ban as worded above by Roux seems logical and fair. To be definite, I suggest that the topic ban expire on 30 March 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• uninvolved support - three months to do something else is a good starting point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from Amwestover. Whoa! I do not think this is a fair characterization of the dispute at all. I have made numerous attempts to reach compromise on the World opinion section of this article, and I have plenty of diffs to prove this effort. This is part of the editing process, and I don't think I should be punished for it even if it has taken what some would consider a long time. In the past few weeks, every time I'd address one of csloat's concerns, however, he'd raise a new one -- this is part of the reason that this has gone on for the length of time it has. So eventually on the suggestion of another editor after I'd lost all patience with csloat, I went with the simplest version of the section possible hoping that this would finally end it all. That was wishful thinking cuz it didn't. So now the dispute is over material that was removed which I think is non-notable and is being given undue weight. Instead of giving evidence of notability and relevance, he has refused to do so. Instead, he has decided to claim that his version of the edit is the "consensus" version (he has quite a history of this...), and that past consensus is immutable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the debate over just that paragraph about the alleged al-Qaeda "endorsement" of McCain, or is that only one of many content disputes? Baseball Bugs 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I am satisfied with all of the content in the article, except for the al-Qaeda content which I believe has no place in the article. I can't speak for csloat, though. I honestly have no idea what he's come up with, but I do know that he'll claim whatever version he supports is the "consensus" version. You could count the number of times he's done that in his edit summaries with your fingers and toes and you'd still run out. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems appropriate. — neuro 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Proposed addition to topic ban - in addition, the two users should refrain from talking about each other anywhere on-wiki. Leave each other alone, period, is kinda the point here. // roux   00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps inferences should be added to this too. — neuro 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Anything that stops this sort of absolute buloney is a Good Thing! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Or... You could all try and put this into some sort of context instead of !voting. Maybe even contribute an opinion on the matter since uninvolved opinions have been needed for a while. I hope this isn't how all admin action discussed. There was an RFC like two weeks ago, and now we're blowing past all other forms of dispute resolution (if you can call this proposed action that) right to blocking? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Seems pretty extreme to me for a content dispute. The only issue is with the McCain campaign article and it's the al-Qaeda paragraph; every other editor on the page has seemed ok with keeping some version of the paragraph in except Amwestover. I'm willing to compromise and I'm willing to go along with whatever version of that paragraph the consensus supports, and I'm certainly willing to not touch the page until a consensus emerges on that paragraph, whether the "wrong version" is in place or not. Hopefully some sort of voluntary solution such as that is preferable to a mutual topic ban? csloat (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Change bullet 2 to read any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads would be better. (Can't exactly run RFAR without RFC/Mediation these days.) - Penwhale | 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Amended & slightly expanded. Do we have consensus on this and is there an admin who would like to notify both users on their talk pages? // roux   09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I could notify them... - Penwhale | 10:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support just wanted to note that I also support this proposal. I've seen this user Commodore Sloat edit on other articles before resulting in similar issues with disruptive edit warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wow. Three months topic ban for having a strong opinion about including a single paragraph on a page. And with no due process whatsoever or even an attempt to look at non-punitive means of dispute resolution. Happy new year, Misplaced Pages. csloat (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh come off it. You two have been fighting for ages. This is the clearest way to make the disruption stop. // roux   18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Penwhale left a notice of an alleged topic ban on my user page and I've discussed (and may be continuing to discuss) the notice. The topic of discussion has been mainly this: where anywhere in Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines does it state that an editing restriction can be imposed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee? I've thoroughly searched the policies to the best of my ability and haven't been able to find anything that gives authority to administrators or the uninvolved community to spontaneously impose an editing restriction on any single user without due process. So this discussion of a topic ban whose terms were suggested by SirFozzie and which were blown way out of scope by roux are nonconstructive and not appreciated.
  Now, if anyone would like to offer an uninvolved third opinion on the matter, which some editors already have done and what has been needed for a long time, then you are more then welcome and encouraged to do so if you desire. Advice on further steps in resolution are appreciated too, however I'm not sure if they'll be necessary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion You were both out of line and over the top. Let it go. Gerardw (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually got here via the appeal on WP:AN - reviewing the edits in question, all I can say is, wow. I think an enforced break from editing in these areas and squabbling with each other is entirely warranted. Orderinchaos 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At WP:AN, both editors contend the edit war is continuing. An examination of the talk page and article history shows this is not the case; in fact, the talk page shows numerous voices opposed to inclusion, and no new voices for it. As such, I've again removed the section. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you joined the edit war. csloat (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I waited for two days, and when no less than three outside editors concurred that the material belonged out, I effected that. You got four WP:3O's for the price of one; or a new consensus of uninvolved editors examining the situation. Either way, I simply instituted a new, extant consensus regarding the material. I noted that of the four new editors I counted, one had questions, three opposed, and no one supported teh inclusion of the material. Including you and amwest, that would yield 4 for out, one for in, one questioner. If we did it by votes, you'd lose. We do it by consensus, with three new people agreeing with each other and with one side of the extant fight that the material should be out. That's it. ThuranX (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your revert was less than 24 hours after two other reverts of the same material, neither one by myself or Amwestover. And you can claim consensus, but the RfC turned out a very different consensus based on the fact that the information was well sourced and directly relevant. But that's not the issue anyway, the issue is edit warring, which continued after the block, indicating the block was purely punitive and did nothing to protect the article from edit warring. Your deletion only confirms the point. csloat (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of any cited evidence at all presented in this case, otherwise tertiary and inconclusive evidence: The 2:54 edit prior to Csloat's first edit (for a long time, I didn't go all the way back in the History) of 17:11 25th Oct
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008&oldid=247519680
18:30 edit prior to Amwestover's first edit, confirmed, on 22:56 20th Sept
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008&oldid=239830363
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
The article is improved since these editors began. This does not prove they contributed, but it does show that they haven't stopped the article from improving. Anarchangel (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA account

WhoWatches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This appears to be a clear SPA account only used to comment at the AdminWatch proposal located here. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like its only purpose is disruption. You could try at WP:AIV unless someone blocks it here first. Baseball Bugs 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to call the Watchmen. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go to AIV, but it's not vandalism, hence why I've brought it to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You might have considered informing me you were discussing me, or talking to me perhaps. I am clearly NOT being either disruptive or vandalizing anything, and I am completely within my rights to communicate WP:Sock#Legit as per Segregation and Security, section 3 to avoid being the target of harassing emails or phone calls merely for entering into discussion with other Misplaced Pages editors. I will thank you to cease threatening me. WhoWatches (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is so ironic as to verge on rustiness; Why didn't you just copy over what I said to you when I found that I had been casually accused of "admin abuse" by you, without bothering to let me know? Oh, that would be because I'm an abusive admin, wouldn't it?

nb. Yeah, this account is not violating policy (well, WP:CIVIL a little maybe...) so fine - but it is making what may have been a good sounding board for highlighting problems with some sysops into an irrelavent admin hate mongering page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know users that disclose alternative accounts yes, but you haven't done that. For all we know, you could be an abusive sockpuppet. (I'm not saying you are, but you could be) D.M.N. (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no policies being breached. Tan | 39 19:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Equally, I don't see how the account passes WP:SOCK#LEGIT as it claims. Black Kite 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who was harrasing you with emails or phone calls under your other account? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• So long as WhoWatches restricts himself to commenting on the talkpage of Tony's user subpage for Adminwatch, there is not a major concern, I think. I agree though that this is not a legitimate use of a sock under Segregation and security, point 3. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. I do not have to have already received such to be justifiably worried about receiving them.WhoWatches (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even have ever bothered commenting to WP:ANI, except that someone put this discussion here and couldn't even be civil enough to speak with me first via my talkpage, nor civil enough to inform me I was being discussed. WhoWatches (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering your rather aggressive attitude towards all editors at Misplaced Pages, and not just admins, I can't say I blame people for not wanting to contact you on your talk page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I neither know nor care who WW is a sock of, I don't understand the issue here or what this pointless thread is doing on ANI. The account's sole contributions (with the exception of one post to a user talk page, and replies on this thread) have been in Tony's userspace. If Tony thinks he's being disruptive, Tony is more than capable of telling him to stop (as he's already started to do), and/or complaining himself. Otherwise, what's the problem? – iridescent 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think there would be a problem if the account was making his points in a reasonably civil manner, and refraining from throwing around the phrases "admin abuse" and "corruption" like confetti. Apart from anything else, he's not exactly helping his own credibility. And as LHVU says above, he's degenerating a pretty good discussion on the premise of AdminWatch into a slanging match with such claims. Black Kite 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't exactly call it pointless. If this user had another account with adminstrator privilages, then I would understand possible need for a alternative account for article-related activities, but this user hasn't disclosed details of his other accounts, privately to any admins. I'm not sure whether to leave it (in case this may be a sock field), or whether a private checkuser is required. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked the disruptive WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor has now requested unblocking under the following rationale: "This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in." — neuro 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined. Tan | 39 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are two issues here: firstly, there is the alleged inappropriate use of a sockpuppet, then there is the issue of WW's disruptiveness. While I believe that the use of the account is not within the accepted framework of alternate accounts, and the initial exchanges were certainly lacking in incivility, they were bordering on the disruptive with repeated insistence on undeleting the extremely negative comments deleted by Tony and by me. I think the penny dropped that no-one wanted to hear his rants, and so the exchanges within the last 24 hours or so have become much more moderate and are probably not what I would consider disruptive any more. Angry yes, disruptive no. Certainly, the edit he made just minutes before he was blocked was a 'hypothetical' situation which certainly appears to be written calmly, lucidly and probably "autobiographically", in that I believe it describes his state of mind at present (just before the block). While xhe remains distrusting of Admins, his exchanges were boring as he was unable to offer concrete examples of 'abuse'. What xhe said rested entirely hypothetical because of his/her paranoia of revealing his/her alter-ego. However, I imagine that Admins who really want to know would have already performed checkuser by now. I believe the block may not have been too well-timed, IMHO. Unfortunately, I am pretty certain that if you unblock him/her now, xhe will be back in the $&^%#$# mode he was in 2 to 3 days ago. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder if this user is any relation to IRDT (talk · contribs)...they remind me of each other... --Smashville 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting point - making a big thing out of some alleged and unspecified threats. Baseball Bugs 17:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If it was IRDT the sock would be block-evading regardless; I think it is a alternate account of a different (non-blocked) editor, but per AGF I'm not going to speculate. Black Kite 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If CU was given out with adminininiship I was in the wrong queue... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Per practice and the decision of the AC on it, I've upgraded the language on the Sockpuppetry policy to reflect practice here. rootology (C)(T) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to maintain transparency, I got a nice little note on my talk page from this user. I blocked the IP for a day or so. Save the civility comments. Tan | 39 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Shall we close this as resolved seeing as WhoWatches is now editing though proxies as described immediately above and here? D.M.N. (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the state of mind of the user in question (clearly in psychological pain about WP), and about their potential to return to do some serious vandalising, as has occurred on the AdminReview talk page since the block—really nasty, frenzied stuff. While I can see why admins become exasperated with people like this, these are the downsides of blocking. Tony (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over copied passages at Earthquake engineering

I'm having some trouble with User:Shustov at Earthquake engineering.

Useful links:

• Shustov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Earthquake engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Earthquake engineering#Plagiarism
• User talk:Shustov#USGS info in Earthquake engineering

The article came to my attention on 28 December through a thread started by Shustov on WP:AN on a matter (not related to content or user conduct): Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180#Blocking Misplaced Pages article by Google. I glanced at the article and noted some passages which seemed...out of place. A quick Google search revealed that the bulk of phrases and passages in the article section on Failure modes were copied from United States Geological Survey (USGS) documents. I reported this problem on the article talk page () and watchlisted the article. (Since the USGS is a US goverment agency, its reports are generally in the public domain; the issue here is one of plagiarism rather than of copyright violation.)

On 29 December, I had a brief look at the article history. It's quite thick, as Shustov had a habit of making many, many, many rapid-fire minor edits with few edit summaries. Nevertheless, I surmised that the passages I was concerned about had been added by Shustov, so I dropped him a note about the problem on his talk page, and encouraged him to review and correct his contributions: .

Over the following couple of days things took a turn for the worse. Shustov repeatedly denied () any problem with the passages in question, despite several attempts to explain both the problem and how to fix it: , , . His responses became mocking and derisive (, ). I eventually removed the offending text to the article talk page, and explained the problem (again). He has reverted this removal three times now (once while logged in, and twice more while logged out as confirmed (, ) by Checkuser), and I'm afraid that I don't have any other ideas what to do here.

He has some sort of academic credentials, but seems to be unfamiliar with normal academic standards for verbatim copying of other authors' writing. I'm not getting through, and I fear there may be a language barrier issue at work. In any case, I'm out of ideas. As I've gotten closely involved in this mess, I'd like another admin to have a look at what's going on, and to issue a final warning or block as necessary – or to protect the article (sans plagiarism) until Shustov or another editor can rewrite or properly cite the section in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Shustov has already reverted some of his inadequately-cited material back in after the problem was pointed out to him. That is not compliant with the WP:BRD cycle. Still, I had trouble finding an exact match for anything plagiarized. (I did Google searches on some of the material but only found hits on Misplaced Pages). For the rules on plagiarism of material out of copyright, see the appropriate section of WP:Copyright problems. That section asserts that Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing. No block should be issued until it can be determined precisely where some of his reverted material came from. Shustov has been around since September 2007, and seems to have done reasonable work on articles. His use of sockpuppets and his mocking responses in the dialog with TenOfAllTrades don't inspire confidence. He also restored a bunch of links to the article which had been removed by JzG. Possibly a case of my work is perfect, don't try to improve it?. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now done a non-exhaustive side-by-side comparison of the article section to a number of USGS (and, worryingly, non-USGS) documents. I can't guarantee that the list I've provided is complete, as I'm not prepared to do Google searches on every fragment of text there.

Nevertheless, I think that the word-for-word copying of a number of passages is quite apparent. See Talk:Earthquake engineering#Comparison. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Google gives us a pretty good idea who he is, and his concern over the Google ranking indicates that he is perhaps trying to boost his reputation. I am concerned that he is trying to use Misplaced Pages as a means of publishing his own work. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for backup

TenOfAllTrades is doing a patient job of trying to explain to Shustov why he needs to change his ways, but Shustov seems to think that we somehow cannot commit plagiarism because we are nto authors (see Earthquake engineering). I left a note on user talk:Shustov, but if anyone here is good with patient explanations of that kind of thing I'd appreciate some more input. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Manutdglory - another issue of bad editor behavior connected with the Rick Warren article

Related to the User:Teledildonix314 incident above, another editor, Manutdglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in recent days has been falsely accusing others of vandalism and making other inflammatory comments about other editors, in particular Teledildonix314, in talk here and here, and in edit summaries here and here. He has returned from a bit of a hiatus with another edit with an edit summary claiming he's fixing vandalism by other editors when clearly that is not true. This will only serve to inflame the situation surrounding this article.

After a series of warnings (here and here), I've final warned Manutdglory regarding his abusive comments ; in response, I received this rather uncivil comment in my talk that among other things accuses me of making threats. His sole action thus far has been this message left for one administrator; he appears to be rather tone-deaf to Misplaced Pages culture and policy as well as the usual methods and procedures to deal with conflicts and vandalism, even after I've pointed them out to him. Given that we now have two editors on this article that seem to be feeding off this conflict, I would suggest that some admin action be taken. Perhaps both these editors, who have both continued abusive behavior after final warnings, should be blocked for some period of time. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren (he referred to him as a "thuggish slimy weasel" see here), yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. Manutdglory (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Still at it, I see? Trying, and spectacularly failing, to enlist allies by spewing a great tale about dozens of rampaging pro-gay editors running rampant over an article because you haven't succeeded in sanitizing it of inconvenient facts? Still can't get it through your head that editors with plainly announced biases (and my paper trail across the net making my views quite clear is wide and more than a decade long), can, will and should edit Misplaced Pages articles within the boundaries of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? Still not assuming good faith and spreading your bile everywhere? Why don't you hurry up and WP:PBAGDSWCBY. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to resolve the situation so that an administrator didn't have to waste his time on a completely pointless endeavor, yet Mike Doughney replied with the following insult - classy. You see what I'm dealing with?Manutdglory (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't write clearly, and you don't seem to be able to tell the two of us apart, when you're not busy trying to play us off each other. Get lost. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You say I'm "masquerading as a legitimate editor," implying my presence here is illegitimate. You imply that people who don't share the same religious beliefs as the subjects of articles aren't allowed to edit those articles by repeatedly making an issue of my atheism. You trot out your (alleged) master's degree to insult those who take your writings at face value. You call me insulting? Mike Doughney (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. And your atheism would have nothing to do with it if you weren't so blatantly proud of your hatred of Warren. As an atheist, your interest in Warren's article is certainly questionable. For instance, I don't go around editing Lennin, Stalin, Mao, Darwin and other noted atheists articles, so why do you feel so compelled to edit Warren's despite your obvious bias against the man? The reason the article was protected was to defend the article from anti-Warren editors. Manutdglory (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The User:Teledildonix314 vindicated me by posting a lengthy apology/admission of guilt on the Rick Warren discussion page (see for yourself), this after User:Mike Doughney and other editors reported him (see above). Since User:Mike Doughney's entire original reason for reporting me was because I (accurately) identified User:Teledildonix314 as someone who repeatedly vandalized the Rick Warren article (which he labelled "name-calling"), I really am curious as to what he hopes to accomplish by all of this, other than wasting administrators time. Manutdglory (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Here's my initial take on this (seeing you both also came to my talk page for assistance). Firstly, and most importantly any further incivility, name calling or personal attack by either party and you get a block; return with more of that type of edit anywhere and the block escalates. Having said that Mike your direct personal insults are more beyond the pale than I would normally accept without a block to protect wikipedia but at this time Manutdglory is not asking for a block and for now I will abide by that request. That said neither of you are bigger than the project so, as I say on the next occasion I will block and indeed should I miss any of these types of edits I invite either of you to come directly to my talk page to inform me. That said I will look a little more closely at the Rick Warren article, place and keep it on my watchlist and respond accordingly if it becomes necessary. In the meantime please both walk away from the article, have a cup of tea and work on something else - preferably of a wide enough parameter between the two of you to keep yourselves apart.--VS 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your objective and fair analysis of the situation. I will certainly abide by your requests. Manutdglory (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Assemblies of Yahweh

A admin called Ricky81682 has latly been removing a lot of images, paragraphs and formats from pages such as Dalet School and Obadiah School of the Bible saying images arent relevant! He has been covering this up by putting

“clean up”

in the edit summary box, but really he is simply ruining the whole article. Also see WMLK article where he removed a lot of words for no good reason at all. I feel sorry for the people putting effort in to these articles only to have them ruined by users like ricky claiming they are

“a mess”

as one edit summary said, and then just removing a whole lot of information that makes the article organised in the first place! Anyway i dont see any justification for much of his edits other than to prevent these articles from achieving a high quality standard. 212.103.241.89 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only diff you cite shows Ricky removing a lot of extraneous line breaks, unbolding "Crayola Curriculum" (which is what he said he was doing in the edit summary), and changing the lead to be a little more grammatically correct. There is one image near the bottom that he removed, but it did nothing but clutter up the bottom of the page. You will need to cite exact diffs where Ricky did what you say he did. Hermione1980 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and I see that the diff actually incorporates several edits. The edit summary that I saw describes exactly what he did in that edit. I don't really see what the problem is with his edits; he removed no substantive text (that I can tell), he removed two images that relate only tangentially to the article itself, and he made the lead sound better. If you can provide diffs that show otherwise, I'm open to persuasion, but ATM I don't see a problem. Hermione1980 13:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, one more update. Pictures are supposed to illustrate the content of the article. A picture of a book with the caption "Obadiahs value study", which was located in both Dalet School and Obadiah School of the Bible, fails to do this. If Ricky were removing a picture of the actual school, that would be one thing. All he is doing is removing pictures that do not relate to the article content. Also, as far as I can tell (and this is not my area of expertise, I'm just going off what the diffs show me) Ricky has not removed massive amounts of text; if this is not the case, show me a diff that says otherwise. Hermione1980 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot the difference

1. In Cites

2. Rickys

1.In Cites 2. Rickys

1. previous 2.

Spot the difference? Rickys edits are drastically worsening the articles and I dont think its fair on all the users who have been trying so hard to improve them. I tried to reverse his changes but all I get is a warning that if I do it again I will get a penalty. Not very proper for a admin is it? A image of a Bible is allowed to be shown about a school that studies the Bible. A image of a Dalet is allowed to be shown on a school whose name is Dalet school etc. There is nothing wrong wih the images - until someone uploads some beter ones, these will make do. It isnt contravening any rules 212.103.241.89 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a "drastic worsening" of the article quality. In fact, the content edits (text only, not pictures) that Ricky has done have improved the quality of the writing. As for the pictures—I suppose I see your argument about how a school that studies the Bible could show a picture of the Bible, but the books that were shown were just random books. There is still (IIRC) a picture of a Dalet on the Dalet School article; there just aren't three of them anymore. Hermione1980 14:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:212.103.241.89's edits

Could an outside admin please inform User:212.103.241.89 that attacks like at Talk:Assemblies_of_Yahweh#Ricky_not_helping, Talk:Jacob_O._Meyer, Talk:WMLK, Talk:Obadiah_School_of_the_Bible and Talk:Dalet_School are inappropriate? I really don't think that any of my changes could be considered "ghastly" (let alone the incorrect claim that I'm a Christian) and I would hope someone would remove them but I'd like an outsider's opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have contacted 212... on his talk page. Hope that clears it up. Hermione1980 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

This user despite continued notifications continues to (sprinkled among some apparent good faith edits) continues to make major alterations to film article budgets and grosses without sourcing or edit summary. I can no longer keep up with the articles. The user hasn't used a summary once in their history or cited a source in their prolific editing. I'm concerned about the integrity of all these film article across the board as this user has changed a lot of information on Wp without any explanation. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also this user had his user page deleted for continuing to post improper content after being notified twice. Mjpresson (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at a couple of examples, and have to say that the lack of communication is a problem - they do seem to place a couple of sources at the end of the "rewrite", but it is difficult to say that they cover all the changes. I am going to drop a couple of warning templates on their page and ask that they respond to the concerns raised. We will then take if from there if needs be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Another issue you may not have seen is inserting text into already cited statements. Mjpresson (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment. I've tried to communicate with the editor about removing {{defaultsort}} and non-breaking spaces from articles as well as re-sorting articles' categories in a non-alphabetical way. A lot of the edits are beneficial, but there are so many changes in an edit without a summary that it is difficult to review the changes (especially when sections are shuffled). It would be nice to actually initiate a conversation with the editor and communicate what changes work and what changes don't. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Twice I have asked this editor to refer to film project style guidelines, but he continues to change articles to suit his own preferences rather than the general consensus without ever acknowledging having received messages from myself or, it appears, from others. If he engaged in some sort of dialogue it would be easier to determine if his edits are sincere and simply misguided, but the fact he chooses to carry on without comment suggests he is determined to do things his way, which to date has included deleting complete plot summaries, rearranging articles into sequences that make no sense, and adding data without any references. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Runtshit

Most admins will be familiar with the long history of disruption caused by this vandal. Most such edits are apparently carried out using proxies and anonymisers. However, following the recent blocking of several more socks, Nishkid64 carried out a checkuser, as a result of which s/he blocked additional sleepers and IPs. The blocked IPs were on the University of Haifa network; presumably the blocked accounts were from these same IPs. Could a note be sent to the university regarding this misuse of their equipment? Since the university should keep a record of who has been allocated these IPs at the relevant times, is there any way in which this could be used to put a stop to this ongoing vandalism? RolandR (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

I sent an e-mail to the University of Haifa helpdesk (in English). You might want to do the same. helpdesk at univ.haifa.ac.il Avruch 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think further discussion also belongs at Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports (by IP address), which I assume would be the noticeboard for abuse reports. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - article probation?

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

This article is currently fully protected by Kylu (talk · contribs). The only admin, it seems, that is currently willing to deal with POV-pushing and other problems at the article is KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). I like Puppy, but this is not an ideal situation because she had been involved with some of the more contentious content disputes at the article in the past. I'd like to propose article probation, similar to what we have at Barack Obama.

On a related note, there are several {{editprotected}} requests at that article that haven't been dealt with for a while. Kelly 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try a hand at it. (And does anyone know a good .cs hack for monobook to get rid of the gray text on dirty-pink field when editing a protected page? Not nice to the eyes!) --SB_Johnny | 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be an over-kill and too much of a bureaucracy placing her article(s) on probation since the election is over and she's not a main focus in the media (and of most editors) anymore. I'd rather would like to see tight (admin) hands dealing with disruptive and edit warring editors and have the article semi-protected till things calm down. So if let's say 2 uninvolved admins would be willing to deal with it for a certain time it would be a better handling and choice to ease the "problem(s)".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but this article is controversial enough that it's been the subject of an ArbCom case. Kelly 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That case was closed in October.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin article has a higher admin burnout rate than most (myself included), so unless a decent amount admin support materializes, a general sanction may be needed. I haven't looked into the recent behavior myself recently, but the fact is there are still people arguing about it at all - and most of those people are by nature going to be partisans and/or very stubborn.--Tznkai (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They're certainly feisty on the talk page... protection for a while is probably better IMO, so long as a couple admins keep an eye out for {{editprotected}} requests. Relatively low-stress for me after some adventures in outer wikimedia, so I'll keep an eye on the discussions for a stint. --SB_Johnny | 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for you. Let's see how long you can take it  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of probation. Maybe one way to make the probation more palatable would be to say that the probation will only last six months at most unless there's an active decision to renew it. Andjam (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to "convert" you but I keep on speaking my mind.

Gosh, nothing against Palin but she had her "15 minutes of fame" and they where extended but how long will it last? So I stick to my opinion above unless she gets a live span of fame in politics. Remember, that most of us didn't know anything about her before here nomination as vice-President. I'm just sticking here to the "cruel" facts and give my opinion with those in mind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin probation proposal

Based on the decision at Barack Obama, I propose the following identical proposal:

Pages related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:

• Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
  • Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Palin pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
• Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
• All sanctions imposed are to be logged (propose creating Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for this purpose).

Kelly 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Uncontroversial, I would say. Make it so. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• As one of the (and recently, the primary) admin trying to maintain some kind of civility and reasonable working environment on that page, I would very much appreciate it being on "official" probation. I was actually chastised recently for removing some very clear attack comments, which were immediately replaced via reversion by another admin, and although he later removed one phrase, the entire para was re-posted by another editor. None of the crap in question was about the article, mind you. Some stronger support for keeping that page on subject and more mature would be a step in the right direction. I support the 6 month probation. Perhaps if it were "official" I myself, and other admins trying to keep things under control, would have to deal with less Micky Mouse stuff. KillerChihuahua 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew edit war

Red-link user trying to narrow the focus of the term to something having to do with Israel. I'm not Jewish, but I don't know that that's the point of the concept. In any case, edit war going on and some kind of assistance is needed to put a stop to it. Baseball Bugs 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The redlink user is discussing on the article's Talk page and on other Users' pages, but they are continuing to edit war. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have referenced this discussion on the article talk page. Baseball Bugs 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I had moved the disputed material to the talk page, but Untwirl keeps returning it to the article. I do not understand why the rush to get it in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is he editing anything at all, besides this one article? Baseball Bugs 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly this article, or User talk page messages related to it. — ] (] · ]) 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly encourage everyone to keep this on the article talk page, and close down all the ancilliary threads at ANI/3RR/EAR/etc. The editor appears to have stopped edit warring, so I don't think admin action is required. If they resume edit warring, a block is in order; 3RR has been explained. Also, while I'm here, "red link user" is essentially a way of saying "new user" in a derogatory way, and there is nothing inherently wrong with being an WP:SPA; it's the disruption that's usually the problem, not the single purposeness. If the edit warring stops, then they may (or may not) have something worth listening to on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case "red link user" may have a different meaning. This user seems to understand how WP works better than I do now, much less my clueless state when I first started to edit -- when I did not understand even how to sign my user name. (Of course, I admit to being one what may be the most computer illiterate users here.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you give examples of this wiki mastery that Untwirl is demonstrating? If you can substantiate it, then we have a serious concern that should be looked into. If you can't, then your comment kind of borders on unfair gossip, doesn't it? You could be right, you could be wrong, but until you do something beyond vague hints of possible misbehavior, I think we've pretty much agreed by now that shouting "possible sock puppet" at those we disagree with is uncool. I have to say, I've taken a cursory glance, and their edits from October and November have a couple of minor errors. I don't see anything suspicious. If you do, please show me. If not, please consider retracting. --barneca (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

malcolm schosha has levied accusations of soapboxing and pov pushing at me for trying to add info for npov. now i'm damningly proficient at wiki and must be a sock puppet of a great and powerful editor? is that because i went to the wiki guidelines and copied and pasted rules that he was violating? if not my mastery of cut and paste, then perhaps my adeptness at typing 4 tildes? if i weren't so laid back i would figure out how to report him for incivility due to this behavior. i also moved different disputed material to the talk page, following his lead, which he continued to revert. since i am not a sock puppet and simply a smart cookie, i don't know how to report him for the same action he accuses me of, plus, frankly, i'd rather discuss it and get the opinions of others. he seems to be discussing this everywhere but the talk page. thanks everyone for your input. Untwirl (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The "accusations of soapboxing and pov pushing" had to do with the content of the material. Never did I call Untwirl a POV pusher, and I always assume that even when POV is being pushed, that the editor doing that thinks they are doing the right thing. The criticism was aimed at the material, not the user.

As for my view that this user has more than a few days of WP editing experience, that is admitedly base on small indicators, and it is certainly possible that I am mistaken. But when I see a new editor writing an edit summery like: (i moved my edit up to the lead to match other entries for perjorative terms.) , I tend to assume this is an editor with some experience because, when I started editing, it was a while before I picked and started to use terms like "lead" and used wiki-speak so well -- if, in fact, I ever did. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Malcolm Schosha is a little bit upset and should take distance with this article. He has just stated that I was playing a game in that article , not respecting WP:AGF and not begin very WP:CIVIL.

More, there is not reason, because there is a disagreement about content to start accusing others of suckpuppetry. If somebody has really arguments and facts to bring than wp:an/I and the use of "force" is not the way to solve the disagreement. Ceedjee (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Ceedjee's suggestion that I take of a wiki-break, and think is is nice of him to be concerned about my well being. (The edit summery he is upset over is not a personal insult, but a criticism of the edit.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

hi again! actually, malcolm, after my very first comment about balancing the usage with current connotations (before i edited anything on this page) you accused me of "trying to turn this into an Israel/Palestine issue." that charge has nothing to do with content and everything to do with your perception of my motives. in addition, other editors who have reviewed my activity disagree with your suggestion that i am a sock, and your evidence is your assumptions of my level of inexperience. you really should apologize as you are being antagonistic and 'biting the newcomer."Untwirl (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing image

Can anyone see File:Ivytree.jpg, because I can't seem to see the photo with my computer. If anyone can see the photo, please leave a message on my talk page. Otherwise, I will contact OTRS to get details of the photo's permissions and re-upload the photo. Thanks. miranda 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't see it. It looks like there wasn't ever a file there either. Or at Commons. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Locally, there was never any such file according to the logs. What seems to be the problem? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be looking for this file, would you? I can't find any record of File:Ivytree.jpg in your Commons upload log either. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for File:Ivyleaf.jpg? It would seem so. — neuro 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also known as Alpha Kappa Alpha. Baseball Bugs 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GOL (groan out load). That one was painful, Bugs. --barneca (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the pain. Just lie back gently on the bed, and I'll set you up with an I.V. Baseball Bugs 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks very much. Found the pic that I was looking for. Thanks everyone. miranda 03:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Request reality check re: User:75.89.46.45

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

Would someone please take a look at this editor's contributions? There aren't all that many of them, but as far as I can tell, none of them are good: badly formatted, badly written, inappropriately placed, and so on. I believe I've reverted most, if not all, of the edits, but what I can't figure out is whether the badness is deliberate, and therefore vandalism, or simply an editor who just needs more time to assimilate the right way to edit Misplaced Pages. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! Hanlon's razor lives! Baseball Bugs 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the editor has a specialised niche & to me the edits seem like an attempt at providing some useful information, not vandalism. S/he only seems to have been around for a couple of weeks. I think they just need more time to learn at this stage & I think your comments on their Talk page are appropriate. Mattopaedia (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much if they are going to learn anything about spelling and grammar here, given that they evidently ignored it in elementary school. Baseball Bugs 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Very similar kinds of edits are now coming from 81.153.4.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although the IP geolocates from the UK, while the original IP was in Alabama. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 16:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stereotypes of Jews

I need a sanity check here, and I'm clearly involved and biased. This article was recently nominated for deletion, though the nomination was just withdrawn. A list of mostly unfavorable and completely unsourced stereotypes was the main body of the article prior to some major trimming as seen here. The list was then moved to the article talk page, with the rationale that it might be useful. Do we keep random, unsourced, largely derogatory lists generated by one user on article talk pages just because they might have the potential to be useful? If I'm being reasonable by removing the list from the talk page, I'd really appreciate another administrator coming in to help. AniMate 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrible list. And I am not sexually frustrated. LOL. Seriously, it's not sourced, it's like a random list generated from the mind of DCvoice. It's not like it's very useful. Hell, I could create a much better list, without thinking. OrangeMarlin 02:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:3RR is where this should be as User:Deeceevoice has reverted the removal or attempt to collapse the list four times now. . He's also aware of this thread. AniMate 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me about the list is that appears to be something a 10 year old would create. For example, financial stereotypes aren't even addressed, which is one stereotype that probably has 2000 years of history and is quite notable. I find it offensive, but it is easily sourced. Nappy hair? Give me a break. Deeceevoice ought to be embarrassed. OrangeMarlin 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way I'd be embarrassed is if I believed all that crap. And, yeah. I said it: nappy hair. And financial stereotypes are addressed. But if you see something I left out, feel free to add it. As I said before, the list was stream-of-conscious and meant solely to start the ball rolling for an article. That's what it's there for. And while you're at it, go back to the article talk page and read my comments there as well. You might learn something. Oh, yeah. And while you're at it, if you're really interested in writing a decent article, you might also consult some of the sources I've posted. If you guys spent more time writing the article instead of worrying about someone improperly "editing" my talk page comments, it would be a hell of a lot further along right now.deeceevoice (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive the discussion and if people want to discuss each individual stereotype they can create new sections for each individual one. There's no point to a "here's twenty items, let's discuss them all at once" strategy. It's repetitive but it'll keep later conversations clear. Debate the sources at each one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has just begun and doesn't require/merit archiving. The list stands as a suggested list of what to include in the article -- as is commonly done with the framing of any article on any other subject. It's perfectly legitimate -- and useful. If I, as an African-American, can write articles on Blackface dealing with "coons," "darkies," etc., or contribute to articles treating subject matter like Nigger, Mammy, lynchings, etc., then other people ought to be able to stomach dispassionate discussion about the subject matter at hand. If not, then I suggest they simply move on to something less upsetting. deeceevoice (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editors behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Toxic"? That's funny, travb. I've merely stood my ground and justifiably objected to your repeated and unwarranted editing/hiding of my talk page contributions. I haven't done anything like, say, oh, visit your talk page and threaten you (as you did mine) -- have I? And whatever you may think of me -- I simply couldn't care less. It's not important. The fact is the article has merit. Need I remind you? This is about the project. deeceevoice (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wow, big surprise, your block log is even longer than my rich block history.

Again, can I reopen the AfD, or create a new one? travb (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant -- and ancient history. Again, this is about the project. Try to focus, Inclusionist. deeceevoice (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, reality check on aisle four, you guys. I read this, and the whole time was thinking, "seriously?" It's not just the insane amount of drama it has stirred up- which is usually wherein the problem lays (lies? I dunno no grammar, I'm just a JAP). Here, it's the "content". A list of Jewish stereotypes is utterly unencyclopedic. Ignoring for a second all the discussion on the talk page and looking solely at that list- what possible use could that be to anyone? I'm not saying this shouldn't be discussed- but it's covered fairly well... and properly cited! over at Antisemitism. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Deecee has anything but the best of intentions and sincerely wants to help the project, good faith is not a qualification for the inclusion of material. The list is bad, consensus appears to be that the list is bad, content guidelines even say the list is bad... and Deecee needs to let it go. l'aquatique |✡| talk 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

zomg but ur jewish ur not neutral. But seriously; the list is pretty bad. Hence why my justification for voting deletion was "duh". Sceptre 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As a young white southern Protestant American male, I find the list pretty bad. --Smashville 04:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that people are talking about "original research" and "bad" lists. I've just glanced at the list, and I saw entries such as Jewish-American princess, Shylock, Nice Jewish boy, and Jewish mother. Perhaps the people who are talking about unsourced stereotypes should expend their efforts not on edit warring over a list on a talk page but on addressing the entire articles in article space that we have on these things, and their sources. Some perspective is obviously needed. Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Textbook case of WP:OTHERCRAP. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't a deletion discussion and the above is not an argument about deletion. It is, however, an suggestion to gain some perspective and focus on the articles, rather than on edit warring over a talk page. Have you not paid attention to why this section was started? This is the administrators noticeboard, and editors have come here to complain about an edit war on a talk page. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody like to convince me not to just speedy delete this crap G4? I have reviewed the deleted revisions at Special:Undelete/Stereotypes_of_Jews that were deleted with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews and I am not at all convinced that this page "address the reasons for which the material was deleted". --B (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

by only including links to actual articles about notable stereotypes it avoids the admitted "free association" that were the fault of the original article. As I !voted keep at the afd just now, I obviously think G4 inappropriate. DGG (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• (paraphrasing my AfD comments): I can envision an academic essay easily, and an encyclopedic article without too much trouble (Shylock, South Park's Kyle, Woody Allen, Max Davidson... that's just the pop-culture crap off the top of my head) - but this article is not academic, encyclopedic, or even a useful stub. Seems to be Ms. DCV's reaction to an article on African American stereotypes - check the first edit summary, which pretty much solidifies this speculation. It wouldn't be the first time DCV has been a bit... headstrong, to put it mildly. The whole sequence of events has shades of American politics in 1984. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not already in the article, don't forget about the horns and stripes stuff. Also, are there pages for other ethnic stereotypes? For example, the joke about Italy anytime a war breaks out: "As soon as Italy heard there was a war, they surrendered!" And then there's the one about the Arab tank and the Israeli tank colliding. Tell me if you've heard that one before. Baseball Bugs 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So it was the 1967 war, and these two tanks collided, and the Arab jumped out and said, "I surrender!" and the Israeli stayed in his tank and cried, "Whiplash! Whiplash!" Baseball Bugs 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar...the minister ducked. --Smashville 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Jesus saves. Moses invests." Baseball Bugs 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I used to live in Alabama...my roommate introduced me to his girlfriend, his aunt and his sister...I only met one person...badumbum...I'm here all week...tip your waitresses, try the veal...--Smashville 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the pork chops might be a better choice for this particular evening... l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness...here's the thing about this article...it reeks of the sort of thing that would be on ED. --Smashville 05:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So a standup comic starts a story: "Two Jews get off a bus..." A guy in the audience objects, "Hey! Why does it always have to be two Jews? Why couldn't it be two Chinese?" The standup says, "OK, two Chinese get off a bus. One turns to the other and says, 'So, tell me, Chan, how was your son's Bar Mitzvah?'" Baseball Bugs 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I prematurely closed the 2nd AfD for this article. I reopened the 2nd AfD and merged the 3rd one into it, as someone suggested on my talk page, and on the 2nd AfD talk page.

I will be very happy when this incident is all behind me, and I can return to helping serious editors save articles. travb (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The rationale behind your closure was solid. The rationale behind turning this thread into another Baseball Bugs yukfest.... not so solid. AniMate 08:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I see there are many "Stereotypes of..." articles, and I suspect they all have sourcing problems. Good luck with all of them. Baseball Bugs 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The irony of all this was that both me and Animate voted originally to keep this article, and I fought very hard to keep it.travb (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Theblog

• Cambios (talk · contribs) is blocked at 11:37 yesterday by Black Kite, largely for behavior at Threshold (online game).
• Nizevyn (talk · contribs) registers at 17:59, removes fact tags placed by a user who he was in conflict with, edits the userpage of said user and then undoes an edit proceeds to revert him again. That is the extent of his edits.
• Black Kite blocks Nizevyn at 19:12. Nizevyn posts an unblock request which I decline (this is where I came into the situation).
• At 1:55, Mendaliv nominates Threshold for deletion.
• At 2:31 Theblog (talk · contribs) returns from a 9 month absence to post at the talk page of the contentious article.
• At 4:11, I receive a request on my talkpage for a checkuser request of Nizevyn (I'm not a CU) from Theblog.
• At 4:30, he chastizes me for the block of Nizevyn (for starters, I didn't block him - I declined his unblock because he didn't address him block reason) because there was no checkuser.
• At 4:36, he chastizes me further for said block I did not make because we didn't go to SSP.
• He proceeds to create this.

So...my question...sockfarm, meatfarm, offwiki canvassing or some fourth suggestion I'm not thinking of? --Smashville 05:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhere between meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing at the subject's forums; there's precedent to suspect such behavior based on the content visible at the subject's forums. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have positive proof that Theblog has been canvassed or is a meatpuppet. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mendaliv for confirming this claim is baseless. --Theblog (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? I came back to Misplaced Pages because I wanted to, I was not asked to by anyone. I have a long history at Misplaced Pages and have edited many pages, but have not edited the page under discussion recently, in fact, I have purposely not done so because of the hostile environment there. I believe the Nizevyn is not a sockpuppet and the proper procedure to show that he was a sockpuppet was not followed. I merely asked for clarification and confirmation that Nizevyn was not a sockpuppet and am still waiting for this. I believe if someone is accused of being a sockpuppet they should be checkusered, its not exactly an onerous requirement as it doesn't take long. I am sorry if I improperly bugged you about Nizevyn Smashville, I saw that you were an administrator familiar with the situation and thought maybe you could help.

I am really at a loss why I am being reported for an incident, could you please explain exactly what I have done wrong? --Theblog (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I also did not "chastise" you, I merely asked for more assistance and clarification. Please do not accuse me of doing things I did not do. --Theblog (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Upon further reading it is clearer and clearer the claim is baseless, the definition of meatpuppet given is: "Meatpuppet is a Misplaced Pages term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor." This does not apply to me because I have not done it, but further more, I have not actually edited the article in question recently AT ALL! I request that this ANI be removed as it has been shown to be untrue in every regard. Furthermore, I request that the Nizevyn banning be reviewed, as obviously tensions are high for some reason regarding the article and admins are acting without giving proper good faith. Thank you.--Theblog (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really a claim, just wondering by an admin if there was something larger going on. (off-wiki canvassing, maybe WP:DUCK tests), Disclaimer: I'm not an admin btw ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an accusation, he mentions something other that he's not thinking of, like a user checking his watchlist occasionally and jumping in if they see something going on they think is interesting. Sheesh, its not a big conspiracy, its a watchlist, a feature on Misplaced Pages that allows you to track recent action in articles you are interested in. --Theblog (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, if you had just edited the article, it wouldn't have triggered anything...but the fact that you start going to various user pages, requesting checkusers and causing a big stink over a person with 3 edits being blocked as a sockpuppet raises a lot of flags. --Smashville 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• No checkuser was performed on User:Nizevyn. Why? Well, when an account is blocked for editing disruptively on an obscure article, and promptly a new account is created and continues that behaviour on the same article, you don't need a checkuser because even though it's obvious that they are the same user or a proxy for them, the behaviour is enough to block. I have not blocked User:Theblog because even though there's a high probability that they are also the same user, or related to them, they haven't yet edited disruptively. Black Kite 11:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am clearly not the same user as those two and I request that you present any evidence that gives you your "high probability" that I am so I can thoroughly refute it. Please assume good faith. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your account suddenly resumed editing on a very obscure article, 9 months after its last edit and just after two disruptive accounts which had also concentrated on that very obscure article had been blocked. Therefore, I think you'll find that I am assuming good faith with your account, in that I haven't blocked it because even though it's clearly related, it isn't (currently) disruptive. Where I am not prepared to assume it is with even more obvious - and disruptive - sock/meatpuppet/off-wiki collaboration accounts like User:Nizevyn. I hope this makes everything clear. Black Kite 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have covered all of this previously, but I will go over it again for you. I have edited many articles over many years on Misplaced Pages, including the threshold article, years ago. I stopped editing so frequently, but I still visit the site and check my watchlist. If something tweaks my interest, I jump back in, this time, it was activity on a page I had edited years ago. Again, I have not even edited the page in question recently, I have only responded in discussions due to the obviously high tensions on this article, you apparently can't comment at all on it without being accused of being a sockpuppet, even if you have a long established account on Misplaced Pages. Please spell out the guideline that I have broken and present your evidence. My explanation is clear and logical, this is not some sort of conspiracy theory, it is someone who uses the watchlist feature. --Theblog (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* As I said, I'm assuming good faith, despite the suspicious editing pattern, with your account at the moment. The other account was blocked as a clear violation of WP:SOCK. Which part of this is so difficult to understand? Black Kite 16:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you here saying there is a high probability of being a sockpuppet when I have a clear explanation of my actions and then saying I am taking people for fools. If you are assuming good faith, please at least stick to the facts you can prove and stop the ad hom attacks. Thank you.--Theblog (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the editing patterns show that there *is* clearly a high probability that your account is related (though that does not of course mean that you are the same physical person(s) as the other accounts). Please read and understand WP:SOCK, as I see no point in continuing a circular argument in this manner. Black Kite 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What specific part of WP:SOCK are you saying applies to me? I have refuted them all. You also claimed there was a high probability I was the same person, which is different. Again, your claims are baseless, please assume good faith, I request that you retract your unproven claims and accept the concept of a watchlist trigger of someone who has edited the article in question years ago. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't misquote me please, I said "...even though there's a high probability that they are also the same user, or related to them...". As for a watchlist trigger after 9 months? Possible. But very unlikely. Hence "high probability", not "certain". Black Kite 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming bad faith, please provide your evidence to the contrary or retract your claims. Misplaced Pages has an assume good faith policy and I don't believe you are following it. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote directly for you: "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." It has been clearly established that you do not have "strong evidence to the contrary" so please cease your assumption of bad faith. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" doesn't mean "stop using your brain." The assumption that you are connected to the other two accounts is both logical and reasonable. It may turn out to be not true, but someone coming to the conclusion that the three are related isn't a massive violation of AGF. What exactly is it you want here anyway? AniMate 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I want this to be removed as I am not sockpuppet or related. I do not know how to go about doing that other than to argue my point. Again, I come back to "strong evidence to the contrary", which there is clearly not, or has not been presented here. What do you want a screenshot of my inbox? I could do that, what exactly is the standard I need to meet? Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea: You can just let this go. The only way this is going to be removed is through archiving, and every time you respond and argue your point the longer this is going to be visible. AniMate 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that he is now canvassing on Misplaced Pages: --Smashville 17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too, and while his targets would likely be sympathetic, his message is neutral. I still think the best course here is just to keep an eye on the situation, and hope things calm down. AniMate 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I also googled "Nizevyn". It's the name of a character in the game, which furthers my meatpuppetry/offwiki canvassing question. Do they have a forum that anyone knows of? --Smashville 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Threshold homepage, there's a link to their forums. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that more and more editors that have not edited in months or years have suddenly shown up to comment on this AfD. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We have sockpuppets disrupting the AfD, and users who haven't edited for months suddenly canvassing for it. I'd say that is sufficiently disruptive. Its very obviously an attempt to disrupt the AfD process.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• CU results at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nizevyn. Probable related forum post here. Black Kite 01:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  This is an extremely obvious case of attempting to disrupt the AfD process.--Crossmr (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:USEDfan/User:Landon1980

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

Statement against User:USEDfan

This user has a long long history of disruption and was indef blocked several months ago. Since then he has created over a dozen sock puppets, many of them have not been added to the list of USEDfan's socks, some of them have. Seicer usually deals with him but he isn't online right now. He creates sole purpose accounts to edit The Used and his newest sock is User:Remote peace. Will one of you take a look and see if there is anything you can do? Thanks, Landon1980 (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Check topic below as well, both users reported each other but Landon1980 moved theirs above the other for some reason. Remote peace (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, you placed your report above theirs. Landon1980 is correct, new reports should go at the bottom of the page. Dayewalker (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It took me a while to type it since I was tired, but I believe I edited the page well befor ethem but they posted it first while I was still typing. Remote peace (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when you started, new reports would go at the bottom of the page. Dayewalker (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: copied from section below to merge two related sections

Statement against User:Landon1980

HI, This user keeps removing information from The Used page. I sourced it properly and updated the page but they keep removing it. I told them it was vandalsim but they didn't listen. They even got me banned for correcting the page. Can some one please tell them that they cannot just remove a bunch of sourced information and updated information because they don't believe it. Thanks. Remote peace (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, I went to their talk page and tried to settle the problem but they remove anything I write on their talk page to make it seem like I didn't try to slove the problem which they have caused so they are really not helping here. Remote peace (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is your dispute about your blog sources and from a Kyte I guess video ("Dan has also announced on kyte" here) that for their next album, 20 songs have been recorded and 13 should be on it? Of which I see that three different users have reverted you? Would you be specific as to what to take of User:Carl.bunderson's two reverts and User:QuestionOfAnarchy's partial revert? Or is just Landon being the last to revert your concern? Last, since the first thing you did after being blocked for 24 hours was to reinsert your edits, can you give me a reason why I shouldn't block you right now for continuing to be disruptive? You conducted 9 edits to the article before telling Landon he was "degrading the page", asking] User:Seicer for help, and then back to the article, following next with the reports here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences with Landon, specifically his removal of material. Whilst it is permitted to remove content from one's talkpage, it seemed and seems that he is particularly unwilling to hear external points of view or take any criticism, even constructively. His removal makes it particularly hard to talk to him, which doesn't aid the situation. — neuro 13:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So you think I should discuss this with User:USEDfan? Once banned users come back over a dozen times it gets rather annoying, there is no point in discussing anything with him it's pointless. Until the guideline is changed saying I can remove whatever I want from my talk page there is nothing an administrator can do, this is an administrator noticeboard. Landon1980 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't take it up with me. I was only giving a statement from past experience - last time I looked this header had your name in, not USEDfan. Even if the editor is the aforementioned sockpuppeteer, it doesn't hinder to have other information. — neuro 16:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread was started by USEDfan stalking my contribs, just like he always does. So you honestly feel there is something an admin can do about me deleting things from my talk page? What do you recommend be done? Landon1980 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I commented on that? No? Then why don't you accept that I did not express an opinion on the matter because I don't wish to get into a long and unproductive dispute with you again. I merely stated some facts and my opinion on these facts, so don't say "what do you recommend be done" and "you honestly feel there is something an admin can do about me deleting things from my talk page", my statements were for people to draw conclusions from, not to request for you to provoke me into giving a recommendation. If you wish to continue, go ahead, but I would quite happily say that you are somewhat proving my original point. — neuro 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The point being what? That I sometimes remove comments from my talk page? Doing so does not violate any policy or guideline, hence does not require administrative action. This is the incidents noticeboard; I may start an editor review one day though. Landon1980 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond for fear of doing something I might regret (see notices on my userpage), just noting here that Landon left a message on my talk with a condescending edit summary, and Patton123 then replied. — neuro 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, rude edit summaries are not exactly a new thing to Landon - for example just see this edit in which he says in the summary "Every boy has a dream, I guess being an admin on wikipedia will make your mother proud". — neuro 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that edit summary I intended to be rude, the other was merely me trying to explain the scope of ANI to you. What exactly are you expecting to come of this? Are you suggesting I be banned from managing my talk page, or some guidelines laid out stipulating which comments I can and cannot remove from it? Landon1980 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to go against everything I have been holding back now. You are asking the same question I have answered twice now. I am not giving comment on a resolution as I feel I should recuse myself from such a discussion due to our particularly awful previous interactions. Your attempts at provoking me to get an outburst are noted. Thanks. — neuro 21:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you to "outburst." This thread is not even about my removing things from my talk page, yet you mentioned it. Seeing as you are the one that seems to think it requires admin action I'm merely asking what you suggest be done? As long as removing comments from a users talk page is not forbidden by any policy or guideline I can remove them as I see fit. There is nothing to discuss here. Landon1980 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the point of this section is. If Remote peace is actually a sock of USEDFan (a casual look shows great similarity), his edits should be RBI'd. He's indefinitely blocked, so he shouldn't be here making the same edits that led to his block. An indefinitely blocked user with more than a dozen sockpuppets complaining about his treatment is ridiculous. I say checkuser him, if it comes back positive, conclude the matter. If not, we'll continue.

In the interest of disclosure, due to longterm harassment from socks of indefinitely banned users (a modicum of which is detailed here , I have absolutely no patience for blocked users coming back to harass productive users in hopes of getting them blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Last comment here, because if we continue down this road then I am seriously going to end up taking one hell of a break, which I don't want to do. Since it is my last comment here, this might be a bit long.

Landon, I have explicitly and repeatedly told you that I do not care whether admin intervention or action is required and have not expressed an opinion intentionally, as I have mentioned. Your past behaviour is particularly relevant, and if it isn't I believe it would be insulting to other editors to assume that they couldn't see that it was irrelevant, a red herring, and discount it entirely. On the other hand, if it is not irrelevant, that is up to them, not to you, and I will not retract my comments simply based on a slew of comments where you ask the same question which I have answered previously. Again, "seeing as you are the one that seems to think it requires admin action" is utterly ridiculous, I have already mentioned that I am irritated in general and that because of that and our previous interactions I have recused myself from expressing an opinion on what should be done - I have not even really looked at what is going on in general, I was merely giving examples for people to look at and study. If anything, it is your comments that are irrelevant, not mine. Please don't insult your own intelligence by suggesting that you can't understand that I have said multiple times in this thread that I am not expressing and do not intend to express an opinion on the debate itself, I only intend to provide information to people reading, judging, and potentially acting on the thread. It is up to them what they wish to do with it, not me. Your inability to comprehend what I am saying either implies that you are either trying to provoke an uncivil response and get something done to me, or you are merely unable to comprehend the idea of an 'answer'; and I do not think it is the latter. This conversation is highly irrelevant. Please desist. — neuro 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:CadenS

I don't recall having ever had any dealings with User:CadenS before, but I am shocked at his/her comments about me at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone and User talk:CadenS. Apparently my nomination of Robert Eric Wone for deletion, due to my concerns about BLP violations, is some sort of conspiracy to censor Misplaced Pages because I have an agenda to make sure that all rapes of straight men by gay men not be reported. I didn't even know, and do not know as of this minute, that Wone was straight and the people the article is trying so very hard to accuse of his murder without saying so, are gay. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is also enlightening. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally created a Wikiquette alert about CadenS but he removed my notification of the discussion from his Talk page without comment or going to the Wikiquette alerts page to discuss it: . Therefore I felt the only alternative I have is to come here. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have had previous encounters with CadenS and unfortunately I can't say they have been a net positive experience. As a newby I thought it was due to not seeing this project as an encyclopedia but these escalating experiences show a pattern when bundled with numerous editors who have now been on the receiving end of bad faith accusations and hostility, often centered on articles with gay victims or in the case of Robert Eric Wone, the alleged perpetrators. On the second ANI report there effectively was no action although CadenS was being mentored at that time and suggestions were made to avoid LGBT articles. We work with each other so antagonism isn't helping create a constructive environment. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This speaks for itself. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I had been under the impression that Caden was topicbanned from LGBT articles? Was I wrong? // roux   09:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that was the direction the last ANI report was going but it dragged on long enough I think a resolution never occurred before the thread was archived. I had sought help with similar issues on Jesse Dirkhising but have had to walk away from the article instead. -- Banjeboi 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. He had voluntarily topicbanned himself to forestall a ban, looks like.. and then went right back to the same old thing. Passion is good, but his is spilling over into a bad place. Having nosed through contribs, I think one of the following is necessary, in order of preference:

1. De facto topicban from LGBT issues, broadly construed, with a mentor who will work with him on some subpage of his talkpage to work through article edits and article tpage comments before he makes them. Revisit in three months to see how much he's progressed.
2. Actual topicban from LGBT issues, broadly construed, indefinite.

Number 1 would require the most investment from someone else. I'd volunteer for the task but I'm not sure he'd take me, as I'm a bit light in the loafers. On the other hand, that might be good for him, help him come a bit more towards neutral in his approach. Unfortunately, number 2 is probably where we're going to end up, as my understanding from what other people have said as well as from his contribs is that his editing outside of LGBT issues is very good, and these issues are far from new. // roux   10:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been too involved to be terribly objective here but if edits are good outside LGBT subjects then better to keep a good editor and encourage more of the same. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no damage to an article I'd leave it at a warning.Mccready (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's been damage and disruption as well as warnings. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a user RFC might be the way to go, rather than persistent ANI threads. I agree that the comments on his talkpage and the AfD are unacceptable. Black Kite 12:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a drudging through and airing of past transgressions will effectively do anything but be a testament of shame. It's been stated edits outside of LGBT topics are fine. I suggest progressive topic bans if they can be logged similar to blocks for any future need. I would rather have a set-length ban knowing that future ones will be exponentially longer and also that the spirit of the ban is to encourage taking a breather rather than escalating. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Please provide a diff of damage to an article. Otherwise I think this sort of escalation is a waste of time.Mccready (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be unhappy about just ignoring his behaviour, some action appears necessary. dougweller (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting ignoring. It's important to have the evidence first. Can someone provide diff of article damage.Mccready (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The main issue here is not "article damage", it's editor conduct. Incivil comments to other editors are unacceptable (i.e ). Although if we're talking about articles, neither is edit-warring to impose your POV on an article () especially when it had been pointed out why your edits violate WP:UNDUE. The editor's previous edits (, , , and this userpage , show that CadenS has extreme difficulty preserving his good editing practices on certain subjects. He also offered to stay away from sexuality related articles previously (), but didn't, as we see now. As was pointed out in the previous ANI thread by numerous editors, it is probably best if CadenS does stay away from such topics, as he appears unable to stop his good editing practices being affected by his POV on this issue. Black Kite 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree there has been damage to mainspace. I suggest a topic ban for a limited period which can be extended if necessary.Mccready (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I support a topic ban as well. His behavior at E.O. Green School shooting more than demonstrated his inability to work productively and neutrally on articles related to LGBT topics. AniMate 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is now at least the third ANI thread on CadenS, all of them started by different people (I started one of them ages ago). This is such a shame, CadenS has a lot of potential...if only he would stay away from sexuality articles (and stop the incivility). *Shrug* — Realist 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:CadenS is not an incurably problemtic editor in the usual sense he is a good and rational editor. i interacted with him sucessfuly in E.O. Green School Shootingaffair whih was succesfulin resolvin the disputes. i belive that these repeated WP:ANI cases, while made in good faith i bleieve, is serving as a chilling effect to editors with non-mainstream views inadevertently. I reoommend that we allow the WP:MENTORship program and perhaps a RfC / or even a talkpage discussion to go forward rather than coming on ehre and demanding sanctions from adminstirators without trying any main discussion bases at first Smith Jones (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that his views on sexuality might be "outside the mainstream" is irrelevant, we welcome diverse thought. However, CadenS has shown time and time again, that disputes on sexuality articles cause him stress, which results in him losing him temper quite dramatically and unexpectedly. — Realist 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"unexpledctedly"? really? i bleiev ethat all of ous have had enough experience with this fine editor to realize his buttons and where they are. the fact that we have repeatfully failed to accomodate him and prevent him from getting angr y reflects as much on us as it does on he. WP:ANI is for major incidents thar require swift amdinistrative actions (ie blocking, banning, warnings, etc). User:CadenS mitigating circumstances below for the fact that really, his problems if they exist are longterm editorial complications. as per precedent, we usualyl resolve these in WP:RfC or, drastically, WP:DR -- where you can work through the dispute resolution processes. going to WP:ANI demonstrates the potential for the minsiterpretation of the presence of WP:ABF & is an overreaction to CadenS's admittedly minor conflicts in the issue of homosexualism. If a topic ban IS required, it can e more effectively applied if there was the presence of other attempts at resolvng CadenS before that. Smith Jones (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's everybody else's fault that CadenS can't remain civil? I never even worked with him before and have had no dealings with him, so I was shocked to see his accusations made against me concerning something that never even crossed my mind. How is it my fault that he is attacking me for having an agenda and trying to censor Misplaced Pages to cover up crimes by "gays against innocent heterosexuals"? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

it is NOT your fault that cadenS si considered incivil. however, the fcontineud failure by wikipedia in generla to use processes like WP:DR & wp:rfc is what causes these disputes to spiral out of contorl. There have been multipel WP:ANI threads about this eparticular editor to no avail whatevsoer. Clearly WP:ANI is the not the suitable forum for the resolution of CAdenS problem, yet for some reason we refuse to sto p to create thes things about him. . I think that your best best if this issue is really bothering you (and i understand that it is very rude thing to conjecture about a stranger) is to open up a WP:RFC/ that way everyone who is involved with CadenS can shar ether opinions and then the community can work together with CadenS to devise a solution that will benefit the encyclopedia and everyone who edits in it. The alternative is to have a WP:ANI thread every few weeks that resolves in nothing but hard feelings and rage Smith Jones (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CadenS presents the issues of a trauma victim. It is not the business of Misplaced Pages to accomodate nor treat his issues. Before this latest ANI concerning CadenS' behaviour I had posted an opinion that adoption should in hindsight not have occurred and I predict that the Mentorship proposed by Smith Jones would be no remedy either. That is because Mentorship looks similar to Adoption, and Mentorship would explicitly give CadenS the expectation that his mentor should act as an advocate for the protégé. (link fixed) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CadenS clearly has some personal issues that make editing in any area even tangentially related to sexuality problematic. Clearly until he can show some civility and restraint in those areas, he shouldn't be editing in them. However, his work on American soccer, celebrities, and music seem absolutely fine. I really think a topic ban is the way to go here, as an RfC or any other steps in dispute resolution might only serve to inflame a clearly combustible editor. AniMate 19:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note that CadenS was notified about this ANI thread here. — Becksguy (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

comment ** it is feasible to prospect that CadenS has yet to log in. Smith Jones (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Adopter here. CadenS and I entered into an adoption arrangement about half a year ago in response to a similar dispute. As his adopter, I made it clear then that I would mentor him and, if necessary, occasionally act as his advocate, but not be a "get-out-of-jail-free" card or a shield. Since then, I think there has been some slight improvement in his interactions with others. Unfortunately, though, CadenS continues to see "political correctness" and POV in other editors' actions, and is very outspoken about it. Despite my repeated advice to assume good faith, he does not heed it, or will apologize but eventually go back to the same behavior. In light of this, I am forced to conclude that my adoption has been insufficient. While this particular recent incident doesn't seem worth a topic ban by itself, Caden's history leads me to conclude that if a topic ban on sexuality-related topics is not enforced, the same sort of incident will occur over and over, and will be a drain on the project. Don't get me wrong; Caden's work in other topics has been, on the whole, good, and we appreciate him for that. But his personal history has, not through any fault of his own, been problematic in the area of sexuality. Roux's option #2 seems like the only workable solution at this point, though a combination of #1 and #2 would probably be best: actual topic ban, with Caden being able to request a trusted editor to make an edit for him. Both Banjeboi and I appear to be open to that role, but both of us would probably have a problem with many edits he suggested. -kotra (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

This page is constantly under edit warring. I noticed some highly biased and unsourced material being inserted so I reverted but I don't know what to do next as the IP editor keeps reverting and instead accuses me to be biased on my talk page. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

conflict is resolved a less biased editor reverted all the biases the editor above me doesnt understand what bias means ignore him cheers 86.158.237.235 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. CU may be needed. Ruslik (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted to an earlier version, as some of the edits by Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) had added content that was biased and did not appear to be relevant to the subject, however I may have removed some possibly useful content when reverting. Someone who knows more about the subject is needed for this and other articles edited by the same users (see Special:Contributions/86.158.237.235), as there may be similar problems. —Snigbrook 14:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours. Ruslik (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ruslik and Snigbrook. SSP submitted. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusation?

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

I would like to get some comment on this discussion with user:Ceedjee, in which he seems to be accusing me of being the sock-puppet of a banned user, ShevaShalosh. Am I misunderstanding something? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem? Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ceedjee is addressing me as ShevaShalosh, which in Hebrew means SevenThree. When I did a google search to get some clarification on that, it turned up that ShevaShalosh is the user name of a banned user. So Ceedjee, by addressing me as ShevaShalosh, instead of my actual user name, seems to be accusing me of being the sock-puppet of a banned user. Is it difficult to understand why I have a problem with that? If he thinks he has grounds for the accusation, he could request a check user. I have nothing to worry if that is done. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As you already know Malcom, it's moderately uncivil to simply make accusations of sockpuppetry in order to quell discussion. If it's blatant, tell the user to put up or shut up: either file their report at WP:SSP or give up the accusations. I didn't think any of us needed to tell you that. ♪BMWΔ 14:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, you seem to have an apology on that same page. ♪BMWΔ 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins has put the resolved template on a discussion (above) that is not resolved. Further discussion and an answer to my question would be much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I "restored" the template, I did not "put" the template. ♪BMWΔ 15:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the separate thread Malcom? It's a new complaint against me? If it's related to the above, then it belongs as a sub-section of the above. ♪BMWΔ 15:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a complaint against you, although I do not appreciate you dismissive attitude. I want this as a separate thread, and not one marked closed. Humor me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My question was not answered. I am trying to figure out why Ceedjee addressed me as ShevaShalosh, instead of by my actual user name . It appears that ShevaShalosh is a banned user. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question was answered by this diff. Other than, why would you ask us why someone else did something ... no WP:CRYSTAL here, you would need to ask the other user, not us ... I am restoring this as a sub-thread of the above. ♪BMWΔ 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It may have been an answer, but not to that question I actually asked. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well gee Malcolm, as I suggested above, it's a question you need to ask the other USER, and not ask here. On your behalf, I have asked the same question on their talkpage. Further answers need to come from them, not guesses from anyone on this page. ♪BMWΔ 15:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I did ask Ceedjee, as can be seen on my talk page where that discussion occurred, but did not get an explanation. My question has not been answered. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, please take this to the editor's talk page and spare us the drama. This does not belong on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Bwilkins, this discussion between the two of us is filling up page space without going anywhere. Since you seem to have said what you have to say, why not stop now. I will be happy to wait for a reply from a user who understands the background of who ShevaShalosh is, and why Ceedjee would choose to address me as ShevaShalosh. That is what I am looking for. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My usual approach with name-calling is to ignore it. The only thing that matters here is article content. If he's interfering with your ability to post valid article content, then that's more of an ANI concern, as it's disruption. Otherwise, if he continues to claim that you're a sock, after all this discussion, then ask him to stop. If he still won't stop, then bring it back here. Baseball Bugs 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly right about ignoring name-calling. Thanks. But, at this point, it was not a an accusation against Ceedjee. I really am trying to figure out the context, and reason for his calling me ShevaShalosh. There must be a history to this. I know that AN/I is not intended as a place ot ask questions, but (as far as I know) it is not forbidden, and it is the place on WP which stands to be seen by the most users, and so the place that someone who knows the story will see my question. Sorry I this was a disruptive, it was not intended that way. I just hoped someone would see and answer. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence, asking the person who said it in the first place and then wait for their reply. People can be blocked by many people for many reasons, and may not be readily "memorable". This is not ANI material. ♪BMWΔ 16:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I said that, but is there a rule against asking a question? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule against asking questions, per se, but AN/I is an extremely busy and drama-riddled noticeboard (the worst in Misplaced Pages), and people tend to forget about being courteous here, unfortunately. I can see why you would want to know the answer to your question, but I don't think you'll find any help here. Even those of us who remember Shevashalosh are not likely to know you, no offense intended, so I doubt anyone here can make a connection between you. However, a search like this might turn up at least the reasons why Shevashalosh was blocked, and if you find any similarities between your own contributions and Shevashalosh's, you may be able to guess the connection. But in the absence of a straight answer from Ceedjee, nobody can know for sure. Personally, it seems to me that Ceedjee realizes he or she made a mistake in calling you that, and that there isn't any actual connection. So I would just forget about it, if you can. I hope this helps, and if you have any further questions feel free to take them to my talk page and I'll try to assist (sorry for posting here in an archived discussion). -kotra (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ragusino & Luigi

Something simply must be done about the IP socks of User:Ragusino and User:Luigi 28 (i.e. User:PIO), which are stirring up trouble on dozens of articles for weeks now. User:Ragusino is indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, block evasion and violations of WP:HARASS . User:Luigi 28, aka User:PIO, is also indeffed for edit-warring and personal attacks . The IPs of User:Ragusino usually start with 191.**.**.**, pr 190.**.**.**, but also sometimes with 200.**.**.**, while those of User:Luigi 28 start with 151.**.**.**. Further information about their IP range should be readily available from their edits on the myriad articles and talkpages they've been trying to deface over the weeks. Around 15 or more articles and article talkpages have been semi-protected due to this problem, among others:

• Antonio Bajamonti
• Brno Kabudžić
• House of Pucić
• House of Bondić/Bonda
• House of Gundulić/Gondola
• House of Getaldić/Ghetaldi
• House of Sorkočević/Sorgo
• List of Ragusans
• Dalmatian Italians
• Zadar
• Bombing of Zadar in World War II
• Autonomist Party
• House of Božidarević/Bosdari
• House of Natali

(The protected talkpages are not included)
This method has been largely unsuccessful as the IPs simply move to other articles or wait until the protection expires and continue with their disruption. To top it all off, they've forced admins to semi-protect a number of article talkpages because of their new hobby: posting personal information and attacks about me all over Misplaced Pages (see User:Ragusino edits in article history: , etc.,etc...). This took place all the time on my talkpage until it was semi-protected , now the personal attacks appear everywhere. With many articles protected they've even resorted to personal attacks on any article or talkpage I happen to edit, no matter how unrelated (such as Talk:Croatian American ).
Even as we speak these users continue their disruption, and do not show signs of giving up. Apparently secure in the belief that they cannot be stopped, they've made it their daily routine to disrupt articles and harass users on Wiki. In my personal opinion, something must be done, and after weeks and months of this few options remain save a range-block. I'm sure any help would be appreciated both by me, and by the increasingly large number of editors forced to revert on a daily basis. --DIREKTOR 15:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, these ranges look to big to rangeblock to me - it'd be at least three /16 ranges for the main culprits even without looking at the others, and that's a lot of collateral damage. The 151.48.x.x range, for example, also has a lot of recent productive edits. I think semi-ing the articles until they get bored is the best idea for the time being, unfortunately. Black Kite 15:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Damage is exactly what I'm hoping we can prevent: constant day-to-day damage on dozens of articles. Based on my previous experiences over the last few months, I dare say that these IPs simply will not get bored of their disruption (at least not in the coming months). The reason is that they're active on itWiki and "plan their moves" there. They discuss these issues and whine about how they've been banned, then they simply move on to their daily routine of trying to revert so many articles until one of them is forgotten. This has been going on for weeks and months, and even today we have Ragusino disruptions to speak of . --DIREKTOR 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The amount of disruption is really getting out of proportion, these guys do not stop. Is a temporary range block available as a deterrent option in cases like this? --DIREKTOR 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User Carl Hewitt may be POV editing articles on Misplaced Pages

This user repeatedly comes up at Arbcom following what seems to be a fairly solid history of issues starting with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt and socking. The user is highly technically skilled and has written extensively in an adverse style or to promote his own views and himself, from what I can gather.

I happened to check the article Reliability of Misplaced Pages and suspect that an IP that is heavily skewing it to Hewitt's disparaging viewpoint may be that user himself. There are IP posts inserting significant tracts of adverse Hewitt quotes, case material, and writings (article) and links/cites (talk page). IP socking is a known problem here. Eyeballs may be useful to determine if these edits are good quality or not. See Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages#A disturbing edit. (Also, is this article balanced in regard to "being used for the purpose of presenting specific complaints to a wide audience in mainspace" as opposed to documenting of the topic?)

FT2  18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary emergency desysop of User:Hemanshu

Hemanshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the subject of concern for a considerable time, including an RFC (October) and various final warnings on his talk page, including a desysop discussion on another wiki. An RFAR motion was filed on 31 December in light of these concerns, which had not been resolved.

A concern has now arisen regarding sock-puppetry (WP:SSP/Hemanshu), which confirmed that while at RFAR, the user had begun sockpuppet activity on "year" articles similar to those he had previously edit warred: Wikipedianforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Jan 2 2009. The sock use is  Confirmed by behavior and checkuser.

By itself, a single SPA sock would not warrant more than blocking and noting at RFAR. Further checkuser investigation to confirm there was no other abuse, however, shows serious concerns and irregularities on an involved IP range, that had not come to light, including suggestions of a possible nest of sleepers. Other evidence suggests a clear possibility that there is a pattern of ongoing misconduct although further analysis is needed. We also note that the user is at RFAR due to unresponsiveness in the first place, which suggests a request to stop a given problem behavior would not be sufficiently protective.

Accordingly an "emergency desysop" of the user has been requested for protective/preventative purposes, until other Arbitrators can review the evidence of the community and checkuser findings in full, and the RFAR case is concluded. An IP range that is of concern in the case was also hard-blocked short term pending the same review. Full details and checkuser data have been circulated within the Arbitration Committee.

FT2  20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment of the situation, and confirm its factual accuracy. — Coren  20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FT2 and to the rest of the committee for the quick action - You've made the right move here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy. Again.

Sorry, I did try to resolve this with the user without success. DreamGuy (talk · contribs) is again reverting edits without discussion, and using edit summaries as platforms for personal attacks. As per this edit:

"sick of my personal stalker following me around to undo noncontroversial edits... funny thing is then he removes one of the most notable cultural refs (successful novel series) and keeps utter dreck"

This is despite the fact that DG has made a total of four edits to the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the earliest of which was on October 6th, 2008, and three of the four are reverts. I would point out that the accusation of wiki-stalking seems unfounded, as I had begun that article over six months earlier, and have made 6x more edits to it.
Were this the first instance of this behavior, I'd simply shrug it off as someone having a bad day. Unfortunately, this is something that happens (and keeps happening) in most of the articles that DG edits, as his user talk page (including those bits he likely finds a bit more embarrassing and removes) would seem to indicate. The user is currently under AE civility parole, which has been extended again and again, as the user is considered a net asset to the project. I submit that these benefits to the project are diminished by shutting down those other editors who grow weary of being exposed to DreamGuy's thick layer of hostility and rudeness. In the past, his incivility and personal attacks have chased away new editors. The current resurgence of uncivil and unfriendly behavior is of precisely the same sort that led to the user being placed under ArbCom behavioral restriction in the first place.
I did attempt to address this behavior in a civil fashion on multiple occasions recently during the Annie Chapman image discussion (1, 2) before he deleted the section as "serving no point". As well, Jack the Ripper, and his usertalk page (3), where he deleted it again with yet another PA edit summary, an action which prompted my posting here. I am certainly not the first to have had unhappy interactions with DG, but I think I've done everything civilly possible to defuse the behavior he seems to reserve for anyone who doesn't share his exceptionally narrow worldview. He reverts and edit-wars without discussion, and it just keeps happening over and over again in any article he touches.
I would remind the noticeboard (for the three or four people unaware of his status) that DreamGuy is currently under behavioral restriction by ArbCom, reinforced by AE on a few occasions (to be more civil in his dealings with others). Looking at the edit summaries of DG's contributions over the past month, I am not sure this civility parole is being followed. - Arcayne () 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the contrib history of Scarlet Pimpernel, and confirm Arcayne has previously edited the article since April of last year and DreamGuy only since August. I have therefore warned DreamGuy regarding both his edit warring and inappropriate comments regarding Arcayne and suggested withdrawing from editing the article. I have not reviewed Arcayne's other concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

...aaaaaand this was the response. I have left a further comment, but I suppose that it will be reverted similarly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne has a long history of wikistalking, so to tell me he is not is simply wrong and showing a recklessness in taking action. Furthermore it's completely inappropriate for you to just tell me not to edit the page in question. Admins don't just say that editors are not allowed to edit. Before you give lectures you need to make sure you know what's what. Inisting on putting a warning on my talk page despite knowing that I said you were misinformed isn't particularly helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne has a well-demonstrated history of personal conflict with me and also for wikilawyering to try to get his way, including misleading reports here and to ArbCom. Quite often he shows up here and gets some well-meaning but inexperienced admin to jump in and do whatever he wants because they do not take the time to examine the full facts. He knows he is banned from my talk page, per my instructions and warnings from several admins, so claiming he is trying "to resolve this with the user without success" by posting there is complete nonsense. He is not trying to resolve anything, he just blind reverts my edits on any article he happens to be on with misleading edit comments, often with statements to "see talk" when he didn't put anything on the talk page... in fact he quite regularly on Jack the Ripper says to "see talk" or "per talk" or claim no evidence was ever given for an action when he has deleted the discussion of the article talk page (calling it an archive, but doing so so often that current discussions go away). I would caution anyone seeing this to not fall for Arcayne's little tricks as others have in the past. Shows editors agreeing that Arcayne has been harassing me, that people complaining are trying to game the system, etc. and there is more evidence as well. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw after this comment - but someone who has edited an article since April 2008 cannot be "wikistalking" (isn't the term de joure "wikihounding", anyway?) an editor who started editing an article in August of the same year. Also, as far as counting back the months go, as I have been a sysop since May 2007 I am a little too long in the tooth to be termed "inexperienced". Nevermind, it doesn't seem as if you are interested in statistics where it does not suit your agenda. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be part of my "little tricks" to point out that the section DG linked to is almost year old, and he has been blocked three different times since then for the same sort of behavior which prompts this complaint? I would also point out that of the three editors thus posting to this section, only DG has been blocked - less than a year ago - for "gaming the system". Anyone who blocks him is "inexperienced"; anyone who disagrees with him is "blind-reverting". No one is saying DG is stupid - a block log as long as his suggests that he does bring something to the table here. I am pointing out that I have been accused of wikihounding in an article that - by all accounts - it could be more convincingly argued that DG began visiting the Pimpernel article less than 15 minutes after reverting an edit of mine in the Jack the Ripper article (1, 2). Do I like the user? Clearly, I don't, for reasons that are a part of the record. However, I am not being hypersensitive to the accusations of wiki-hounding, as they tend to (pardon the pun) tend to follow a user around. The disproven accusations by DreamGuy, coupled with his recurring uncivil behavior seem to communicate a need to curb the user's behavior somewhat further; the behavioral restrictions don't seem to be working as well as they would with most other folk. - Arcayne () 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor creates 100,000 or more non-notable articles!

This editor, user:Carlossuarez46, appears to be methodically creating many tens of thousands of articles that contain minimal or no content. They are simply stubs for place names.

Take here for example - it is one of the several hundred settlements in the Lachin region of Azerbaijan that he has recently created articles for. Click onto any of the other place names listed for Lachin to see that the vast majority are empty articles containing nothing more than a single sentence. It is the same for tens of thousands of similar articles on settlements in Azerbaijan and Armenia that he has recently created. He appears to be using country gazetteers containing lists of settlements to create articles for every place-name in existence, without any thought about whether a Misplaced Pages article is really required for those places - the vast majority of them are (and always will be) without any notability.

The editor mentioned is not alone in doing this, but he may be the most prolific and he appears to be going through every country in alphabetical order (he has already done all the "A"s and most of the "B"s). Is it correct that Misplaced Pages should become an A-Z gazetteer containing an entry for every single village or hamlet in the World? Meowy 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. spryde | talk 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can have entries for places like Holder, Illinois, and Bill, Wyoming, then pretty much anyplace having a structure with a roof on it is fair game. Baseball Bugs 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. While there is no accepted notability guideline for settlements, WP:AFDP#Places agrees with Bugs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill, Wyoming: "The new development more than doubled the population to 11 people in two years". I know of single houses with more inhabitants than that, I can't get an article on 256b Acacia Avenue though. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Try 2 million more like. Permastubs are the future. MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another useful link is WP:OUTCOMES, which indicates that articles about villages tend to survive AfD. Otherwise, this situation doesn't require any immediate admin intervention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too traditional, but for me an article should not be just a single sentence stating the blindingly obvious (settlement X is a village in country A). If that is all there is to say about a place, then there should not be an article on it! I think these hundreds of thousands (or millions) of near-empty articles makes Misplaced Pages a bit of a joke. Whatever, it's probably just a cunning plan by He Who Cannot Be Named to bump up the daily count of newly-created Misplaced Pages articles because their numbers have been going down compared to past years. And maybe also an even more cunning plan to eventually sell advertising on place-name pages. Meowy 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be outdone, I plan to create articles on all the possible combinations of 3 letters and numbers, or 36 to the 3rd power, figuring that every one of them is likely to be an abbreviation for something. Baseball Bugs 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a conspiracy to bump up the figures for unpatrolled new articles, so that they can launch phase one of the masterplan. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I really hope he discussed it on the country- or region-specific wikiprojects or on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Cities. If the editors of a country want the criteria to include 100,000 places in that country, that's fine with me, but they should have the say-so, not one editor. There's WP:BOLD but if he did this on his own, he's going overboard. Have you discussed this with him? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about that, but I don't think he did. Look at his talk page - he seems to be getting plenty of support, and other editors encouraging him to create even more articles. "Wow thats a highly impressive number of articles. Its almost like the bot is running as planned. How you generate them so quickly I have no idea but its faster than even I could do." comments one of them. About the Azerbaijan names, the same editor (User:Blofeld of SPECTRE) posted the disturbing "Well you know exactly how I feel about editors who try to get in your way. .... You can have my word that nobody is going to delete 4500 articles".

The problem with the Azerbaijan names is that a good few thousand of them are in Nagorno Karabakh or in areas controlled by Nagorno Karabakh and so the place-names and province names in current use are often different from those that Azerbaijan has officially given them. So I'm sure those single sentence articles will be a cause of endless and pointless arguments for months. Meowy 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The biggest bummer is that this is being done in a manual and more or less haphazard manner, with no community control over the information in the stubs. Had we allowed Fritpoll's bot to do its work, we would have much more useful examples of all of these same stubs. There is a lesson there, perhaps - when we as a community turn down a relatively reasonable request to simply allow good work to move forward, someone will later choose to do it anyway and without the same deference. Avruch 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have recalled it wrongly. The bot was approved, on condition of the implementaiton of a whole supporting project framework, which would ensure that rich datasets were prepared to be processed by the bot, to then allow users to create 'rich stubs' full of content. You will have to dig out the deleted versions of the project pages to see why it failed. These one line articles on Azerbaijan I am pretty sure would not have passed the notability requirements of that project, although I do recall at one point that 'two references' was mooted as the bar of inclusion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about permastubs being the future was aces! Anyway, I am thinking that a lot of new users might not really know how to use the tools (and increasing numbers of new users tend to be those folk somewhere on the bristly side of puberty). Working on the article for your hometown might be a pretty good way to get started. Of course, creating articles for those places without a lot of internet access kinda prevents them from developing into full-blown articles, but doesn't this partly address one of the flaws of Misplaced Pages - that areas non web-savvy get little coverage? - Arcayne () 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since when does an editor need the permission of anybody, WikiProject or not, to create an article? Every inhabited place in the world needs an article, as has been clearly stated over and over again, for years now. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, Misplaced Pages's flaws spin up something helpful. Time and again, the consensus has been that human settlements are notable. This is not that same thing as consensus for article creation by bots sucking stuff out of databases. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The dichotomy here is between notability and usefulness. If the source database contained more than basic information, e.g. geographical coordinates, population, etc., etc., so as to give a reader something to work on, fine, but it doesn't seem to be so. And I have little hope that anyone is ever likely to flesh out this myriad bunch of articles with actual content, so in that regard we might just as well be a "list of places"; policy should militate against that, and perhaps it's about time we revisited notability of settlements. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Me category listing

User:Me added an admin category listing to his page several months ago, which I questioned after the edit's odd edit summary and some research, and which User:Neurolysis recently removed. Me has since readded the category with another odd response on his talk page, and I'm not sure how to verify the information. Probably not a big deal, but I had some disagreements with this editor several months ago, and our exchanges and Me's editing history don't seem consistent with these latest edits. Flowanda | Talk 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's misleading, since they aren't an admin, so I have removed it and left them a message accordingly. _Gb 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as this seems to come up quite frequently here: when wondering whether an account has admin rights, check Special:ListUsers. Admins have "(Administrator)" next to their username—it's that simple. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a chance that this editor's account was somehow compromised? Not trying to cause trouble, but the latest editing behaviour is odd. Flowanda | Talk 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the cat but I have been reverted with a Get out of my life edit summary. BigDunc 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's damned odd. Maybe the account has been compromised. Can it be indef blocked until the user pipes up with some reasoning? Blowing off admin suggestions and posts is pretty much a red flag the size of Portugal that something is amiss. - Arcayne () 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Very strange indeed. I just removed it again, and restored one thread on his talk page, including a link to this discussion. Antandrus (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has claimed to be an admin. There is no rule claiming I cannot be included in the particular group. If there is, and it is shown here, I shall forgo the restoration. Until then, it shall stay. Thank you for your concern. -- Me 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By adding yourself to Category:Misplaced Pages administrators, you're claiming to be an admin. Common sense trumps a lack of policy. I've fully protected your userpage; if you're an admin, you'll have no problem unprotecting it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the category again. I'm considering upping the ante next time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I doubt it's a compromised account: he added the category and thought it was funny way back in July. Not that it's a huge deal, just misleading. Antandrus (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Making a funny edit was the odd part. But that was probably part of the BS -- see our exchange at Talk: Simon Property Group#Press releases as sources.Flowanda | Talk 23:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Moral of the story: Ol' Flo still has a grudge and is trying to get back at me months after the fact. Holding grudges ups your blood pressure. You should look into Yoga, or something similar. -- Me 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated Category:Administrators to make it slightly less useful to people who would abuse it. There are some categories that should be bot-patrolled for false entries, this is one of them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Page has been protected (not by me). I agree with the protection. User has had enough warnings. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gads. I feel a disturbance in the Force, as if a thousand vandals all cried out in glee with a single voice. I think this is an iceberg tip. - Arcayne () 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? -- Me 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to David - I already do semi-automated category patrolling, that's how I picked it up. — neuro 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting new removals:

• Devin2462
• Dinesh reddy

User:J1nxwiki seems to be in the cat, but doesn't have it on his user page. Not sure what is going on there. User:Le Faux Nez de L'Aquatique is not an admin, but the operator is, so that seems just dandy to me. — neuro 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just rollbacked this. Um, I don't think so. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• hugs* -- Me 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not put that template back again. I am fully willing to issue a block in this situation for disruption. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LMFAO. The template has been gone for awhile now, and the page has been protected (apparently I'm a risk to myself). Let's try to keep up, ok pal? Oh, and don't delete my message to UV. I have a right to post on his talk page, and he has the right to read it. If he wants to delete my obviously joking, tongue-in-cheek statement is up to him, not you. Thank you. -- Me 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, edit warring on my talk page. I feel so loved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice edit summaries. — neuro 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hr - I don't see leaving false talk page warnings as constructive to the encyclopedia. Considering that WP:TWINKLE was used to do so, this makes it even worse. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that was fun. - Arcayne () 01:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Roseswhite (sock of Yorkshirian)

Double-indef. banned, long term chronic sockpuppet, troll, and otherwise ultra-abusive/distruptive User:Yorkshirian has been back, again, breifly as User:Roseswhite. Leaving rather unplesant messages about me on his talk page. Leaves a racist message about me, then calls me a nazi (!), then says he's a good editor and should be unblocked because he's reformed. Of course that won't happen, but just wanted the incident on the noticeboard so as to make sure I'm not accused of maltreatment.

However, I wouldn't mind a quick checkuser being performed on this account and User:Mister Flash to make sure there isn't a correlation, and also as a means to doublecheck there are no more sock farms being built up by Yorkshirian as we speak.

Also, what is the policy on Yorkshirian working on sister sites please? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocks from one site in general do not transfer to sister sites due to various reasons, partially because policies are not unified. — neuro 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither do bans. Per WP:BAN#Scope and reciprocity, "bans issued by the Misplaced Pages community or by the Arbitration Committee are not binding on other projects". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough - I presume they carry some weight however, WP:COMMON and all. I'm more concerned about keeping Yorkshirian's distruption at bay here, at WP. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They may have weight, but only if noticed, which isn't always the case. — neuro 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters violation of WP:OUTING

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is in violation of WP:OUTING. See ] This is an abuse that cannot be tolerated. I request he be permanently blocked. Syntacticus (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused - didn't you just deny being that person at the linked section, and essentially ask the user to Prove It? - Arcayne () 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What? I alleged Lulu violated WP:OUTING. That's it. I did not dare anyone to do anything. Syntacticus (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims of outing should be taken to WP:OVERSIGHT for privacy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Whether the claims are true or not, it is still a violation of WP:OUTING. — neuro 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and just noting - immediate thoughts are that an indef block is much too much. — neuro 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We define outing as "posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". I can't see anything of this at the link provided.  Sandstein  00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't see the outing (I don't really understand where is is, couldn't find it on page), I was just noting that factual accuracy is irrelevant in WP:OUTING cases. Could someone point me to this outing (or non-outing), please? — neuro 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to remedy. I thought the only punishment was permanent blocking. Anyway, I just want this looked into, please. It is unacceptable conduct. Sandstein: I think the implication at ] is abundantly clear. Syntacticus (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, to me it is not. Please provide the specific WP:DIFF that you think is objectionable and explain how exactly it violates WP:OUTING.  Sandstein  00:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look like outing to me. On a different subject, I was looking over Syntacticus' contributions, and I'm starting to wonder if there's a connection to User:WorkerBee74 and other sockpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein: Here is the passage. It reads like he is accusing me of being Vadum. I already pointed out to him that the name Syntacticus appears to be in use on the web by several different people. Is he allowed to do that?

>>>>>Despite your disingenuous ANI claims and all that, let's just stop the pretense that you are someone other than the very same "Syntacticus" who continually inserts references to articles by Matthew Vadum/CRC at Free Republic and Daily Kos... A belabored claim that you can shed your carapace and emerge as a whole different butterfly is not the meaning or WP:OUTING. Unlike you, I make not pretence of being "some other person" than the one I actually am (in particular, I give all my true biography right on my user page, and make no inventions about "gee, I must accidentally share an IP block with someone I have no connection with other than promoting his articles). LotLE×talk 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<<<<<

Syntacticus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nope, not outing in my eyes. — neuro 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought Fridays were for WP:DRAMA... ♪BMWΔ 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but you're accusing another editor of OUTING. However, not only have you not asked for oversight, but you also just reprinted the offending area here at ANI (not providing a DIFF) where it would be seen by many many more editors. If this is actually OUTING, it doesn't seem like a very big deal to you at all, and it seems as if you're using it to have someone blocked who disagrees with you. Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant article here is vexatious litigation. 02:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let's get this straight. BTW I'm taking this from the diff you posted Syntacticus. First Syntacticus accuses LOTLE of having a conflict of interest and then reacts when their own potential COI is brought up. Syntacticus then comes here asking us to indef block LoTLE claiming that LoTLE "outed" him.
  Now on the substance of the wp:outing violation: there isn't any in that diff. Why is there no "outing" there? Because LoTLE linked User:Syntacticus to another "Syntacticus" screenname - not a real name. To out some one you must publish 'personal information' and that didn't happen here--Cailil 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ToTheCircus constantly reverting article against complete consensus of other editors

ToTheCircus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an WP:SPA concerning the topic of the missing in action following the Vietnam War. This is a long, complex, emotional topic to some, and the consensus of all editors other than ToTheCircus is that it is best dealt with in its own article, Vietnam War POW/MIA issue, rather than in the Missing in action article, which needs to cover the general topic of missing in action across all nations and all wars. This consensus is being clearly reaffirmed by an RfC that's in progress, where five editors (HowardMorland, Nick-D, Jeff G., Nabokov, and myself) are for the split-off and only ToTheCircus is against it. Meanwhile, ToTheCircus has repeatedly reverted the contents of the Missing in action article back to his/her preferred state that includes heavy and very slanted coverage of the Vietnam-specific issue. The most recent set of such reversions has included this edit and this edit and this edit and just now again, this edit. ToTheCircus marks all these edits as being against "vandalism", an absurd claim. ToTheCircus has several warnings already on his/her talk page for abuses on this subject area. Several editors are interested in improving both the Missing in action article and the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue article, but we can't get anywhere if we spend all our efforts dealing with this editor. I am requesting that ToTheCircus be blocked. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Notified ToTheCircus of this thread.  Sandstein  00:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• After a brief review of his contributions, I would support a block for edit warring on Missing in action. His talk page comments, while very lengthy, do not seem to make much sense. I'm going offline now, though, so others will have to continue the review.  Sandstein  00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the Missing in action article for the last year or so, and fully agree with Wasted Time R's above post. ToTheCircus has just reverted the article again to the version which only they support (labeling the changes 'vandalism'): , though I've reverted this change per the discussion on the article's talk page. I also support blocking this editor, and also request that the page be protected. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A different Russian interwiki

• Could some one put a more appropriate link to the relevant Russian page, which is ru:Википедия:Запросы к администраторам. They are not entirely equivalent, but the current one is downright wrong.Muscovite99 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. — neuro 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Danielpi - block needed

I just blocked User:Danielpi due to harassment (). When I wanted to inform him about his block, I saw this edits made after the block. Because of that, I decided to extend the block to 1 month (cf. block log.) Now I saw this edit. Could one block him indefinitely, please? — Aitias // discussion 01:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, he has just made this edit. — Aitias // discussion 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --Smashville 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed talk page editing privileges. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards