Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HalfShadow (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 13 May 2009 (→Block warnings for both sides). 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 admin 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Crazy block by Connolley

Why was Peter Damian blocked for reverting the insane edits of an anon IP on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article? Why has the article been locked down ostensibly to protect against the IP edits, but the IP not been blocked? Why was Damain (myself) blocked? Madness. See my remarks on Jimbo's page (he is protecting these lunatics, it seems). 86.132.248.254 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you pre-announced your intention to get yourself blocked, it isn't all that surprising. I think you're one of those people for whom drama is like cocaine, and you started feeling withdrawal symptoms. Looie496 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, protection and blocking is overkill. Only one of them, please, when dealing with edit warring. Sceptre 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it normal for a blocked editor's block to get extended for blatant block evasion? In addition to posting here, this IP posted twice to the article talk page and then to a user page within the space of less than ten minutes. Even if the block is wrong, there's no excuse for complicating matters by evading it. Surely this experienced user knows how to use the unblock template. Durova 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Although I believe Peter has done this before... I think. Sceptre 01:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for block evasion, and anybody is free to extend Peter Damian's original block. --auburnpilot talk 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semiprotected, for the benefit of the highly-persistent IP who will not discuss. This action was unrelated to Peter Damian's editing, and his recent use of a sock to evade his block. Damian went to great lengths to violate 3RR, apparently trying to prove a point, and was blocked by WMC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"…and his recent use of a sock to evade his block."

What sockpuppet?

More generally, is it our job to run Misplaced Pages without reference to, interest in, or opinions about content?24.18.142.245 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that only one party to an edit war is blocked, especially as the unblocked party has previously been blocked for their editing of the same article and is apparently a pov warrior, and specifically it is WMC who actioned the sanction. WMC is now responsible for 3 of the 5 blocks on the Peter Damian account. I note that WMC took no other action, leaving it for another to sprotect the article nor - as noted - sanctioning the other edit warrior. I feel that this gives the impression that WMC acted disproportionately in sanctioning an editor with whom they have a history regarding blocking. I shall ask WMC if they wish to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I do. Your impressions are incorrect. PD broke 3RR, so I blocked him. As far as I'm aware, no-one else did. I'm fairly sure that PD intended to merely tweak our noses by using his "quota" of 3R/24h (in which case I would probably have blocked him for edit warring), but mistakenly went over the line. As you'll have seen from PD's subsequent contributions, he did all this to make a point and appears to have succeeded, so is presumably happy with the outcome William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You noted edit warring in the block log, but took no action other than to block PD - subsequently the ip with whom PD was warring has been blocked for a week for their general pov warring behaviour and the article the two were involved was sprotected; if you are going to refer to edit warring (rather than disruption, also available from the same menu) it behoves an administrator to review the culpability of all involved, or to address the edit war otherwise. If you are going to be inattentive as regards the block reason placed in the log, then you will have to accept that people are going to get the wrong impression. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to note that you've realised you got the wrong impression; sadly you are still making mistakes; there was no inattention on my part. PD, as far as I know (and no-one has challenged this) was the only one to break 3RR (and did so in a deliberately provocative manner - a point that I don't think you have acknowledged). Your apparent belief that if one person needs to be blocked for edit warring, then so should someone else, is completely wrong. I suggest you review the history of WP:AN3 if you're unclear about that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? The other party to the edit war (not disruption or another reason, but edit war) was subsequently blocked for a week for their practice of reverting other peoples contributions without seeking consensus or even discussing the matter back to their previous edited versions after a discussion between me and another sysop. You have been around longer than I have, but it seemed like an edit war - over several Ayn Rand articles - to us. We didn't need to look very hard, either, since the ip already had a 24 hour block a few days previously for that same behaviour. I cannot believe you could have missed it had you looked, so I therefore conclude that you didn't. Also, the page being warred over was sprotected a couple of hours after the PD block to stop the continuing edit war. As I said, possible inattention to matters outside of blocking PD (which I have noted was appropriate on this page) gives rise to these unfortunate impressions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian edit warred with summaries like "about the 6th revert" and then flaunted this on an administrator's talk page, twice. Further he turned the question of whether the administrator would block him or not into a way to make a WP:Point confirming that "I don't have to 'discuss' with lunatics." which constitutes both a personal attack and a stated intention to edit war more in the future, with the assertion that not-blocking would be taken to be implicit permission to do so. How is anyone surprised that this resulted in a block? He begged for it. The semi-protect was done by a different admin for a different reason. Mishlai (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have commented in an ongoing discussion on my talkpage, there are no problems with the block of Peter Damian for the policy violations but I have a concern that there was no other action taken in regard to an edit war (plus the fact is was GMC again who blocked PD). If the block was for disruption, one from the drop down menu I use where other policy violations do not suffice, then there would be less concern; edit warring does require other parties, and resolving edit wars usually entails either sanctioning more than one party or protecting the article involved. GMC's action has, as I said, the appearance of being disproportionate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you seriously don't see the other edit warrior at Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? I just popped in, and noted it off the bat. If you need your hand held to see that, and you refute comments by others in that regard, then why perform the block? You should be asking for review and for assistance. seicer | talk | contribs 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Peter Damian has continued to evade his block using 81.151.180.208 (talk · contribs) and Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs). Both are blocked, but if this continues, the original block will have to be reset. --auburnpilot talk 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps resetting it now would be appropriate. PD is well aware that block evasion is not permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just added 72 hours. This kind of stuff is tiresome. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy is just yanking our chain. He went to Misplaced Pages Review admitting to being a previously blocked user (by Jimbo, no less) and claiming that he would sockpuppet but adding good content (which he did, up to a point), and use that to attempt to persuade financial contributors to desist from doing so. However, no admin, including myself, was prepared to give him that satisfaction; we do not dance to the tune of blocked users. However, knowing something of this guy IRL (a minor academic, but no more than that), I suggest it's about time to bring this to an end as far as we can, and I propose a formal ban of User:Peter Damian and all his sockpuppets. A plague on all their houses. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• When his siteban was lifted it was against my better judgment: per Misplaced Pages:Standard offer I prefer to see banned editors demonstrate a fundamental respect for our standards by refraining from evasions of their ban; after several months of that most of them can earn another chance. This one tried to earn his way back through persistent ban evasion, and the block history since his return is not encouraging. Nonetheless, let's give him a fair shake if he's willing to give us one. If he posts a statement acknowledging that site policies apply to everyone (including himself) and pledging to abide by this and any future blocks (or appeal them by normal means)--then I would support a good faith reduction of 24 hours from his current block. Durova 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if linking off-wiki discussions is appropriate, but since you seem to be trying to evaluate intention/attitude Mishlai (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A post at his user talk would be adequate. We've all had days when we saw red for a while and then thought better of it. A clear demonstration of that is all that's needed here. Durova 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't simply a user who is having a bad day and seeing red, but a user who has been blocked repeatedly under numerous different accounts (Peter Damian (talk · contribs), Peter Damian II (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs), Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs), and several IPs). This is a user who seems to believe he is entitled to act a certain way and do certain things without accountability, simply because he's been here longer than others. This is a user who just today refered to me as an entirely useless person and a prick; he also referred to William M. Connolley as an arsehole. Frankly, he has earned his current block and should be happy it isn't longer. --auburnpilot talk 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And he referred to me as a member of The Cabal. Nonetheless I am willing to let bygones be bygones if he is. What could be fairer? After all the dry cleaners returned my black velvet cabal robes three days late. I was forced to attend last week's Cabal Cocktail Party in a black silken dress--so 2006--so I'm not in a mood to toe the party line today. Durova 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅I'd suggest a slightly less holier than thou attitude than evidenced above. Peter does hard graft on articles, and is prepared to take on many articles that attract high levels of POV editing. he also does rigourous research and references his material. The complete absence of admin intervention on the IP editor involved in this and the failure to deal with editors who play to the limit of WIki rules while refusing to deal with questions was a contributory factor here. Peter has a short fuse but that tends to go with the territory. If you check the edits he made :evading" they were to talk pages only not the articles. We need to spend a bit more time understanding the context in which these actions take place. Peter is easy to provoke, and doing it is a "game" for some. Verdana comes closest to a mature attitude above, what would be nice would someone with admin powers spending some time looking at the content debates and then checking the behaviour of editors who keep to the letter of the law while driving others to frustrated excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Peter needs to learn to keep his temper under control, but he makes tremendous contributions to the project. The talk of banning is absurd. Seriously, if we perma-banned every snarky user the place would be a ghost-town. Those of you who think Peter should be banned need to ask yourself if it's worth losing his contributions. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, we have plenty of great article contributors who don't feel the need to either get in trouble or wear the fact that they are article contributors on their sleeve when they get in trouble. I don't understand the mentality that if you rack up enough article edits, block evasion isn't block evasion anymore. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then point a few of them at highly troublesome articles like the Ayn Rand ones, NLP and others which have fan clubs of editors, it takes a stubborn personality to stand up to that and a bit more attention to the context should (in my opinion) have resulted in at best a token block, but with a linked block/admonishment to the other two editors. extending the ban when no edits were made to any articles, just a few talk pages was petty. --Snowded (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold the phone. I can't for the life of me understand how extending a block for block evasion is petty. Maybe I'm still nursing this grudge that Peter has imagined, but I am having some trouble. PD gets blocked for edit warring. As is his MO, he makes obvious attempts to evade the block and either post on talk pages or make article edits presumably so that this exact conversation can be repeated each time. People can come here and complain that "ignorant admins have blocked a hardworking content contributor, see look at how ludicrous blocking someone for good content edits is!" and ignore (pretty blithely if you ask me) the basis for the original block or the block extension. Blocks, as a technical measure, only block the account, but we are interested in preventing the human behind the account from editing during the block duration. So we do two things to prevent technical blocks from being gamed, one which is unambigously preventative and one which might be seen as punitive. The first is that we block the accounts used to evade a block. I don't see that being called petty here, though I don't imagine it is too far fetched for an accusation like that to be thrown about. The second is that we occasionally, but not always, extend the block for the main account. I'm fully prepared to discuss the validity of the block extension but I refuse to do so if we are just going to toss off words like "petty" and pretend that a discourse is in progress. Do you want to tell me under what conditions block evasion is ok? Maybe that can start us off. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only answer for my own comments not those of others. The only edits Peter made were to talk pages (some of which namely his own he could have made any way), no edits were made to articles. The issue I am raising is that the block was on Peter in isolation and no action was taken against the other two editors (not even a mild warning) (now corrected in the case of the IP). Peter was not the only one frustrated by that. Extending the block TWICE was I think petty, its a legitimate point and you are of course free to disagree with it. It is related to the block extension (your second point). I'll happily change "petty" to "an over reaction" if you want. --Snowded (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel compelled to change the wording to assuage my concerns. It appears we aren't going to come to agreement. I didn't block PD for edit warring and I don't much care whether or not the IP should be blocked (the article is semi'd so I don't know what a block would do). All I did was see if PD had evaded the block, noted that he did rather obviously, and extend the block. You remark above that the only edits he made were to talk pages, but that is the point. PD doesn't have a history of evading blocks to do nefarious things. He has a history of evading legitimate blocks (no comment on the legitimacy of this precise one) to perform innocuous edits in order to somehow show that the block itself is ludicrous. That's fine if you like civil disobedience and all but civil disobedience still lands you in jail. Letter from Birmingham Jail was not written at the Hilton. Protonk (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an offer as you didn't like the "petty" word. As you say we are not going to agree on this and (if its any comfort or if you are concerned) I think its no an issue with you per se. I think its a significant issue with the tendency in WIkipedia to ignore context on contentious pages. Its too easy just to play to the letter of the law, and that is exploited by editors more experienced in playing the game to the letter of law. Editors who really care (and Peter for all his faults is one of those and i have been on the receiving end an attack or two from him in my time) are punished. The net effect is that it all gets too hard and we end up with corralled articles where attempting to deal with cultists and POV pushers just gets too hard and good editors go elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, dealing with POV pushers is a goal we all share. The distinction you're trying to draw about block evasion is not the way it's usually defined. If Peter was blocked wrongly in the first place then the unblock template usually straightens out the error, or if someone else should've been blocked too then a separate thread on the other individual's behavior would be more likely to resolve that. A good way to get attention for priorities is to minimize side issues. Durova 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree per se Durova, however I think we have a wider problem here on articles which attract cultists etc. Its too easy for either numbers, or intelligent gaming of the rules, or simple noise creation to try and get a plague on both your houses response (a good example below of re-spinning, to use a british political phrase can be found below). Its not just Rand pages, we have seen similar things on a range such as NLP (to take another where Peter did good work). Where you get a lot of admins involved (Intelligent design for example) the system just about works, but on the edges its more difficult. We won't get anywhere with it here today, but I'm working off line on some ideas and will post when I have worked something out. Misplaced Pages is a great example of a complex adaptive system, but the constraints used may in some cases have reached their limits. --Snowded (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter has posted in reply to the offer above. Apologies aren't needed, btw--just a commitment to avoid the same problems in future. Also agreeing in principle with Protonk: good content work doesn't generate an exemption from policy (think how many policies I'd be breaking if each featured credit earned a get-out-of block free card). So in good faith let's take a day off the block; Peter's met us halfway. Durova 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter's conduct on the discussion page is evidence of being disruptive, not being productive. If this process is sensitive to character assesment, lets toss out character witnesses in favor of the facts. Recent "discussion" activity follows for Objectivism (Ayn Rand) --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another user asks PD to support his edit

Despite his edit persisting in the article:, he campaigns against WP:SYN

He then abandons the existing thread , without any answer to the request to support his edit.

He carries on ignoring the request to support his edit .

I try, for the second time to point him back to the open discussion but he continues to evade the call to support his edit .

I call for a resumption of peaceful discussion and complain about the branching into multiple threads

He creates another thread . I therefore bring a summary of the original thread down to the new one .

He puts it to me to treat the paragraph piece-meal instead of as a whole and I respond that its the paragraph being contested

Now he gives his support broken down sentence by sentence. But this doesn't follow the structure of the actual paragraph . Further, it does nothing to answer my often repeated original complaint .

And now he flaunts the need for discussion and civil discourse

Another user summarizes all this quite clearly here.

Now I'm further denegrated by user Peter Damian . It seems that accroding to user Peter Damian only he has standing for what passes or fails as good content .

I essentially repeat myself about how the paragraph in question is OR, and express some frustration over user Peter Damians behavior so far .

PD now thanks me for being specific about objecting to 'it follows' (recall this oft repeated comment ), and tells me how I failed to identify even more OR in his paragraph! - did you catch the small personal attack?

Now user PD invites an analysis of Rand in favor of discussing the article followed by more campaigning against WP:SYN and admonishing me for not doing likewise

I attempt once again to bring the discussion back on track, and try to ensure my objection is clear

The IP 160 user then steps into the fray

An outside perspective is given on the issue here --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As for being nothing more than a POV pusher of an editor we have this as an opening section for the article --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Other blocks by Connolley

If we're allowed to even question this admin's actions without risking further blocks, I'd appreciate comment as to whether this or this is considered appropriate admin behaviour, (background is here). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Imho it is not because WP:BLOCK says that blocks can only be issued "to protect Misplaced Pages and its editors from harm" and I see nothing of that in this block. While the section about self-requested blocks was removed, I think any admin should be very careful not to take remarks on any other talk page as a request for a block. Especially not when the user they are blocking just criticized their admin actions, because then it's unlikely they are impartial enough to judge this situation correctly and should not perform further admin actions on users involved. Regards SoWhy 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That block strikes me as a bad decision. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that blocking someone because they asked you to is about as bad as a decision as asking to be blocked. Chillum 01:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's far worse, because the blocking admin ought to have known better. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask to be blocked, I certainly didn't intend for this to be read as a request to be blocked - Why?! and had I (maybe I could use an enforced wikibreak), I would have written "Could some admin please block me, thankyou". However the whole PD saga seems to have too many admins over-reacting because they can, not because they should. Making any sort of comment on this is the behaviour that attracts blocks for the wikicrime of lese majeste to admins, I posted a tongue-in-cheek recognition that I knew this was likely to happen (and felt the point about PD was worth making anyway) and then this admin was foolish enough to think that such a mis-use of a block, even when the target had already raised its likelihood, was still a valid action.

I'm required to WP:AGF, so my bock must have been for one of four reasons.

1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages.

2 Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit.

4 Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms

Now please, if I have damaged WP, please point out my error. If I was critical of an admin's actions over PD or their right to act in that way, beyond reasonable and fairly tactful discussion of whether we couldn't find a more productive way to act in the future, then please point it out.

Now I can't see any such thing in my recent actions, which leaves only:

3 Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.

So admin Connelly's block is only explicable by either assuming his bad faith (which is impermissible), or a new interpretation of blocking policy such that any discussion of admin's actions, no matter how measured, is reason for an immediate block.

That is not, I believe, how an open system of governance is meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we credit Andy by assuming he is somehow less capable of knowing better than an admin. Admins are just people not infallible gods, they don't always get things right. While the block was not the brightest move, requesting it to make a point was about on the same level. Chillum 01:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So your defence of a bad block is that the blocking administrator is more or less dim than the editor who (s)he blocks? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't see a defense for this one. Permit me to be crude. Andy was either fucking around or spoiling for a fight. In either case, WMC shouldn't have taken the bait. It's his responsibility to refrain from doing so. Period. I don't like "requested blocks" one bit, but this plainly wasn't one. However, on the grand scale of things we ought to be caring about, this ranks relatively low. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo but state more strongly what a couple of other editors have already mentioned—this was just a horrendous block, and while it's over and done with now I'm astounded that William M. Connolley seriously thought it was a good idea (but then again maybe he wasn't taking it that seriously). It's pretty difficult if not impossible to read Andy Dingley's comment as a serious request for a block, and even if Connolley thought that's what was going on he should have at least clarified it first. I have no idea what the backstory to this is and don't particularly care, but whatever it is it does not excuse or justify a block of this nature. I don't think there's anything further to do with this right now, but unfortunately William M. Connolley has made some poor decisions about his use of the bit in the past and now we have another example. At a minimum I would ask William to please stop and think for about 30 seconds before doing something like this again. There is no universe in which that block would have ended up as a good thing for the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, for many more "horrendous blocks" (section written by me, my old user name)Ikip (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It has long been my opinion that William M. Connolley is quite unsuited to be an administrator. I recomend that the Arbcom releive him of his responsibilities before further disruption is caused by his attention seeking blocks. Of course, they won't and his bigoted and narrow minded interpretation of his duties will continue. This is to be regretted. Giano (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

It's clear that WMC has acted inappopriately during this episode (if for the simple fact he removed someone's comments in this thread a few revisions back). I think that we need some DR step to ascertain what should be done, but an RfC would probably not be certified and I'd not want to go to RfAr if we had other options. Thoughts? Sceptre 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was more odd that the anon made the original comment , and then made these posts at Giano's talk page before Giano signed the above comment . Can this be clarified so we can be sure - was the comment made by Giano when he didn't sign in, or was this Giano endorsing the comment of someone else? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano added it first. The anon was simply putting it back after it had been removed earlier. --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok; thank you for clarifying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For an admin to remove critical comments because he doesn't like them is way out of line. I've never had any interactions with WMC before, but I must say that this episode has not favorably impressed me at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Likely image copyvios—hundreds of files

MRDU08 (talk · contribs) has uploaded hundreds of images that appear to me to be clear copyright violations. There is a history of notice messages on his/her talk page (all of which MRDU08 has ignored), but he/she is now tagging images with "I created this work entirely by myself" and licensed with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, which will make the bots stop. But it seems terribly unlikely that this user took original photos of all those beauty pageant contestants, and also drew hundreds of flag images. I have previously tried to engage this user on a related issue, but MRDU08 has never replied to any message left on his/her talkpage. I'd like another set of eyes to look at those image contributions before going ahead with deleting the images and perhaps blocking the user. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to guess that with just this image that the maps are taken probably from Misplaced Pages and the colors added in with MS Paint. They just look like they are made on VERY quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith user who's just uploading images of his own work. Although there's some suspicion as some images look extremely professional, such as File:MRD 1991 Melissa Vargas.jpg.jpg, there could be a chance that he's a proffesional photographer. -download ׀ sign! 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I'm not worried so much about that kind of image; it's the claim that images like File:Mía Taveras.jpg and File:Flag of Paris.PNG are self-created. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mía Taveras.jpg seems to be pulled off a blog or imageshack. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Download: I'm more inclined to believe WP:DUCK than WP:AGF here... But that's why I wanted more opinions. My guess is that the user has good-faith intentions to add pictures to his/her favorite Misplaced Pages topic, but isn't concerned about copyright. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment entirely. The image file size and ratios are indicative of being grabbed from web-pages. If he were a professional or amareur photographer it is more likely that some much larger file sizes and much more consistent aspect ratios are being used. My guess is that he is a good content contributor who doesn't understand the copyvio policy. I'm going to look more at the images to see which ones are really obvious. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd characterize the user as "a good content contributor." He's already created a number of hoax articles dealing with beauty pageants and Dominican Republic provinces that have been deleted at AfD. It's a wonder that he hasn't been indefinitely blocked before this. Deor (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No metadata, claims images from a 2005 beauty pageant were created by himself this month. Nuke. Durova 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Given User_talk:MRDU08#Your_moves, it's clear this is not a user who pay much attention to what others are requesting of him. This many months of violations should be enough for most people. I suggest a strong warning that the next copyright violation he has uploaded will result in a block. At the very least, given the ones we clearly know about, he needs to explain to use whether images like File:City Hall in Moca.jpg, more difficult to determine, are really his or he's just been lying the whole time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the fact that he has zero talkspace edits (all page moves) and minimal user talkspace edits (majority actually in Spanish) should clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I randomly fed some images into Tineye and got:

• File:MRD 2005 Renata Soñé.jpg <= - might find a few more here as well
• File:Municipalities of the province of San Pedro de Macorís.jpg <= - is this a Wiki mirror? What is the license? MER-C 07:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  First one deleted, second one sent to PUI. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

contributions is a pretty obvious role account for the Miss República Dominicana Universo, likely created for the 2008 pageant. It's likely they own the copyrights to the images being uploaded, but they're giving no evidence of permission. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, judging from MRDU08's user talk page, he/she likely does not speak English (or at least does not speak it as a primary language). It might be worth asking someone to translate a necessary request for confirmation of permissions. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree w/ that conclusion too. I think it is obvious that the account was named in the fashion you describe, but it is not obvious at all that this means the account owner is the pageant operator. Furthermore, there is no indication that the pageant owns the copyright for the bulk of these picture (rather than the photographer at the shoot). And again, if they were the pageant operator and did own the photos, why would they upload compressed jpgs in sizes and ratios common to websites or promos? Protonk (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen similar behavior before in role accounts. I've got a couple thoughts as to why this is. First, organizations have press kits and promo materials made to standardize their appearance in the media, and to make it substantially easier for media people to write about their organization. Second, it's likely that the agent or agents responsible for editing Misplaced Pages on behalf of this organization do not have access to full-resolution images, and likely wouldn't seek access because of the extra time and trouble involved for their superiors/clients and themselves. But, I agree, it's not blatantly obvious that the account is related to the pageant.

But... if the account isn't a role account, then the username itself is inappropriate per WP:IU, as it is deceptive (leads outsiders to believe that the account is being operated by the pageant operators). Yet, if it is a role account, it's in violation of m:ROLE. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploaders have a proactive responsibility to demonstrate that the images they contribute are legal. AGF doesn't mean assume competence; it only means we assume the intention to comply. There is no evidence at all that this person has a right to upload this material, which is presumptively under full copyright. Durova 16:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for a fluent spanish speaker to leave a message on his talk page. I don't hold too much hope, but we should exhaust that option before moving to the next step (blocking and working backward through the uploads to remove likely copyvios). Protonk (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmabel has been kind enough to translate the warning. I'm going to give things a day or so for a response. If the warning is ignored then I plan to block the account and start tagging images. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the above, the image File:Miss France 2009.jpg would appear to have been taken from Reuters. While I can't confirm it, it appears as a Reuter's image in a (now inaccessible) database that Reuters had been supporting in the past. It may be significant that this is from the Miss France 2009 competition, rather than the Dominican Republic. - Bilby (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has received two warnings in Spanish and has failed to reply. Has continued to edit without responding. Although the new edits aren't uploads, WP:COPYVIO authorizes blocking until the user acknowledges the existing problem and helps to remedy it by disclosing which sources were used. Durova 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a third request in Spanish for this user to begin a dialog. Durova 15:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll block him tonight if there isn't some pressing reason to do it earlier. I welcome anyone else doing it earlier should they feel that the situation merits more urgency. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked a little deeper into this, and I think we may have some more cleanup work to do. Basically, this user has two types of questionable image uploads, around two topics of interest: beauty pageants and flags. I believe that a few different accounts were used along the way:

• from April 7 to August 14 2007, Cmm 394 (talk · contribs) uploaded several images purported to be flags of provinces of the Dominican Republic, and created List of Dominican flags to display them. There is a note on user talk:Cmm 394 claiming it is a sockpuppet of "DominicanBoy", although I can't find any links to that username.
• edited as 24.190.179.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on similar articles from March 22 to June 3, 2007
• edited as 24.190.187.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from December 9, 2007 to February 12, 2008
• On January 28, 2008 (only), Las Provincias Dominicanas (talk · contribs) was created and uploaded 32 flag images, all with the source and author fields of the image summary template set to nothing more than "Carlos". Several of these images were later modified by the MRDU08 account.
• uploaded some flags as Aaassssss11113 (talk · contribs) from January 25–27, 2008
• edited as 24.190.188.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from June 5–8, 2008 and from November 13–26, 2008
• MRDU08 (talk · contribs) created June 19, 2008 and still in use.

Based on the long list of unanswered comments at Talk:List of Dominican flags and the various user talk pages, I believe that the Dominican province flags are original research. None appear to have any reliable sources. In addition to the rather apparent copyvios of the pageant contestant photograph images, I believe most if not all of these flag images also have reason for deletion. I also note that MRDU08 has been editing after the talkpage requests (in both English and Spanish) were posted, but did not reply. I think a block is in order until we get explanation for both types of his/her image uploads. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh... the flag stuff had sort of set off a little alarm in the back of my head but I didn't think much of it at the time. But looking at how it's presented here... yeah, looks like a block might be the right thing to do. It would also be a good idea, considering this possible past of sockpuppetry, to keep an eye on the images in question and have a CU run if new accounts show up. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I deleted some pageant images and listed some others for deletion. I'll work on this tomorrow. I don't even know what to do about the flags. There are hundreds of them. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But wait, there's more! Check out commons:Special:Contributions/MRDU08 for a hundred or so more flags and the occasional beauty pageant photo upload. In those instances, it is crystal clear that the flags were lifted directly from the "Flags of the World" (FOTW) website, and are certainly subject to speedy deletion from Commons for that reason. I have requested help there. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If there was some rough consensus here to simply delete all those images, then I'd certainly be willing to do the grunt work. But strictly speaking, there is no CSD criteria to do that, and I think tagging everything with {{pui}} and listing them all for discussion is a large and unnecessary effort. I'm looking for an endorsement here to delete the images based on the evidence we have so far. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the images fall into three categories. Recent pageant images, where some copy of the image is easy to find. Old pageant images, where a copy o the image is difficult to find, and maps. I suspect that the maps are from 1-2 sources (like FOTW) and once we find sources for the proponderance of them we can nuke the rest. The new pageant images will be looked at (at least by me over the next few days) and deleted if possible. The old pageant images will be sent to PUI, because that lets us delete them after a period of time unless someone can show they are free images. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I presume you meant "flags" instead of "maps". (Although, MRDU08 also uploaded some maps!) I think it will be easy to find FOTW versions for many of the countries, but I think the real head-scratcher might be what to do with the flags of Dominican Republic provinces. My suspicion is that he/she actually did create most of those images, but by pasting (possibly copyrighted) coats-of-arms images over easy to draw backgrounds. For example, File:Flag of Paris.PNG seems to be a paste of File:Paris coa.png from Commons (which actually shouldn't even be there, as it looks like a thumbnail lifted from http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=1675 !). That makes them somewhat of a blend of copyvio and original research, I suppose. I find the comments on Talk:List of Dominican flags and various user talk pages to be revealing, that there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources that many (all?) even exist. I would have to believe that most of these would not survive a trip to WP:IFD, but that is a lot of work to go through that process. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please undo this user's move of Heredia, Costa Rica to San Francisco de Heredia? The new title is not supported by the source cited by MRDU08, and a glance at the es.wikipedia page, as well as reliable sources elsewhere on the Web, confirms that "Heredia" is the official name of the provincial capital. (San Francisco de Heredia is merely one of the five districts of the city.) I realize that most folks here are, understandably, concerned about the user's image uploads, but it seems to me that someone familiar with the topics will have to review every one of his content edits as well. I would have taken this to WP:RM, except that an alert about MRDU08's non-image edits needs to be sounded somewhere, and I don't know where else to do it. Deor (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. But the article may need some copy-editing in the intro to reflect the move. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrwsc. Deor (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious

My quacking chum, User:Nimbley6 has a new sock: Noyougirls55 (talk · contribs). Could a considerate admin aim their WP:DUCK-shooting shotgun and dispatch Noyougirls55 to the great duck pond in the sky?

Background material for the novice hunter may be found here.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a punt.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(Groan!) Well, thanks for sending the sock down the river. Hopefully the sock master will go south for the winter. Thanks again! Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 12:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nimbley6 is now socking as 78.144.121.179 (talk · contribs) - could someone zap? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone is interested, if it edits Leon Jackson it usually is. Anyhoo, I've blocked this one too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks! Though I am extremely disappointed at the lack of puns... ;-) This flag once was red_deeds 09:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh how I hate weekends and school holidays. It's back, editing as 78.144.83.232 (talk · contribs). Could a WP:DUCK-hunting, WP:BLOCK-wielding, WP:SOCK-cleaning admin stomp please? Nimbley6 appears to be unsure what "indefinitely blocked" means. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 11:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now if I could only find where I put my light gun . . . TNXMan 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Alas, no light-gun puns from me, I'm all out of photonic puns. Thanks again, This flag once was red_deeds 12:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, at least tomorrow is Monday, right?! The little troll will be back at school (and, apparently, the school are wise enough to forbid access to computers. Anyhoo... a fresh IP has popped up: 78.144.95.111 (talk · contribs). Could some kindly school-master or school-marm educate my school-chum? 1000 lines - "I must not sock when indefintely blocked..." Thank you! This flag once was red_deeds 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I keep on having to do this - to whom do I send my bill? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your bill? Are you a duck too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• You mean you've not got the cheque from Student Awards Agency for Scotland? It should be in the post, I'll chase them in the morning. Meantime, many thanks. Unfortunately a rangeblock is probably out of the question, because the ISP uses several ranges. My hope is that with enough blocks, and enough reverts, the silly little troll will get bored and go off and find a more suitable activity for a Scottish youth. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Betcha all thought I'd forgotten about you, eh?! It's Friday Monday, it's five to five, it's time for socking! Yes, sock fans, Nimbley6 is back - and today's contestant IP is 78.150.231.233 (talk · contribs). Could someone dole out the cabbages? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Quiet for hours, I suspect the sock's run away for the night. Marking as resolved (again). This flag once was red_deeds 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• IWannaHaveFergie'sBabies:) (talk · contribs) registered in order to create an article - admirable, no?! Except the article is a list of tour dates that a Nimbley6 IP sock was desperate to link to here. Username registered a minute or two after the IP's last edit. I hear quacking, and bring it here so that a prophylactic can be applied to save poor Fergie from unwanted babies socks. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

72.199.110.160: topic specific ban request

• 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Ayn Rand article has been viewed over 136,000 times in the last 30 days alone . It is viewed more than articles of far greater importance to the Western canon of philosophy such as Rene Descartes , Immanuel Kant , or Jean-Paul Sartre and is curiously viewed almost as much as the articles on Plato and Aristotle .

To be sure, the article attracts its fair share of partisan traffic, tendentious editors and single-purpose accounts. (NB: almost 30% of the article’s edits come from anon IPs.)

The original intention of the ArbCom ruling for the curious case of Ayn Rand and related articles was to stop all of the bickering and disruption. ArbCom issued the following relevant enforcement points:

1. “Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.”
2. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.”
3. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.”

Now consider the case of 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The anon IP has been editing Misplaced Pages since 7 October 2008. The user has roughly 1,300 edits under its belt, dispelling any notion of being ignorant of Misplaced Pages’s policies and guidelines.

An analysis of the user’s edits reveals that it is largely a single-purpose account used for the editing of Ayn Rand-related articles . Indeed, 160 has edited the Ayn Rand article more than any other editor . By themselves these facts would not be problematic were it not for the following:

1. The “abuse filter log” indicates the new user has removed verifiable content over 30 times in the past few months alone.
2. The user has been blocked for edit warring and disruption. The first time on 26 April 2009 by MBisanz for a period of 31 hours. The measure was ineffective.
3. The user does *not* discuss its edits on Talk pages. Rather, it chooses to edit unilaterally forgoing discussions leading up to WP:CONSENSUS.
4. The user persistently and aggressively reverts edits it dislikes. example, example, another example . (Note: there are many more examples).
5. The user has been asked multiple times by multiple editors to take its contentious edits to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and consultation.
6. The editor is known to be uncivil, rude, and disruptive.
7. If it disagrees (which is often), the anon IP loves to shout at other editors in BOLD CAPS. One of too many examples to cite here:
8. The user assumes bad-faith of others who edit collegially.
9. Now there is talk on the Misplaced Pages Review that anon IP 160 is none other than James S. Valliant himself, the author of a minor partisan work, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which received absolutely no attention in either the media or academe according to JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Google Scholar. Should this IP verification prove correct, anon IP 160 might be in breach of a conflict of interest.
10. Indeed, should this IP trace prove correct, anon IP 160’s repeated re-insertion of Valliant’s work throughout the Ayn Rand-related articles makes a great deal of sense. The conflict of interest alone should garner serious consideration as the user is unable to edit neutrally.

Overall, my recommendation is to enact ArbCom’s ruling and ban anon IP 160 from Ayn Rand-related articles. Currently, the user is blocked for a period of 1 week . The block is insufficient. The history of this user suggests that further disruption to Ayn Rand-related articles is inevitable. Thank you for your time. J Readings (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that a ban is a social mechanism. If he breaks it, it needs to be immediately and strongly enforced. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This ip is currently blocked for a week, following a discussion on my talkpage. It should be noted that the article is already semi-protected, so the block on the account is in respect of the civility, WP:OWN, and other issues. The tariff of one week was agreed since the previous block was for one day and the suggested 1 month block was felt to be too large an escalation. The ip has been notified by the blocking admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that the block may be lifted if they agree to use the talkpages and obtain consensus for their preferred changes. Any discussion here that may vary these actions should be promptly notified to the ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP won't engage with anyone. That's the problem. Maybe the threat of dropping the block-hammer on him every time he tries to edit a Rand-related page will fix that. I don't know... but I doubt it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's the way things work. First, talk to the editor, then second, enforce our editing norms with escalating blocks. An eventual topic ban would be difficult to enforce (since it would largely rely on the WP:DUCK test and similarity of IPs) but not impossible. Thatcher 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, though, we do already have the ArbCom ruling which prescribes topic bans, enforced by blocks, for the conduct of the IP editor.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Other editors have expressed some opinions on this issue at User talk:EdJohnston#Lock down of Objectivism article. It's worthwhile to keep enforcing the rules against disruption, since this is something that admins can correctly do, and it is likely to be beneficial in this case. Since this editor is a fixed IP with 1,300 edits, a topic ban could have some effect. The ban could be lifted if he will agree to change his behavior. The 'talk to the editor' option doesn't work for this guy, since he never responds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a six-month topic ban on all Ayn Rand and Objectivist-related articles? The anon IP cannot edit the mainspace articles, but would be free to participate in talk page discussions to express concerns and suggestions about content improvement. This way, the restrictions can lead to an evaluation of whether the desired behavioral changes take place. Of course, should it be proven that anon IP 160 is in fact James Valliant, I would seriously recommend that he be banned outright from Ayn Rand-related articles. The conflict of interest would pretty much guarantee the user cannot edit neutrally. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would also, as I have asked before, greatly appreciate it if an admin or two would take it upon themselves to watch Rand-related articles. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that consensus has been reached for a six-month topic ban of 72.199.110.160 from Ayn Rand related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would propose he is explicitly allowed to edit on the discussion pages. --Karbinski (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this action at User talk:72.199.110.160#Topic ban. I've entered this action in the log of blocks and bans under the Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their time and consideration of this matter. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A Case of wiki-Hounding

Editor FyzixFighter (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a prolonged campaign of wiki-hounding. Since I opened my account last April, FyzixFighter has only ever come to physics pages to undermine my edits. There are no exceptions to this rule. This wiki-hounding has taken place on a number of pages including centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. His style is to claim not to have any opinions on the topic and then to proceed to undo the coherence and contents of my edits by purporting to quote from reliable sources. Recently he has been distorting the facts. At centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference), he attempted to turn the centrifugal force into a centripetal force. He has now followed me to the combined centrifugal force page and yesterday he undid a sourced edit of mine and replaced it with false information. On having this false information pointed out, he admitted it but nevertheless continued to undo my edits.

I can give a list of dates that will help to confirm this allegation,

25th April 2008

28th April, he went to the administrator's noticeboard and accused me of disruptive editing. Arguments continued into May and June.

23rd July 2008, he reverted an edit of mine on centrifugal force which has now finally been accepted in the light of sources provided.

23rd October 2008

31st January 2009, "Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction".

16th February 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".

22nd March 2009, "Kepler's laws of planetary motion".

23rd March 2009,

24th March 2009 "Faraday's law of induction".

A few days ago, he returned to centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference). When I deserted that page and went to 'centrifugal force', FyzixFighter also deserted that page and followed over to 'centrifugal force' were he has continued to undermine my edits. David Tombe (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, not just lists of dates--it's highly time-consuming for everyone to try and hunt down the specific edits you're talking about. //roux   19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence of hounding here. But perhaps if you provide some diffs things will look different. Disagreeing with you isn't the same as undermining you. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is my take, based on looking at talk pages and contribs. David Tombe (talk · contribs) has been blocked repeatedly for edit-warring, disruptive OR, and sock puppetry; he received a "last chance" unblock in October 2008. He is once again trying to insert his opinions into articles with no support from other editors, and is frustrated by the opposition. I don't see Wikihounding -- what I do see is an editor who is being kept on a very tight leash because of past misbehavior. I also see that David Tombe is an SPA who has very few edits outside the topic of centrifugal force. Ironically, some of these few edits were stalking of editors he disagreed with, notably of edits by FyzixFighter relating to Mormonism, but this has not happened since May 2008. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, you obviously didn't look at the whole picture surrounding that incident with FyzixFighter last May 2008. It began when FyzixFighter reported me for disruptive editing in relation to subject matter which has now been accepted into the article. FyzixFighter began at that time to revert all the edits which I was making in an attempt to suppress a perfectly legitimate viewpoint on centrifugal force. That's how that incident began. And you have obviously failed to note that I have edited on many topics other than centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe also raised this on Jimbo's talk page . Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, and as a question to the responding editors, what should be my appropriate action with regard to this thread? That is, should I provide rebuttals or any other types of responses to the accusations in the thread? I really don't want to turn this into a accusation/counter-accusation mess. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not start by looking at the edits which FyzixFighter made yesterday to the centrifugal force page? You'll find the evidence if you want to find it. David Tombe (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• We will probably start by examining any evidence you present, in the form of diffs. Asking admins and uninvolved editors to wade through hotly contested physics articles to substantiate allegations of hounding will not avail you. If you don't provide evidence the most likely outcome is that your complaints will go unanswered and this thread will be archived. If you feel you have a long term problem with this user, please pursue dispute resolution. If you have an incident that requires immediate admin attention, please detail it here with diffs and we will try to sort things out. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do you mean the ones where xe thanked you on the talk page for catching a mistake and then proceeded to fix that mistake with a corrected version of xyr previous edit, or the one where xe corrected a clear grammatical error? Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good one to start with . He had no reason to alter the edit which I had just made and his alteration introduced an error. This has to be considered in light of the fact that he regulary arrives on physics articles which I edit and often reverts them without discussing the matter. You would have a hard job finding a physics edit that he has made that hasn't been for the purpose of undermining my physics edits. You've only got to look back over the last week. He came to one centrifugal force page (rotating frames of reference) and when I deserted it for the other page, he followed over. David Tombe (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another example. He arrived out of the blue at 'Kepler's laws' and did this . He had not been previously editing on the page. David Tombe (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And here's another, . He arrived out of the blue for that regarding a fact which was being denied then but is now accepted. David Tombe (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction he removed this sourced edit {http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Faraday%27s_law_of_induction&diff=267702399&oldid=267607403]. He had not been previously editing on that page. David Tombe (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at two of your examples -- one is from 2008, and in the other the passage that FysixFighter reverted doesn't make sense. You're not going to get anywhere fighting this out on your own. Unless you can persuade other editors that you are right, it's a losing cause. Looie496 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, could you elaborate on the passage which you say that I wrote which doesn't make sense. Can you explain exactly why you think that it doesn't make sense? David Tombe (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to fall under WP:HOUND, which says "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." A lot of editors track problematic users, this can be to the benefit of Misplaced Pages. I certainly do at times. If David Tombe can provide evidence of "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" as being the reason, we can examine them, but if not, I suggest he drops this. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said that this would be an easy problem to solve, and I didn't come to this page eagerly to report it. What finally prompted me to report this issue was the fact that the basis of a settlement had been reached on the centrifugal force page with the assistance of a neutral arbitrator (Wilhelm-meis). The situation looked promising, but then FyzixFighter came in again and trampled over all my edits and essentially removed them. The edits in question were actually my contribution to the alternative point of view which I am actually opposed to, and I was supplying interesting information regarding its development. FyzixFighter's alterations were factually incorrect and he did later admit that and thank me from bringing the matter to his attention. But the overall effect has been that, as on the Faraday's law page and the Kepler's law page, it became clear that I wasn't going to be allowed to edit without FyzixFighter unnecessarily trampling over those edits. I can list alot more cases. But I think that the most recent case is sufficient evidence in its own right, as it exposes the sheer emptiness of FyzixFighter's intervention. If the whole matter were to be fully investigated, I think that you'd all find that FyzixFighter played a major role in getting me brought to the attention of the administrators in a bad light, this time last year. And it was in relation to my attempts to insert the planetary orbital approach into the centrifugal force page. That approach has now been accepted, but the arguments continue on a more subtle level due to certain editors trying to play it down by subsuming it into their own point of view, or by relegating it to the history section.

At any rate, the important thing is that the matter has been brought to your attention. I will continue trying to improve that article, and other physics articles, and indeed other articles generally. I hope that the situation will be monitored with impartial eyes.

I would however like to say one thing in FyzixFighter's favour. I can see from the arguments on the talk page that he has clearly learned alot about these topics as a result of his interventions. Often he was forced to research the issues subsequent to his reversions. There was a time (see his talk page) when I thought that maybe he had realized that he had been prematurely intervening. I thought that some kind of understanding had been reached over the issue of the Stratton reference (Faraday's law page) (see his talk page). FyzixFighter clearly does have the ability to comprehend complex physics subjects. But unfortunately the last straw came when he trampled over my edits on Saturday. His intervention was totally pointless and he does not appear to be willing to discuss the wider aspects of the subject with an open mind even though I'm sure that he is fully capable of understanding the issues. For some reason, he wants to bury Leibniz's approach to planetary orbits. David Tombe (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit reveals that David Tombe has some fairly non-standard ideas about physics, and seems to show that he is attempting to use Misplaced Pages to promote them without quite breaking the letter of the rules. Cardamon (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cardamon, No. I have been attempting to bring coherence to topics in physics in which I have done alot of research, and as you say 'without breaking the rules'. I stumbled across a number of topics such as Faraday's law, Kepler's laws, and centrifugal force. They were in a total mess. These are very tricky subjects and I wanted to expose the underlying patterns such as to make them more easily accessible for the average reader. As regards Faraday's law, I was trying to clarify the unity behind the two aspects of electromagnetic induction. Why should you find that to be such a big problem?

Brews ohare seemed genuinely curious about all the same physics subjects that I was editing on, and you have now dug up a conversation between myself and Brews which has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of this complaint. I suggest that you go to FyzixFighter's edits on Saturday and see if you can find out why he did them. David Tombe (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Yamh91

Not quite AIV material, but I don't know what to do next. Yamh91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a habit of edit-warring redirects of Raven-Symone singles. I eventually took them to AFD, where they have since all been deleted. Unfortunately, in the case of Backflip (Raven-Symoné song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there's a problem. WP:Articles for deletion/Backflip (song) resulted in a delete, but I hadn't noticed this redirect to it. Of course, Yamh91 undid the redirect there, effectively recreating the article. I CSDed it as a g6, and, of course Yamh91 reverted me, calling my placement of the speedy tag "vandalism". That seems to be his only edit summary. Putting on an AFD notice? Vandalism. Redirect an article? Vandalism.

Anyway, can someone please speedy Backflip (Raven-Symoné song) before he removes the tag again. As for Yamh91, he's already been blocked once for removing AFD notices. It wouldn't bother me to see spuriously removing CSD tags and making false accusations of vandalism result in a renewed block.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedied the article as WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted content). It might do well to leave a final, strongly worded warning that if s/he continues to recreate deleted content or remove deletion notices s/he will be indef blocked. Or maybe the last block was warnings enough...don't know. --auburnpilot talk 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He did this after the last block, so the last block obviously wasn't warning enough. It also seems apparent that warnings from me are useless.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He's back to removing AFD notices. I filed a report at AIV, but I bet it will get bounced as "not being obvious vandalism".—Kww(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's been warned. I'd block him since it's clear he's not paying attention, but let's see if he continues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Lordvader2009

• Lordvader2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps ignoring warnings. He removes them by blanking the page, which I have been informed it OK (that was my mistake earlier by restoring them. Nevertheless, this user keeps getting himself warned and I am under the impression that he would receive a final warning/type of block at this point.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, CK! Do you think you might be able to point us in the direction of what he's doing wrong? Specifically, WP:DIFFs would be really helpful. When you can post back here and we'll have a look see. Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Here is where it looks like he keeps re-adding content that he has been asked not to, Some Edit Warring, Some Un-constructive Edits, Adding Unreliable Info, I'm sure there is a bit more of this.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Those diffs are of him blanking his talk page, any diffs of his actual wrongdoings?-- Darth Mike  01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I know nothing about the underlying issues here, but I thought that I should add that this section was blanked by Lordvader2009 . Apparition /Mistakes 02:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is quite concerning. Perhaps we can ask him to comment here on why he made such an edit? Basket of Puppies 04:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, AGF and all, about the only edits I've seen him do are mass upload untagged unfree images (which I've brought up before and he got warned and then blocked for) and blanking his talk page (ignoring all comments automated, handwritten, helpful and/or informative). Just seems to take WP:IAR a bit too seriously. Q 04:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of his recent contributions seem to be, well, not so wonderful in language: 1 and 2. It seems he's not keen on communicating about these issues and at the same time he's making some poorly worded statements. On the other hand his content contributions are generally constructive. I am not so sure how to handle this other than to monitor his contributions and handle the issues as they come up. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 06:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Warn him that if he continues he will be indefinitely blocked until he is responds and then do it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we getting just a teensy bit carried away? The original complaint raised here was a total non-issue. Blanking the section wasn't great, but could easily be justified. Now we're switching to a completely different issue and talking about indef blocks? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a year of warnings and requests to use edit summaries? How many warnings does a guy need? (a number of probably duplicates and some are minor), all from a guy with ZERO talkspace and pretty bad user talkspace edits. I don't know how great his editing is but there's a real civility issue with him and a tendency to edit war. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll toss in my two cents on this item since I am one of the folks who is often keeping an eye on User:Lordvader2009. I realize that the complaint that spurred this discussion was not valid (it is okay to blank one's own talk page). However, working with User:Lordvader2009 is a frustrating experience. I'll preface what I'm about to say with, User:Lordvader2009 for the most part stops, at least temporarily, the activities we warm him of. They are very good about not continuing activities often enough to be blocked by a strict interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies (as I understand them). With that in mind, here's a list of recent things I've seen this person do that are.... frustrating:

• User never uses an edit summary to explain edits though they've been asked to: and
• User has removed maintenance templates (deletion tags in particular) with no reason: , also occurred with File:Avera.jpg
• Edit warring: and
• Creating of articles of questionable worth and/or with little content: Edgar Garcia, Levi Avera
• Rarely responds to talk page comments, and when they do it is not the most helpful:

With the exception of the edit war on Levi Avera, nothing that is really blockable, but all of it is very frustrating. Okay, I've had my vent. Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience with him is similar to the above. The main problem is edit warring when he apparantly doesn't agree with something, creating a very difficult situation since he's unwilling to discuss or even explain. --aktsu  17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My experiences are in line with what has been posted above. I'm not sure how positive his contributions are overall, since my main focus on Misplaced Pages are UFC related articles, but I can say that of the edits he makes that I see a very low percentage are constructive. Some edits make no difference either way like random reordering of bouts due to personal opinion without reference: . Or reordering bouts despite there being a reference to bout order: , then being warned: , and then having an apathetic reply: . I have referenced WP:SPECULATION and WP:CRYSTAL to him with little effect as well. It seems to me that he is playing a game. He's being less than constructive, collecting warning after warning and backing off just before he gets himself banned/blocked. He then behaves until he thinks things have cooled down and starts all over again. It is a repeated pattern of abuse. While he may have not done any single thing to warrant harsh measures, there has to be some sort of judgment made on him cumulative record. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add that most of his contributions are in fact constructive, though they consist mostly of repetitive tasks like updating fight records and adding posters to upcoming fight cards. --aktsu  19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who's suggested the harshest measures, I think I'll explain. In my view, not discussing things at all is very disruptive and I have been willing to put indefinite (emphasis strongly to the user on indefinite, not infinite) blocks with a statement that "we simply want an acknowledgment that you are paying attention to us." It's been somewhat effective in my mind, some people respond quickly, others walk away and never return. Users are not allowed to create more work for others and just go do whatever they want. With him, I say you don't get the right to go right up until the edge of getting blocked, stop a few days, and do it again. That's just aggravating for others. If some of the users who work with him could inform him that he should look here and see that there is a serious discussion about him, maybe he'll stop. However, it looks like I'm in the minority and he's not that disruptive, so I'll leave it alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There has already been a notice on this person's talk page about this discussion. Their "response" was to blank this discussion out . --TreyGeek (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well he certainly creates unnecesary work for me and other when he does things like creating new articles without any categories even though he was just notified about it (Jared Hamman and Edgar Garcia in the last two days after being notified about it after creating Levi Avera)... --aktsu  21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I really do not know what to do at this point. I have been informed (and understand) that I was incorrect to revert his talkpage. What I really was trying to point out is that if he has been warned MANY times, he may (I guess you would say) 'Qualify' for a block at this point.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive though - so he'll have to continue doing something wrong to get blocked. It was right to bring it here though (I was thinking about it also) so we get more eye on him. --aktsu  21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I've indefinitely blocked him here for his behavior at Levi Avera. He doesn't get to remove AFD notices, say the "page is staying up no matter what" and otherwise annoy other people anymore. The moment he shows an interest in working with the rest of us, he's free to edit again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Force with you is. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 04:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

request for a correction

I would like to request a correction on the Boron page. In section "Characteristics" there is a phase diagram reproduced from our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), but this is not reflected in the caption. qUnfortunately, the editor NIMSOffice has personal interests not to give us credit. I am investigating possibilities to block NIMSOffice from editing Boron page due to conflict of interest (any suggestions welcome). In any case, if a figure is reproduced from our paper, we hope that proper credit can be given.

Furthermore, NIMSOffice made another sentence (also against us): "It is not clear yet whether the atomic bonding in this phase is partially ionic or covalent. " In fact, it has been shown by us that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. I suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component . "

Thanks a lot!

Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, the phase diagram that appears in that section does cite your 2009 Nature paper as one of the sources (#11 in the references section) (at least from the current revision of the page, I haven't checked further back). It is also not an exact copy of the one in your paper, which is a subset in a larger diagram and in color.

  In general, the second part of your complaint appears to be a content dispute. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • On the phase diagram - our paper is the ONLY place where this diagram was published. NIMSOffice gives lots of references, none of which contain this diagram. Yes, he also cut our diagram, presenting only the lower-pressure part of it. Even that part appeared only in our Nature paper.Aoganov (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, thats what I get for quick checks... I've removed the other sources. I was able to view all of the other papers save one, and none had even anything close to your diagram. Syrthiss (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot! I find it quite hard on Misplaced Pages, being a new user. NIMSOffice consistently edits the page on Boron in a way unfavorable to us. The example with the phase diagram illustrates it very clearly.

        Being a new user I cannot edit the semi-protected Boron page and NIMSOffice just ignores my corrections. Is there a way also to correct the wrong statement "It is not clear yet whether the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic or covalent"? The controversy alleged by NIMSOffice is non-existent: it has been shown by us that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. I would suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component , which explains rather strong infrared absorption and splitting of the longitudinal and transverse optical modes." Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

        • (Tangentially related) You'll be able to edit the article soon, once you're autoconfirmed - this happens when your account is 4 days old, and you've made at least 10 edits (including edits to this page!) Hope that helps, This flag once was red_deeds 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It might very well not. The situation is not quite as it would seem from the above.

            It's a fair bet, for example, that Aoganov and the several IP addresses (24.186.165.248, 129.49.95.70, 129.132.208.225, and 194.254.166.46) and single-purpose accounts (ESRFBeam, GFZLab, and Dian john1) that have been edit warring on the article are one and the same. The edits and talk page accusations are the same. Two of those IP addresses have outright self-identified as M. Oganov on the article's talk page (here and here).

            Similarly, whilst M. Oganov asserts above that "The controversy alleged is non-existent", xe is at the same time busily editing away at Gamma boron discovery controversy (example, example, example).

            And finally, whilst M. Oganov states that xe is a "new guy here" since "8 May 2009" who writes "under my real name", 129.132.208.225 made this edit and this edit back in March, and on Talk:Boron the self-identified IP address talks of editing on the 6th of May. (The … confusion as to when xe actually started editing may be caused by the typing difficulties that are frequently incurred when one is wearing socks on one's hands.)

            It's probable that all that auto-confirmation will do is allow the edit war to resume. This edit and this edit don't bode well for the future, moreover.

            I sense another Bogdanov affair brewing if we let it. I recommend that we take the same line here as was taken then, and ban people involved in this external dispute from carrying it into Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

            • Uncle G, what I wrote is true. I edit always under my own, real name. I believe that editing under fake names is not only cowardly, but ineffective as well. Indeed, I am a new guy. I don't really know how to properly edit pages. You can see how many formatting mistakes I make... and more experienced users give me useful tips, so that I get better with each day. I also learn, little by little, about WP-policies.

              In any case, I can guarantee to you that if I edit Wiki-pages, there will be no puppet accounts, no incorrect information etc. If one edits under real name, there is a great sense of responsibility. On the other hand, I suggest we look closer into the identity of NIMSOffice. This anonymous user clearly has interest in the boron story and misuses his anonymity and editorial privileges. In one recent case it was all too obvious - he reproduced a graph from our paper without giving the source. I contacted NIMSOffice, requesting a change - but to no avail. Another editor made the correction, after a careful investigation concluding that I was right. Aoganov (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Artem R. Oganov

            • Uncle G, the Gamma boron discovery controversy only discusses a controversy in who discovered what. It doesn't establish that there's a controversy about whether "the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic or covalent". I'm not saying one doesn't exist. I have no idea but the Gamma boron discovery controversy doesn't discuss or establish any. Also I'm not sure whether linking to the Bogdanov affair is a good idea. That was about something that is widely believe to be a hoax or otherwise other nonsense with a lot of potential fraud in perpetuating that hoax. This as I've said appears to be solely a dispute about who discovered what and when Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
              • You clearly haven't read the talk page discussion and edit histories. I don't blame you. I have, however. This isn't a controversy about chemical bonding. It's an external dispute, between two (possibly more) academics, each side accusing the other of being unethical, that has spilled over into Misplaced Pages in the quite silly form of long user space and talk page harangues accusing named living people of academic fraud and edit wars over whether a source from academic group A can be cited next to a source from academic group B or even anywhere in the article at all (example of an Oganov edit removing such a source, example of another source removal made in April example of another source removal made in March), edits (example) disparaging the work of one of the parties involved in their biographies, and now an entire article in the article namespace itself sourced to non-independent sources. It has been compounded by gross assumptions of bad faith, explanations of the history of the dispute that are clearly not in accord with the actual article and talk page edit histories, attempted outing of other editors, and sockpuppetry.

                This is very much a Bogdanov affair in the budding, if we don't nip it now. It aligns almost completely with the Bogdanov findings of fact. Participants in an external controversy (at least from one side) are editing Misplaced Pages to further their claims in that controversy, and there has already been sockpuppetry. The remedy here is the same as there: External academic conflicts may not be brought into Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not to be a middle-man in such conflicts. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, I took a look at the discussion pages at Boron & Gamma boron discovery controversy, & there obviously is some kind of dispute there which makes no sense. (No, don't explain it to me -- it makes no sense because the reason for the dispute makes no sense to me. I'm willing to agree with Uncle G that it's an external dispute between two academics & leave it at that.) Carl/CBM is keeping an eye on things, & I'm willing to back any decision he makes on the matter. It's the least I can do for someone trying to keep a weird situation under control. -- llywrch (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

JBsupreme edit summaries again

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

JBsupreme was the subject of a recent AN/I thread (found here) of which the result was a message being left on his talk page, advising him to stop his “problematic edit summaries” or stop using edit summaries altogether, and to report problems to administrators directly rather then in his edit summaries. Anyway, since then I've kept half an eye on him, and for a while he seemed to improve. But recently he's managed to stack up quite a few (some more serious then others):

(dunno what this one is) (see below)

I attempted to leave him a message regarding this, which he promptly deleted and left me this message. So basically, continuing from the last thread which obviously had little to no effect, this is a shame because he does do good work. Also, could someone notify him of this please? (although he can't stop me from posting at his talk page, he has asked me not to) - Kingpin (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

the last one is internet speak for 'die in a fire please' Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, couldn't find any google hits - Kingpin (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification given to the user, by Jauerback (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The last warning User_talk:JBsupreme#Edit_summaries_again from admin Chaser (talk · contribs) was pretty clear. Further admin action could be in order here. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary example: this goddamn article is getting semi-protected RIGHT FFING NOW. Out of step with the appropriate tone: imagine if everyone wrote that way? Durova 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me most out of the above, is this. I believe a block may be appropriate? - Kingpin (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of punctuation is a horrendous offense against good taste. ;) Seriously, that's no way to write a warning. The reason behind the warning may have been correct, but it's much better to go with a simple template. If the vandal was a troll that only encourages more trouble. Durova 15:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Durova. However JBsupreme's only left one ALL CAPS edit summary today. A block would seem a little punitive to me. I agree this is incredibly disruptive behaviour and if it happens again then it'll be time to block, but the diffs look a little on the stale side. I suggest we give a last and final warning and monitor his use of edit summaries and if they are in any way problematic in the future go ahead and block starting with a week's duration--Cailil 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that he's been given plenty of warnings, and still doesn't seem to be about to stop. However, I'm happy with a final warning, on the basis that it is a final warning and this is made clear to him. Naturally, the best result would be for him to keep up his good work but stop with the uncivil behaviour - Kingpin (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that a final warning accompanied by a 20 minute block would drive home the point. He probably won't smarten up until he sees that the warning is clear.--Iner22 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

His tone sucks (allcaps is usually perceived as shouting). But with the exception of DIAFPLZ ("die in a fire", whose tone I don't really know; is this meant in jest?), I'm not so bothered by any of this that I'd block him for it. It doesn't seem to affect the people it is directed at, but rather offends our sensitive sensibilities. Somewhat unrelated, this guy is doing BLP patrolling and he's frustrated. So while his edit summaries may be inappropriate, let's please keep in mind that he is a valuable contributor that we should be trying to keep around. I'd be inclined to warn again, more sternly.--chaser (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do and have said that his edits helpful and welcome, and certainly we want to "keep him around", but preferable without his uncivil edit summaries. If you could warn again, that would seem to be the best track. A 20 minute block seems inappropriate, and I doubt it would help. - Kingpin (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if applied at the right moment, the block could be useful, but that's me. I guess we could do with a final warning, and hopefully someone will be watching his contributions carefully.--Iner22 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he appears to have stepped back from the cliff's edge for the moment. He presents the symptoms of a WikiBurnout, & hopefully will take the appropriate steps to cure it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: religion class accused of sockpuppetry

Sorry, if this should go to some sock-puppetry project page, I'm not very familiar with proper procedure, but could someone clear up the situation at Talk:Historical Jesus#Latest edits; I asked the blocking admin to comment, but haven't heard from him. If a mistake was made, they should be unblocked. I didn't look at all their edits, but this one looks very good to me, although maybe be better suited at Quest for the historical Jesus. What is needed is simply someone to comment on that talk page to explain whether it was a case of genuine abuse or apologize and unblock if it wasn't. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just adding a link for reference, with no opinion on it at this time myself. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CollinsShelby/Archive for the relevant sockpuppet report which resulted in the blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been resolved though mailing lists, probably shouldn't have brought it up here. Still, people with experience from WP:SUP who are interested in the topic might want to assist in suggesting ways forward, although it's a fairly small class. In any case, no further admin intervention is required, so this can be checked off. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm resolution - two of the students emailed us at unblock-en-l, the first one without mentioning the class project, the second one did. We asked him to have the professor contact us. The professor did - from his school email address, which is clearly visible on the college website, along with the course information.

After verifying that this was a class project, it's clear that this was a moderate case of WP:BITE and inadequate out of band communications all around. Nobody left good talk page warnings for the class accounts, and they didn't use talk pages at all.

All of that said, now we know what happened, the class members have been unblocked, and given pointers to the various policies which seem to apply (from SOCK to EDITWAR and RS and V). The latter two seem to already be class focuses, trying to get better sources and better citations into the article, which was good to hear. Hopefully everyone can communicate better going forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and Disruptive editing by user Luis Napoles

This user has been edit warring on Chile for quite sometime, and has previously been blocked for it. I have added some information on the history section of Chile and he keeps deleting it. I used the talk page to discuss the relevance of this information and how the neutrality of previously added sources was compromised but instead of discussing, he just reverts. He also reverts my edits because according to him I should do edits one by one, like everyone else. I don't want fall in his game of edit warring but someone needs to do something about it. He's reverting and deleting sourced information.

Likeminas (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and this is not a place for dispute resolution. I would comment that Likeminas has also been blocked for edit warring (upon review) removing sourced information, and it was against the same editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not it's not. And it's very interesting that you happen to answer this. It's also very interesting that now you're using different standards to measure content dispute and disruptive editing, because when user Luis Napoles reported me for deleting his Youtube source (which you wrongly called Vandalism) you said it was not content dispute but instead disruptive editing and proceed to block me right away. It's also interesting that despite that user being reported before me, by another administrator, followed by complaints by another two users you decided to ignore it and quickly answer his petition.

I wonder why.

Likeminas (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The diff you gave is not removal of sourced content, if is difference in emphasis (pov) of the sources given = content dispute. You have failed to show your allegation. You, in the instance where I blocked you, simply removed sourced content without discussion or comment. (I recall another admin reviewed Luis Napoles at that time and decided it was edit warring and blocked them, too.) It is now apparent that the two of you are minded to have admins resolve your content dispute by attempting to have the other blocked.

Ummmm, cos I am brilliant? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well when you blocked me you did a very poor job at investigating, that's why another administrator had to step in apply the rule.

In fact, you even refused to block him saying it was only content dispute despite clear evidence to the contrary.

What's funny is that you didn't even look at what my removal of "sources" (aka Youtube) were.

You have also failed to even look at the link I posted showing how Luis Napoles deletes sourced material.

Having said that, and experienced on my own your lack judgment, I would like to request for a neutral administrator to look into this.

In any case, I don't think you're brilliant at all. Somewhat biased maybe...But, thinking it over, You did fooled the people that named you an administrator, so I'll give you that much.

Likeminas (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Even people who might be sympathetic to your arguments won't feel much urge to help you if you write in that tone. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't but that administrator's previous actions were rather questionable and perhaps one-sided. What's worst is that he's even being sarcastic about it, as it if it was a joke. That's not the right approach to take.

I just wished a netraul administrator would look into that user's contributions. His talk page (which he has blanked) speaks for itself.

Likeminas (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This thread caught my eye since Luis Napoles' edits have also raised concerns at the Fidel Castro article. This editor may be bringing a little too much one-sidedness into the fray. That said, looking at the Chile article history, I'd pretty much just call edit-war on the whole thing. Neither of the protagonists here, Luis and Likeminas, are showing a whole lot of inclination to actually discuss things on the article talk page. Nor do they show much inclination to ask others for opinions.

I'd say maybe some warnings are warranted, a few more eyeballs, and some prompting to start talking rather than reverting. Franamax (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you looked into the talk pages of the articles I've edited.

Likeminas (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis edits are continually disruptive and have not changed since he was last blocked last week. I would cite:

1. Luis was officially warned by an admin on 9 May about his engagement in an edit war
2. Removal of sourced content from History of Chile page
3. Removal of sourced content (an article from Counterpunch) from the Censorship in Cuba page on the basis that is "Conspiracy theorist Barahona's theories belong to the main article" . Luis is aware of the veracity of the source since he referred it to the Noticeboard himself on the grounds that is should not be used and at the same time added WP:SPS tags to the Reporters without borders page regarding the source. After a response from other uses rejecting Luis's complaint he then withdrew the WP:SPS tags from the RWB page . Therefore, he understands that the source meets wikipedia's standards but has knowingly removed it anyway from the Censorship in Cuba page. The content removed by Luis is highly relevant to the page and plaining doesn't belong in an unspecified 'main article'.
4. On the Reporters without borders page he has constantly tried to remove content and apply tags in a long running edit war. I have responded to every one of his points, and when I respond to one of his reasons to delete content, he merely comes up with another reason to do the same edit. I then have to address this reason and then there's another reason...and so on. For instance going back to the Counterpunch source mentioned above he's removed the WP:SPS tag but then replaced it with new tags demanding that the source be verified.
5. Peppering my talk page with warnings. Check the page

I've been very patient with this editor and sought to respond to each of his claims however spurious or unwarranted I (and others) consider them to be, but I would urge action to curtail this pattern of behaviour, especially since he has been blocked before, warned again and failed to change. Every editor who has dealt with him has a similar story to tell.

If I was a carpenter (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry's Place

User:HugoZHackenbusch is making many massive POV edits to this article, and reverting without explanation any other edits. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Warn him and then go to WP:AIV. You'll get a faster response that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Landon1980 Incivility/Personal Attacks

User:Landon1980 has been attacking me recently. The issue began with an editor who wanted to change a lead sentence for Thousand Foot Crutch to say they are Christian rock instead of just rock. Landon responded claiming that "When a band is listed as being many genres you put the most general one in the lead sentence, not pick on of the many and place it there." Seen toward bottom of this thread. I responded that "I'm certainly not opposed to keeping it as just "rock" if it is indeed policy to list the most general one in the lead sentence." I went on to say that I did agree with the other editor, but I would side with policy. Here's where Landon gets offensive.

Landon stated: "I'm not having another brick-wall discussion with you, nor am I taking the time the educate you regarding the common practice of genres on wikipedia. Use some common sense, Christian rock is one of three genres that are listed for the band, all which are some type of rock. I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion with you. If you have problem with the current version request a third opinion, or seek some other type of dispute resolution. Now I think I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer."

1. Describes my point of view in discussions as being consistent with a brick-wall.
2. Insults my knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy/practices when I simply/politely asked for the policy he was claiming.
3. Said I don't use common sense.
4. Compares our discussion as beating a dead horse and pointless.
5. Ends by implying he'd rather bang his foot with a hammer than have a valid conversation about article content with me.

I responded and told him that the comment was disrespectful and told him not to insult me again. I also left a comment on his talk page stating: "I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by categorizing my input and consensus in discussion about an article (which was entirely appropriate and polite). I honestly have NO PROBLEM at all adhering to any policy (whether it by spirit or letter of policy) that specifies to word the lead sentence a particular way. I do, however, object to you just blurting out that this is how we do it without any justification or grounds. Have a great day."

He then removed the comment from his user page, which I understand is allowed although not preferred. However, in the edit summary he insulted me again by writing "I would appreciate if you would learn how to read, and how to use a talk page."

1. He implied that I do not know how to read (although I'm not sure what it is he was expecting me to have read).
2. He also implied that I was incorrectly using the talk page, by warning him of his incivility. However, he has in the past used my talk page to warn me and falsely accuse me of incivility. (This was quite some time ago, and this complaint is not related to or in response to that event).

Also, he went on to respond to my comment on the Thousand Foot Crutch talk page by stating: "Seriously though, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot as talk to you."

There have been other, recent personal attack incidents involving Landon's hostility. They were filed in the wrong place and may or may not have been correct, but it might be beneficial to look at. This can be seen here.

None of this is helpful in fostering a hospitable environment for editors. It should be noted that Landon did go on to revert my edit without gaining consensus (the only two opinions other than his were mine and the editor who originally suggested changing the lead-in sentence). Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The archived ANI thread was dismissed as being eseentially not serious enough to merit admin intervention (the exact phrase used was "WP:TROUT for all") and to be honest I'm not seeing anything dreadfully serious here either. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be avoiding this thread, the one at editor review, and at WQA if at all possible because I admittedly have a hard time keeping my cool when dealing with this particular editor. I'll monitor the thread(s) and will be around if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Which one should we keep open for the forum-shopper...this one? The WQA?? Neither??? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not a "forum-shopper." I initially posted in one location. I was directed to 2 other locations. I am not sho

Ok, so I closed the WQA thread, since there had at least been a couple of replies here, and I gave the OP my brand new User:Bwilkins/forumshopping template (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, the editor admits that he can't keep his cool with me. I'm honestly not sure why. We've disagreed on some articles before, but we've also agreed on others. Also, Sheffield, I did concede that the previous attack accusations may or may not be correct. However, it bears credence that he is having issues with multiple editors. As for my personal problems with him, I am not claiming that it is "dreadfully serious." However, a user doesn't need to be subjected to "dreadfully serious" harassment to have a valid complaint. Wikiwikikid (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a 'serious complaint' it needs to go through dispute resolution first, not ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did go to dispute resolution which guided me to WP:Editor assistance first. At that forum, it was suggested I come to here by one editor (the editor who the complaint is against). Another editor suggested WP:WQA. I (incorrectly) posted at both. The WP:WQA post was closed because this one already had replies, so it was decided to keep this one open. Also, while the incivil action is not "dreadfully serious" (resonates with threats or terrorizing implications) my complaint certainly IS serious. Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's go 1 thru 7 (first 5, plus last 2)

1. "Brick-wall discussion" - not uncivil, it's descriptive of a level of receptiveness to discussion.
2. "nor am I taking the time the educate you" - could have taken the time, but obvious elevated frustration level, but not uncivil
3. "Use some common sense" does not mean that you did NOT use common sense, not uncivil
4. "I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion" We talk about dead horse discussion all the time in ANI - not uncivil, merely a descriptive term about a discussion that is not going anywhere, and is well past going anywhere
5. "I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer" - good for him, hope he enjoys it. Not uncivil.
6. "I would appreciate if you would learn how to read" - well, if someone points something out, and you ignore it, what else can he say? Not uncivil.
7. "...how to use a talk page". You did not use his talkpage properly - you posted your message at the TOP instead of at the bottom where it belonged. He was advising you to learn that - not uncivil, and indeed trivial.

You need to read WP:AGF, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:CIVIL, and the instructions at the top of this page, and at the top of WP:WQA. Maybe WP:TLDNR too. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have taken the time to review the links rather than just the post. The accusations of my engaging in a brick-wall discussion, lack of common sense, and deadhorse discussions are ALL unsubstantiated and therefore insulting (and incivil). As for him saying he'd appreciate if I learn to read, clearly I can read, or I wouldn't be participating in this conversation. Further, your assertion that I ignored something he pointed out is false. He did not point anything out, and he did not instruct me on what I had done wrong or needed to improve (which I gladly would have done/have done). I don't understand how you can say that someone saying having a conversation with you is pointless (without merit) or that you don't have common sense or that you are illiterate are not "insulting." Again, these aren't dreadfully serious accusations, which is why I would have rather solved between the editor or at dispute resolution. However neither of those methods worked. Just because the accusations aren't dreadfully serious does not mean they are not insulting or incivil. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

After further discussion with Landon, and after reviewing the purpose of WP:ANII would like this thread closed. My intention was not/is not to have him blocked. I'd much rather just have an administrator take action to encourage him to work collaboratively rather than insultingly with myself and other editors. The Misplaced Pages community and the articles are greatly improved by collaboration rather than insults/arguments. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI, incivility, &c.

Post was recently archived, but it appears THD3 posted on it today, and the subject of the complaint hasn't had a chance to respond. Moved it to the following subpage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Fanoftheworld

Alexrexpvt (talk)

Difficult user. Near edit-war...

I edit and keep track of all the WNBA related pages here on wikipedia. I do a good job and I spend lots of time doing it. If you would, please look at pages like Connecticut Sun, Detroit Shock, Los Angeles Sparks, Phoenix Mercury, etc. Look on the "season-by-season records" section. I recently changed all the WNBA team pages to have tables similar to NBA tables. I know consistency is important on wiki. Recently, I changed the Utah Starzz season records table over to this new version. A certain member changed it back saying he "liked it better the other way." Another veteran wiki member came in and explained that consistency is important and that the tables should all be the same on similar pages. This prevents confusion. The difficult member changed it back saying something to the effect of "I can do what I want, and I like it my way." I wrote on this user's talk page saying that consistency is important and that on wiki, it really does not matter what an individual member prefers. He wrote back on mine saying not to tell him what to do.

This may seem like a trivial problem, but as I said, consistency in an encyclopedia like wiki is very important and I was hoping I could have your help in this issue. If you cannot help me, can you direct me to someone who can? Thank you. The difficult user's name is Infonerd2216 (talk · contribs)

Look at my contribs. PAGES AND PAGES of WNBA edits. I care about this league. I care about wiki. Together, I make the WNBA archive on wiki amazingly better than it was before.

Three times now he has changed back my edits to the newer, cleaner tables. What should I do? I have tried talking with him.

Thanks for your help, Nickv1025 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point it's a content dispute. If other editors actively support you, the difficult editor won't be able to keep his version in place without edit-warring, which is blockable, assuming you have made every effort to discuss the issue and given plenty of warnings. If you don't have the support of other editors, though, it's a one-versus-one dispute and you'll just have to find a way to work it out. Don't canvass for support, but if there is a related WikiProject, it's legitimate to post a message on its talk page asking neutrally for other editors to take a look. (Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. This method works for me but your mileage may vary.) Looie496 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to support your versions Nickv. I have very little knowledge about the subject but I could immediately understand your versions of the table as opposed to the other version which was virtually incomprehensible to someone without knowledge of basketball. Exxolon (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Infonerd is escalating the situation. They responded to with and have left a nasty personal attack on Nickv's talk at . Exxolon (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Phew, that's a rather impolite thing to say. But... I think that's a WQA situation at the worst; frustration leads to aggression and cool-down blocks aren't a good idea, so I don't see the need for admin intervention at this point. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Exxolon! Infonerd2216 (talk · contribs) just posted this on my talk page: (at the bottom). I think this requires moderator action now. Thank you again for your support! Nickv1025 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Child oversight needed?

I'm wondering if this young chap Noahisnice (talk · contribs) is perhaps giving away too much personal info on his user-page. If he was my nipper I think I'd prefer those details being oversighted, or is that just me? --WebHamster 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally identifying details of a minor - requires at least deletion. Exxolon (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CHILD. I'll send this to oversight as well. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Swimmerfreak94

This is not a policy issue as far as I can tell, but I'm bringing it here just because...well, it's a bloody mess. Swimmerfreak94 (talk · contribs) is an admitted thirteen-year-old editor, but is rather outspoken about his religious beliefs. From some of his comments on someone else's talk page, he's now attracted a string of IPs attacking him on his user page, and a whole lot of religious arguments filling up his talk page. None of this seems like it'll be constructive to the encyclopedia, especially if the editor is actually thirteen. It might be time for an admin to step in with a word or a semi-protection before things get too ugly. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

While we don't have a rule about contributions to articles vs talk pages etc this editor has only contributed 3 minor article edits out of 41 edits - all the others are to talk pages etc. I'm not convinced this user is here to help build an encyclopedia. Exxolon (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the user's contributions shows that they are not here to contribute constructively. I'll issue a final warning. Nakon 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think that some of these arguments against me are not factually based...well...most but not all. this encyclopedia is for all ages. I do try to make good additions and/or contributions without inserting POV or bias. I don't mind any attacks on my page, and I never ever call anyone any bad names, cuss words etc. on theirs. I merely argue against them. I even get my totally UNBIASED contributions deleted...I think that I should be a little upset too, but am I? no. I'll tryy to stop...I've also been told that rules on talk pages are more lax and I have more freedom. MY BAD. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. Among the many things Misplaced Pages is not, it is not a web forum. If you're here to primarily argue religion on talk pages then you've come to the wrong place. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded - specifically Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Exxolon (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed the bait from the user page, and the soapbox discussion on the user talk page. I've left the most helpful note I know how to as well. Continued soapboxing should yield a block or topic ban. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree with the way that this young man is being treated it isn't his fault that other users are harassing him on his talkpage and he is free to feel however he wants about religion.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

TO: (User talk:194x144x90x118) actually, 194x144x90x118, I'm a girl...haha. but no biggie. Thanks alot for your kindness. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He's free to argue about religion, sure. Just not on Misplaced Pages. Thats not what we're for. Matty (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell the only thing approaching a mainspace contribution is this little doozy and this pov-pushing. That doesn't read as neutral editing to me. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, but his talkpage shows this user may hold a different view. If he does, Misplaced Pages is not for him. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Logged out edits of the same behavior

See this, reference more here. The last IP edit was just a couple days ago. This is not appropriate and the young lady needs to shape up, and fast. Keegan 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Action needed on anon 70.44.153.18

70.44.153.18 has been building up a record of inserting personal opinion and unsourced editorials/reviews into articles. These edits mostly seem to be about illegal immigration in the USA, vulgarity in media, or making insinuations of draft-dodging against living people. User has been repeatedly warned and has deleted warnings and has been blocked twice before for disruptive editing/vandalism. Latest edits come after three more warnings from myself and another editor. --GenericBob (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found a total of only one constructive edit -- properly restoring NPOV to a controversial article. . I see that the only effort to explain to him has been by the formal templated notices. I think he deserves something more in the way of personal explanation. I have made a final effort to explain, and I have notified him about this thread. DGG (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried to explain, but another admin simply when in and blocked, with the same formal notice that failed before, probably not seeing this discussion. I will add the advice and the notice anyway. DGG (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the collision. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agre22

Agre22 (talk · contribs) has been warned numerous times about making useless edits to talk pages, as can be seen on the editor's talk page. The last warning, by Beeblebrox on May 10, said, "This is the fifth time you have been warned about using talk pages as a forum. Consider it your last warning, do it again and you will be blocked". Now today we have these edits. I will notify the editor of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say block away. This user has been doing it over the past several days on dozens and dozens of talk pages and one GA nomination page. Clear disruption and unwillingness to change, especially after several warnings given. MuZemike 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I warned Agre22 earlier this year He must know it is wrong by now, so I suspect he is attempting to troll. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This case is clear-cut, would somebody with buttons pull the trigger please? Or is it being left as a counterexample to DougsTech? Looie496 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. TNXMan 16:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon 71.17.72.143

71.17.72.143 (talk · contribs) has been trying to use the talk page of Supernatural (TV series) as a forum, constantly making the posts asking which character users would rather have sex with, and in the most recent edit also added a list of spoilers. The anon was previously at a different IP address, and had been warned multiple times, and the final warning was issued recently for the anon's newest IP. Ophois (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Block away. See same reason as in the above section. MuZemike 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I have the ability to block an anon? I thought only admins could do that. Ophois (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Only admins can block anyone, including IPs. -- Darth Mike  03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, can an admin please settle the situation with the anon? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The anon appears to have stopped (from that IP, anyway). In the future, you may want to consider listing this at AIV. TNXMan 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Poptartpete, The Revenge of

Popartpete (talk · contribs)

Could I get a neutral admin to try and calm this user down so that he actually talks calmly instead of accusing everyone within reach of conspiring to ban him? -Jeremy 04:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This would certainly be great, as the user in question has basically promised to sock. A Checkuser, who I believe is capable of reviewing individual users' send e-mail logs, may want to check Popartpete's to confirm his use thereof, considering this edit. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but he has done done almost nothing except to try to promote his film and online book. —Travis 12:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

libelous material posted to talk page after explicit warning

Over at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision a debate had been on-going regarding a Norman Finklestein. An editor made the claim that no seriously literate person holds the position that Finkelstein is a Holocaust minimizer. It was pointed out to that editor that that claim is false, and examples of a couple of intellectuals and academics who hold that position were provided. Knowing that editor's editing history and her numerous blocks for incivility, personal attacks and harassment I cautioned her that WP:BLP applies on every project page and that she should refrain from making potentially libelous claims against living people. The response was this, in which a living person, who is a professor at a notable university was called "a convicted libeler and an intellectual incompetent". NoCal100 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is the person in question convicted of libel? Because referring to someone as intellectually incompetent in a talk page is bad but not bad enough that I'm going to stifle debate because of it. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

yes. untwirl(talk) 04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I don't think we should seek to block this editor for that comment. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk. The focus of this "libel" discussion has been most peculiar. We have editors calling a notable living academic a "Holocaust denier"; when it's pointed out that this is false, they say alright alright, we'll settle for "Holocaust minimizer"; when it's pointed out that this too is rank balderdash, that "no serious literate person" believes this, the thought of "libel" first enters the minds of these fine fellows, these schoolboys who throw around accusations of Holocaust denial like firecrackers on the fourth of July. The schoolboy is now very serious: it seems that my rhetoric ("no serious literate person") was too hard on his favorite convicted libeler, whose libelous statements he then quotes in full, in order to demonstrate, presumably, the convicted libeler's literacy, which I had libelously maligned. Or something.--G-Dett (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Libel is not a criminal offence (well except in very limited circumstances). This was a civil action for damages not a trial on a criminal offence so referring to it as a "conviction" is misleading. He was found liable for damages, not convicted of a criminal offence. Picky point but IAAL and the distinction is important. – ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is spillover from a 2007 effort by Alan Dershowitz to keep Norman Finkelstein from getting tenure at DePaul University, the main issue being Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry. See this New York Times article. The NYT writes "If the longstanding fight between two professors, Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein, was under the jurisdiction of family court, a judge could issue restraining orders and forbid inflammatory statements. But, alas, this nasty and zealously pursued feud is taking place in scholarly precincts, so each protagonist is continuing his campaign, unhampered, to destroy the other’s professional reputation and career." That's the underlying problem. The Misplaced Pages problem is a spinoff of that one. The events should be written up as a political controversy - "A says B about C", avoiding generalities and using reliable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So, given this result from that arbcom case, I'm going to assume that means both of you guys are going to avoid these articles in the future, correct? Protonk (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Will to Power (band)

On the page for the musical group Will to Power and its talk page, a few editors who may be one and the same have been vigorously trying to discredit a former member of the group, Suzi Carr. I've been watching the page for a while and keep seeing this editor and this one removing or rewording edits, some of which I've made. The talk page is a bit creepy with the level of anger directed towards her, and one of them uploaded an image a while back (since gone, license request ignored) that attempted to show what she looks like without being airbrushed. My hunch is that these editors are affiliated with the group, which I'm not, and it's a COI, but I have no way of knowing. I posted about an edit reversal on the Editor Assistance board, and it was suggested I post it here. My most recent edit to the article was undone earlier tonight by Global and un-undone by another user. Some of the edits are , , , for the first editor and and for the second. Thanks for looking into this, and I hope I posted this in the right place. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't she alive? BLP applies to talk pages too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, BLP does apply. I've archive the nonsense, warned both users and will see if they calm down in the morning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention in this, Ricky. I've been getting myself agitated about this whole situation, and I think it needed some objectivity. I'm pretty sure BLP applies to her, and to Bob Rosenberg and most of the rest of the musicians. Thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, ownership issues, disruption

Regarding an image at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 May 7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg (an image twice now nommed for deletion by this user), Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) seems to be having some serious issues regarding the image and articles it's being used in. Edit warring at Violence against LGBT people to remove the image, removing required Fair Use Rationales from File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, removing the image from 2008 in LGBT rights, apparent agenda issue here with editing of articles about gay people killed because of their sexual orientation. All the while claiming some big gay conspiracy on my talk page. I filed a 3RR report much earlier today but nothing came of it, except him accusing me of being a sockpuppet. His editing is disruptive and needs to be addressed. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of disruption on the Violence against LGBT people article:

1. 08:43, May 11, 2009
2. 13:37, May 11, 2009
3. 16:23, May 11, 2009
4. May 8, 19:14
5. May 8, 14:48
6. May 7, 16:35

All of the other tendentious editing is in his contributions log. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And now edit warring at File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, removing Fair Use Rationales again, which are required for non-free images used in articles. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 06:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that seems silly. Why is he wasting his time screwing with FURs when he's trying to get the image deleted at the same time? It's rather like arguing about what color you want to paint your house this week when you know full well that you're planning to tear it down next week. 68.43.196.251 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are admins sleeping? Hello? Knock knock? :P - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 07:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd talk to SoWhy if you want article protection. Try settling things with him (the other user, not the admin) first. As for sleeping, actually most likely. :) It's 1 am -4 am (depending on your time zone) in USA, roughly noon - 1 pm in Europe, so most admins are working/school. And those aussies are somewhere.. :D As for me, I'm an insomniac. jk. Icestorm815 • Talk 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried directing him to the talk page but he refuses. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've reverted his actions at the image and gave him a note about it. I'll leave the disruption be and watch him for a little while before I head to sleep. Allstar, feel free to notify me if he continues on his rampage and I'll start protecting the pages and hard warnings, if not blocks, if he doesn't stop. At least from the FfD discussion, he isn't alone which is good or bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That was silly. What was the point of reinstating broken fair use rationales for articles the image is not use in? Are you seriously planing to use that boy's non-free mugshot to help the understanding of 2008 in LGBT rights? --Damiens.rf 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deal with that later. You can't honestly ask that the image be deleted completely because it doesn't have a use and at the same time remove all its uses as evidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Furcadia (2nd nomination) is a bad-faith AfD nomination by an SPA (Aa45955 (talk · contribs)); could we speedy-close it? -Jeremy 06:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at (Aa45955 (talk · contribs)} contributions summary. When I checked about a minute ago, they had only made about fourteen edits. I agree with whoever sensed an act of sockpuppetry on the articles for deletion page.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD just closed with OTRS involvement. -Jeremy 07:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Glancing over the ticket, I just want to point that this is a normal speedy keep and not an OTRS response to complaints. -- Luk 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion tagging by Jay32183

Jay32183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - edit warring against other editors to add image deletion tags, and (among others), including deleting use rationales and source statements in support of deletion efforts, accuses editors who remove tags of "vandalism" (see edit summaries). I've given multiple warnings to the editor to tone it down, stop edit warring, don't accuse good faith editors of vandalism, etc. to which the editor responded by filing a retaliatory / pre-emptive WP:AIV report against me (which I removed as process gaming). That's obviously not working. I'm not the uploader of these old images, and in one of the two cases I'm not 100% sure the image is okay (the other is pretty obvious). But that's why we have process, right? I'm not going to engage with or revert this editor further. Please clarify the procedure and behavioral expectations for us and encourage the editor to be civil, avoid edit warring, etc. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, from the reversion summaries it looks like the editor is improperly using rollback to accuse other editors of vandalism. They ought to be cautioned against that too. Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Stricken in light of below - thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay32183 does not have access to the rollback feature, h/she is using Twinkle. Landon1980 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Jay32183_reported_by_Allstarecho_.28Result:_24h_.29 may be relevant here. Sincerely, --A Nobody 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor with long history of personal attacks

We have here an editor who up until the end of last year edited as Tcob44 (talk · contribs) but since then has been using 2 IP addresses (at least) - and never signing with tildes but to give them some credit puting Tcob44 at the end of their posts. The pattern of personal attacks from last year has continued this year from both IPs - 67.34.225.133 (talk · contribs) and 68.217.45.11 (talk · contribs) and various warnings have been given. The problems this year have been at Talk:Triple Goddess and I also raised earlier this user's addition of an internal comment about me in article space. As I am very involved I'm not going to take any action, but I would like some uninvolved eyes on this editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Doug. The user also clearly has a specific POV they are trying to push (somewhat civilly at time), but completely refuses to acknowledge that they need to provide sources for it. I have given a final warning to the user over the personal attacks, but I wonder if someone else could help out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked user User:Lucyintheskywithdada back as User:Soulslearn

Editing familiar subjects and already upsetting other editors . I'm reporting here first because Lucy is so well known and prolific. However I can file a sockpuppet report if that would be useful. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Schuminweb

WP:Pointy-ness at Afd

TharsHammar has added Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston debate to Conspiracy theories, Christianity, Organisms, Sexuality and gender, Events, Politics. Ism Schism has added the Afd to Alaska. Some of those are appropriate. Some are questionable. And some are completely ridiculous, such as Sexuality and gender, Organisms, Conspiracy theories, and Christianity. Suggest someone who will not be seen as partisan (as the nominator, I surely will be) might want to add some clue to the circus. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua 11:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No clue needed. This is Canvassing by cross-posting at its finest. Too many are !voting instead of giving cogent reasons. As it now true on far too many AfDs entirely. Collect (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is crazy. Maybe we should at least deal with the two editors who are causing the problem? Disruption? Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the diagnosis of disruption. KillerChihuahua 11:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really his fault that the editors now commenting aren't doing it properly, he hasn't sought out anyone in particular. From what I can see you haven't really brought this up with him before coming here or informed him of this discussion on his talk page which is what ideally you should do. If you've discussed this with him off his talk page then I retract my previous statement as thats the only place I looked. I'm not an admin, but i'd suggest simply reverting the entry on categories that don't fit and then asking him to be more careful in further. WP:CANVASS doesn't seem to solidly apply here as he doesn't look like he's trying to attract a certain group of editors to sway the debate, and he's not cross-posting per the definition on WP:CANVASS either. He's simply using the AfD category pages to inform editors about an AfD they may be interested which is what they're supposed to be used for (granted some of the categories might be inappropriate). Matty (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I was looking at the wrong editor. I'll change things around once I look again. I was looking at Ism schism's talk page, not TharsHammar's. Sorry. Most of my points still apply though, it seems like he's just included a popular topic in a lot of categories. The AfD should be deleted from some of the unrelated catergories, and someone needs to have a chat to him about how it's not helpful to add the discussion to mildly related categories. Matty (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the last set of deletion discussion additions were unnecessary. I'm not sure how they were really disruptive. In any case I suggest that they be undone. Tnegnitally-related topics aren't needed. Yes, everybody is an organism, and another editor joked about adding that the AFD to that list, but I don't think it should have been taken literally.   Will Beback  talk  12:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone should remove them, they're unhelpful and pointy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but again, as the nominator, I am not the person to address this. KillerChihuahua 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One good way to figure out what is going on is to inform me that you are mentioning an issue I am involved in. I was following the suggestions of "Hoary" and was certainly not canvassing. I will remove now if people feel as though they are unhelpful. TharsHammar and 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They're definitely unhelpful. Organisms??? Seriously, how could you even think that would be helpful? --SB_Johnny | 12:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And someone already beat me to it. All of the categories I added it to have now been removed. TharsHammar and 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't cause a disruption of every !vote for keep or delete wasn't met with endless bickering. Seriously once you've said your piece 10 times is the 11th going to change any minds? If anything I was the one trying to un-disrupt the afd by trying to move off topic discussion to the talk page where 1 editor followed and the rest keep bickering and disruption the main page. TharsHammar and 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I added Mr. Johnston to Alaska, News and Popular culture. Those three seem pretty related to Johnston as he is from Alaska, been in the news for 8 months, and a pop figure (even if one believe his 15 minutes are up). These three are related. The others, I only noted them on the page as they had been added to those various listings. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I had not deleted him from any of those other than Popular Culture where he does not, in fact, fit, unless you count every single BLP as "popular culture." I suggest you remove that one. It is for "Britney Spears" sort of stuff, not for any name in the news. Unless, of course, the canvass issue is of no import. Collect (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with Alaska and News, and will remove the rest from the discussion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

help!

i've recently been the victim of another attack by a sockpuppet of User:Anti Manchu Lobby, the attacks stopped a while ago but now his new account, the username of which insults me directly, is attacking me again simply because i'm a manchu and i am proudn of being chinese at the same time, the attacks has gone too far and kept repeating, and i have enough of it, please check my talk history, as well as the hist ory of Template:User Manchu Chinese, this guy and his IPs has done too much aganist me, i'm afraid that any further attacks might make me snap and start cursing and insulting him, please help me! i can't stand this rasist any longer, please help me! Btzkillerv (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Anti Manchu Lobby was blocked in January, and I see that at Template:User Manchu Chinese, User:BtzkillervIsATraitor has been blocked indefinitely by User:Kimchi.sg. Can I suggest filing a report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations and see if a checkuser can stop him at the IP address? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have semi-protected your user talk page for a year, so that new editors and IP's can't post to it. If you don't want this, just let me know and I'll obviously undo it. Fram (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

French Foreign Legion: Dubious content

French Foreign Legion

In a search for info on the Legion, I found this wikipedia entry. However as soon as I started reading, it seemed that some dubious editing has been done.

e.g. in the first line: "The French Foreign Legion (French: Légion étrangère) is a unique unit of strapping gay harry men in the French Army, established in 1831. The legion was specifically created as a result of violent sodomey with foreign volunteers, to be commanded by French officers;"

Also further down, a photo A group of horney french men perpare to sodymize eachother with bayonets.

What's going on here?

Thx Craig

Straightforward Vandalism; you can just revert it, but I'll take a look at it. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Routine vandalism, thanks for noticing it - it's fixed now, and the vandal warned. In future, consider warning the vandal yourself, and if necessary reporting them at the anti-vandalism board. Thanks again, This flag once was red_deeds 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, with nine incidents of vandalism straight after the expiration of a one-year {{schoolblock}}, I have imposed a further year's block on this IP address. Rodhullandemu 16:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Launchballer

Launchballer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a sock of Tom Sayle (talk · contribs). Evidence:

• His homepage contains an e-mail link, and a link to his sockpuppet account. This e-mail appears on his talk; he put it there.
• He's still a threat to the community. Per StrategyWiki delete log, a ton of welcome spam pages were removed. His rationale was to flood recent changes. Even though events on other Wikis is not the direct concern of Misplaced Pages, he seems to demonstrate a pattern for disruption.
  • He's made at least one edit like that on Wikipedis: diff for a user with no contributions.
• With this edit, he seems to already be aware of the WP anti-spam system.

My assessment is that a sock is likely. --75.119.225.33 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

No only is it backlogged a bit, but there's a serious formatting problem that's making everything look closed when it isn't, which probably contributes to the backlog problem.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The formatting error is fixed, it was an editor's subst'ed signature that included an unclosed div statement (a great argument for disallowing substitution; malformed HTML is allowed to make its way through). –xeno 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the formatting problem, and there only appears to be two unclosed MfDs that I'll take care of... — Scientizzle 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Baileyf07 and Harry S. Truman

Baileyf07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In defiance of sources, consensus, and new discussion on the Truman talk page, Baileyf07 took it upon himself to "correct" the matter of Truman's middle initial. All of his "corrections" have now been corrected, except for his moving the page Electoral history of Harry S. Truman to Electoral history of Harry S Truman. Could someone who knows how, please undo that screwup? Thank you! Baseball Bugs carrots 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have completed the move back to Electoral history of Harry S. Truman. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Roaring Siren - copyvio issues

User:Roaring Siren was warned earlier today about copyright violation after I discovered that the plot summary of Terror Inside was cut-and-pasted verbatim from IMDB. Since then, they have added more copyvio to Al Farooj Fresh (copied from here and here). The original version of the article appears to be copyvio from those same sources. They have also just created Mimi Lesseos, which contains copyvio from here and likely other places. Can someone deal with this in whatever manner is appropriate? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What's that you say? Simple copyright violation doesn't have enough drama enough for admin attention? No problem! I'm sure the editor has seen the error of their wys now. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:Lester Coleman

See Talk:Lester Coleman#Dawholetruth. This article is about a convicted con artist, and Dawholetruth (talk · contribs), who previously edited as an IP, appears to be trying to use the article to establish a false identity, something we obviously cannot allow to happen. I don't take the legal threat seriously, but it has been repeated after a clear warning. I have notified Dawholetruth of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Idef'd, NLT still applies. "Lawsuits are about to fly!" indeed. Seems to be here merely to troll and cause trouble anyway. Any admin may unblock if he strikes his legal threats, and they are convinced he'll behave; no need to discuss with me first. KillerChihuahua 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

death threat

User:Vondell has made threats against User:MacGyverMagic: I'll come round your house and ram my fist up your ass and you want me to come round your house and stab you in the face??. MGM seems to be offline now and I removed the threat from his talk page. However, I think it'd be a good idea if someone has a stern word with Vondell. --C S (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I tired to indef the account for threats of violence but I keep getting a timed out error. If somebody else would try blocking, I think that would be preferable with the stern word coming afterward. The diffs above are never acceptable regardless of how familiar or unfamiliar you are with this project. --auburnpilot talk 18:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is very upsetting and plain wrong. How do we respond to something like this? Basket of Puppies 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Like this. Black Kite 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok! Thanks! I am glad this was taken care of so quickly. :) Basket of Puppies 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

soapboxing and personal attacks

an editor has brought the i/p conflict to the jerry seinfeld page of all places! going off on soapbox rants and calling editors antisemites. fun diffs: untwirl(talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Drone2Gather (talk · contribs) first appeared on Misplaced Pages on May 6, 2009. By May 7, they were making edit comments like "Moving unsourced statement to talk page until can be sourced, as per WP:BLP". By May 9, they were editing on AIV. By May 10, they were involved in an edit war. Somehow, I don't think this is a new editor. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't miss the references to WP:BITE. KillerChihuahua 20:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

When you have a moment, thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –Juliancolton |  20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done – Backlog cleared for the most part. –Juliancolton |  20:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you – ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* One of the areas I would have jumped at, as it's one I have always wanted to work in. Oh whale. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:TheSickBehemoth

We had a conflict of interest where I improperly used the warn templates as he continued to ignore WP:DATE, then when he ostensibly realised his error he left a message on my page then removed the extract from WP:DATE which I had put on his talk page two months ago. I restored this and then he placed a warn template on my talk page. The latter is what I am reporting. Dark Prime (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is free to remove whatever they want from their own talk page, you should not have reverted. -- Darth Mike  21:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that the information had to stay there for reference particularly as user talk pages are generally not deleted. In any event, I found it very cheeky for him to remove that message and accuse me of being unfair to him by not warning him beforehand. Dark Prime (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, there is no issue here. I'm marking as resolved. -- Darth Mike  22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima and the Everyking Rfa, take 2

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now banned from the Rfa itself, OR is pursing the argument to editors' talk pages, if this is any indication. I leave it to others to decide if this is worth pursuing. His edit to the Rfa, removing others comments, I myself reverted. KillerChihuahua 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion he's fast cruising towards a block. I suggested to him last night that he stay clear of the RfA - it's unfortunate he hasn't taken my advice. If he edits the RfA again, I'm prepared to block him. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you are Ryan. On what grounds? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am. On the grounds that he's trolling the RfA now - KC offered him a way out by banning him from the RfA, much nicer than a straight block. He's had his warning now. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of interest what gives you the right to issue bans of that nature Killer? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Has he actually been banned from the discussion? Where was that decided? Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Nobody - I followed standard practice in a disruption situation where it is one article or page; I announced and requested any dissenters make themselves known. No admin announced they were willing to overturn, no one expressed disagreement. As he is now vandalizing the said page, removing others' posts, the issue is growing more moot by the second. Be right back with the difs, but its archived now. KillerChihuahua 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on stifling a dissenting opinion (and I strongly support Everyking for adminship), but I agree that removing others' comments from anything other than someone's own talk page or if they are obvious nonsense is not really good form. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Those edits weren't vandalism, BTW. I don't think they were productive, but they weren't vandalism. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking of his removing other editors' posts. That has been traditionally considered vandalism. I was not speaking of his prior edits. KillerChihuahua 22:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not if those posts are to point out discussions in other areas. The post was 100% misleading and not what ANI determined. What was determined is that you had no support, you had no authority, and that the thread served no purpose. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what diff you are referring to. My point is that it is hard to believe that removal of text where an edit summary clearly conveys an intent to remove that text for an obvious reason can be considered vandalism. If I say "I don't think KC is contributing positively to this thread" and remove your additions, it is disruptive and borderline edit warring and problematic, but it isn't vandalism. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the previous discussion, only three people supported KC's decision and the rest disagreed. There is no ban, and the thread was closed and archived as inappropriate. Why KC would think there is is rather interesting but thats something else for another time. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No one objected in the space where I asked for any objections to be placed. I saw some questions. I saw no objections to the ban. It has already been pointed out in this thread that I was being nice, and could have simply blocked you for disruption. Given your subsequent behavior, I rather think I should have been less kind to you. KillerChihuahua 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No one objected in the space you listed? Well then, should I put a place somewhere on wiki that calls for your indef ban and removal and have it go through in a day if no one puts it exactly where I say so? Your assertion has no merit. There were people that refuted the basis of the original claim. If there is no basis, there can be no "remedy" as you declare to put in. Then there is the protocol behind topic bans which you did not follow, nor were you in the appropriate location to do so. And admin don't topic ban. They can indef block in that manner, but not topic ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, I posted on ANI as indicated by Misplaced Pages:BAN#Community_ban "If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in a certain area of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard. Topic bans may be implemented by a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.". Granted, there wasn't much discussion, but there was zero dissent, and the ban is very limited - one Rfa you've disrupted. I could have, and now know I should have, simply blocked you for disruption. My error. KillerChihuahua 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note the word "community" and not "one admin". The discussion was removed. And your block would have been overturned as inappropriate. Your failure to block Rootology or Everyking for their clear personal attacks is disturbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring that no one has objected to you being banned from the Rfa at this time. Ergo, its not one admin, it is a community ban. KillerChihuahua 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out below by another, the quick closing of the thread tells a lot about it. No one took your concern seriously. It was just seen as more drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Prior discussion: Archive 536. Dragons flight (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ty, DF. KillerChihuahua 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Related discussion at User talk:Xeno#RfA. To explain my comment made in the discussion section of the RFA: I thought that Ottava had quietly accepted the topic ban, but noticed people still making comments about him so I thought that a note to discourage further comments regarding OR would be appropriate as they would be unable to respond. (Though, it appears my assumptions were faulty - OR apparently hasn't accepted the topic ban and is trying to characterize the unceremonious archiving of the ANI thread as a value-statement as to its general propriety) –xeno 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• The community did not accept the ban, nor does any admin have authority to put forth a ban on their own. The thread was closed because it was inappropriate. What was left out is that there are a lot of angry people upset that Everyking is allowed to claim that I practice hate speech without any proof. This is a legal threat. This is a personal attack. This is incivil. KC and Ryan are not performing their jobs by allowing it to stand. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Don't miscontrue the situation. The thread was closed because it was a drama-wagon. There was no value-statement as to the propriety of the topic ban whatsoever. –xeno 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your own words prove that it was not upheld at ANI. Topic bans from RfA were even pointed out as belonging at WT:RFA and need to be discussed first. No admin has authority to made a ban unilaterally. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• WT:RFA is a terrible place to discussion topic bans from RFA. What a slanted crowd. –xeno 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, horribly slanted. How dare people who deal with RfA, along with many admins, crats, and the rest that concern themselves with adminship and have experience in the matter be the predominant ones to decide about the appropriateness at RfA like they do all the time! This is definitely something that needs to be dealt with here, at a forum that use to be the redirect for WP:DRAMA. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I think WP:AN would be more appropriate, but yes, a central location. WT:RFA is too bias. –xeno 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, AN might have been better, as it is the usual location. I kept it with the larger discussion. Perhaps I should have opened a new thread on AN, but that's water under the bridge now. KillerChihuahua 23:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - ANI is fine when there's already a discussion regarding it. My point is to counter OR's claim that topic bans from RFA(s) should be discussion at WT:RFA - I am strongly opposed to this. –xeno 23:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur. AN or ANI; I know of no other appropriate venues - most certainly not the Rfa talk page, or WT:Rfa. KillerChihuahua 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Blocks are used to prevent disruption. I don't think it'd be hard to make out the pattern from the last couple of days as being disruptive. It's well understood by everyone he opposes the RfA, that really should have been the end of it (ie no reason for notes on talk pages of supporters, such as the one I got today). Nja 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• In some cases, admins can put forward general restrictions and discretionary sanctions (WP:SANCTIONS). Not sure where a topic ban at an RfA would fall however. Nja 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Right, and if someone can make a reasonable argument that OR is disrupting that RfA, it isn't too hard to view a topic ban enforced by a block as preventing disruption. EK has (just as does every RfA candidate) an implied promise from the community that their RfA not be derailed by drama. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni3's comments

Pulled from the archive, this concern is still standing and was ignored by both KC and Ryan:

As a prominent member of WP:LGBT and a participant at FAC, I would like clarification or retraction of these allegations against Ottava Rima. If OR is indeed maligning LGBT people I think it should be made clear. This is essentially a BLP of an editor, and accusations such as these can color future interactions between OR and other editors over articles that have LGBT issues. If another editor is asserting that OR is homophobic, clear evidence should be given. If none is available or the editor is unwilling to provide such, then the assertions should be withdrawn with apologies. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already put forth information on Moni3's talk page. I find it appalling that Everyking is still allowed to have his comment stand without question. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Moni3 is talking about. I have never accused you of maligning LGBT people. KillerChihuahua 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about EK's answer to #15? KillerChihuahua 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the topic of the dispute. It is a clear personal attack which you ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. KillerChihuahua 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how can you even say that? The discussion area was in regards to this. The talk page was in regards to this. My talk page comments were in regards to this. It came up constantly in the previous ANI thread. Moni even states the above. How can you even claim that this is not the topic? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the topic of this ANI (to me) is your disruption. Nja 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reread it. It makes it clear that Rootology is challenging my challenge of Everyking's comments. Rootology then makes the argument that I am a proponent of hate and thus the comment is appropriate. It is right there at the very top. It is 100% impossible to ignore. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it amazing that you ignored all my recent suggestions and now come here sounding surprised at this predicament. It was so predictable, you obviously intend to fight this to the end. Possibly even intended this end? David D. (Talk) 23:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Easily. He didn't say it isn't the topic -- he said it wasn't a clear personal attack. Which it wasn't. It may have been at the time, but explaining that it was the basis of a long-standing disagreement, in response to a direct question on the subject, is not a personal attack.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing someone else's comments as "hate speech" is a violation of many of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies, especially if this is done without clear and proper evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The hate speech argument, as well as the following analogies by other editors in the RfA and ANI, if not constituting a personal attack, clearly shows a lack of civility. The previous ANI was closed because it became a discussion about religion rather than WP policy, which will happen when you allow editors to label "hate speech" as they see fit. As for the topic ban being enacted because no objections were made in a ANI that was closed moments later without a stated outcome, I see that as a bit troublesome Mrathel (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The ban notice stood for 2.5 hours prior to the thread's archival. –xeno 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I appologize for my misconception; I didn't realize that ANI worked at such a fast pace. 2.5 hours seems like a short period of time for the community to be notified that it must respond to a discussion.Mrathel (talk)

OR, you are clearly being disruptive. In fact, apart from obvious vandalism, I don't think I've ever seen someone engage in behavior that more could be used as an example of what disruption looks like. You seem to be pushing things to earn a block or a ban so that you can feel, or appear, to have been banned for standing up for some kind of principle. If so, that's disruptive, and I suggest you remember why we're here. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive? By defending myself against claims of hate speech? Was I being disruptive when Rootology came to my talk page and attacked the Pope, claimed the Catholic Church was like the KKK, and compared me to a guy that goes around proclaiming "God hates fags" and protests the funerals of soldiers? Protonk already pointed out that it wasn't vandalism, especially when I informed Xeno of what I was going to do. You are also not fit to be unbiased, so I think this evidence here only verifies it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What I see is a bunch of people hounding Ottava Rima for having religious and political views that differ from the average wikipedian, then complaining when he defends himself. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What I see is Ottava creating a subthread entirely unrelated to the parent in an attempt to divert attention away from his disruption of WP:RFA/EK5. This subthread should be closed. –xeno 23:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But that is to deny the reason he was arguing and chastise him for being too prolific and disruptive, regardless of what the entire discussion was aboutMrathel (talk)

Apoc, do you know what my religious views are? Of course not, because I don't talk about them on-wiki. If someone asks me about them, I'll respond by email, because they have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Anyway, I believe OR has been warned not to disrupt that RfA anymore, so I think this thread can be closed. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Precisely. 2) That's what we thought about the first thread. KillerChihuahua 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what your religious views are Cla68, but I do not think they matter. This whole thread should be closed as it is based on nothing and serves no other purpose than to canvass for support votes for EK from people who dislike Ottava Rima. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re to Mrathel: No. He is calling an answer, which contains a reference to a past dispute on another site, a current attack. It is not. He also has placed this charge, and spread the disruption, across multiple pages here. Where he has not taken it is where he should have taken a concern about a personal attack - Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts. It is at the top of this page. It shows above the edit box when you edit this page. It is not a secret page. KillerChihuahua 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer was made now. It has an inflammatory description of me that was inappropriate. That description is of a characterization that is banned in many countries. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So let me understand this: The topic comes up in an RfA in the form of a question, so instead of discussing it there, he is supposed to take it to wikiquette and is disrupting by contesting it in the ANI's proposed by editors who openly declare that he has exhibited hate speech? Mrathel (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you missed everything that led to that point. Plus RfA is not mean to be a break out session for partisan theological debate. Surely that is obvious? Rebut it and leave. Pretty simple. David D. (Talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One would think that any users substantially wronged or attacked in a user's RfA - and Everyking's claims that Ottava Rima's "arguments included hate speech, so called for him to be banned for the forum for that reason" certainly give Ottava Rima a right of response.

This ridiculous "ban" should be overturned. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about no right to response? The magnitude of the response was the problem. David D. (Talk) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A response, a rebuttal, even, would be expected. However, it has gone so far beyond that, I lack words for a descriptive analogy. KillerChihuahua 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Understand that this "Ottava Rima and I interacted on Misplaced Pages Review last year. He presented numerous off-topic arguments related to religion and society, and I believed his arguments included hate speech, so I called for him to be banned for the forum for that reason. He was subsequently banned with the agreement of almost everyone on the forum. There hasn't been any other conflict or interaction between us." was the entirety of EK's comment in that RfA in response to a direct question and in reference to an event that happened almost a year ago. If you are interpreting this as some "legal threat" or "personal attack" that requires some immediate outrage on the part of OR or the community I suggest you recalibrate yourself. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• To be clear, I'm referring to EK's response specifically, not later charges leveled or discussions by folks at AN/I or the RfA talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Block warnings for both sides

1. I have issued a final warning to Ottava for disruption. I believe he's been provoked but is responding outside the bounds of reasonable responses. I believe that there's a reasonable case to be made that provokers should face consequences for that - and am looking in to it - but the proximate problems here are those Ottava is now doing in response. 2. Anyone who continues to provoke Ottava, in particular on his talk page or with abusive or uncivil comments here on ANI, is looking at a zero-warnings block as well. This has not been appropriately handled on any side so far. Please knock it off, everyone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that it hasn't been appropriately handled by "any side" so far. I think KillerChihuahua's actions have been appropriate, and I don't think she is taking a side. No further comment otherwise. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rephrasing my point two above slightly - I do not mean to accuse every participant here, Ottava's talk page, the RFA, etc of having behaved abusively. Administrators and others who have remained neutral have behaved fine... It's the people taking sides which are causing problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading the RfA, its certainly an interesting interpretation Ottava is being "provoked". Minkythecat (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OR feels provoked I'm sure - but realistically this is just a consequence of being prone to drama and over-reaction. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure OR rationalises it as feeling provoked. If GWH had actually read the whole RfA, the pattern is pretty clear. OR is the one being disruptive. OR is the one badgering people silly enough to support EK. OR is the one provoking EK for a reaction - which, to EK's credit, he's not fallen into that trap. The irony is OR has tried to derail the RfA by making it about comments on WR - yet spat the dummy when his own comments upon WR became an issue, to the extent of putting a pointy question up. This is entirely symbolic of the farce RfA as become. OR has every right to put is objections up during the RfA. He has little right to continue, time after time, to spam the same damn claim on the page. Minkythecat (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And it's obvious that all "discussions" such as RfA come equipped with implicit boundaries. The fact that we are discussing a candidate does not grant one a free pass to flood the RfA with bothersome acrimony and repetition. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I hereby suggest that all users involved in this wikidrama smack themselves with a trout and then we go on with our lives. HalfShadow 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards