Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zacheus (talk | contribs) at 16:32, 5 December 2006 (→Breaching of my privacy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:32, 5 December 2006 by Zacheus (talk | contribs) (→Breaching of my privacy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

I want to unblock the IP address 203.144.160.248

Hi Guys

User 203.144.160.248 has recently been blocked. The user has only recently visited wiki site and learned that the user's name - "Pongsak Hoontrakul" appeared on the list of Economists. It The name was in red and was blocked as well. Please see the details below:

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Winhunter for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Continuation of Centrx's block; AB Your IP address is 203.144.160.248. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siripen (talk • contribs) .

Reference desk problem and block

As some may remember, I have been working recently on the problem of the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk, which as for some time been misused by a few users as a place for general discussion rather than its intended purpose. My first approach was to discuss the use of the reference desk, and appropriate ways of regulating it; these discussions (with some users) were extensive, and resulted in me writing out a personal plan for removing highly inappropriate comments and discussion from the reference desk: User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals. Applying this procedure worked fine until last night, when I removed an entirely off-topic joke discussion. I informed DirkvdM (talk • contribs • count) that I had done this, and he took exception. I spent a long period of time explaning why my actions follow from the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy and the purpose of the reference desk (see User talk:DirkvdM#Reference desk removal), but he repeatedly reverted my edits even after I made it clear that (in my best judgement) his reversions were disruptive. I therefore warned him that he would be blocked if he continued to disrupt the ref desk. He subsequently restored the comments, so I blocked him for 12 hours to prevent further disruption.

Thus I have failed in my original plan to improve the reference desk through discussion; several other admins have tried before me, and run out of patience rather faster than I did. In my best judgement, drawing a line in the sand and saying "some comments can be, and will be, removed to keep the page on topic" was the only remaining approach. When DirkvdM became stubborn on this point, I couldn't see a better option than to block for disruption. However, I have blocked a generally good contributor for restoring that he believes was legitimate content, and my actions should be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments. Thanks, SCZenz 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (SCZenz (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves))

I think the idea of removing comments by another editor is generally a bad thing, but in the case of the reference desk I would support your actions as it is very easy to get sidetracked with irrelevant things. In order to keep the place in order and useful, the desk must be kept on the point. Each question and topic on the desk should stay within its boundaries else people will not think the desk is actually any use.

In this case, removing DirkvdM's irrelevant and off-topic comment was appropriate and his trying to force it back on, regardless of the purpose of the page was disruptive. It is a case of using your common sense to prevent the page losing focus. -Localzuk 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I also concur with the removal and the block. SCZenz made an extraordinary effort to communicate with the user and explain exactly why it wasn't appropriate for the reference desk. As the first place many new Wikipedians go, it is important for it to maintain focus. Dirk claims that we are taking the fun out of Misplaced Pages, but there is no way irrelevent penis jokes on the reference desk make the encyclopedia better and he does not have an inalienble right to post them as his comments seem to indicate. Thank you SCZenz for tackling this tough area with patience and wisdom. pschemp | talk 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LCs retorts

Surprise surprise! 8-( But Dirk saw it as relevant as he (and I) found ithe Q unclear.--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, how are the RDs supposed to make WP better? Anyone know?--Light current 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Things that should be removed would include death threats and racial slurs. Bad jokes, while they perhaps shouldn't be made in the first place, certainly do not rise to the level of something to be removed, and blocking a user over such an issue is absurd. StuRat 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree! 8-)--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZ has written, and is operating by, his own guidelines on which he has failed to obtain consensus for acceptance. He is acting autocratically and is guilty of harrassment. SCZ makes up the rules as he goes along. Is that how WP works?--Light current 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He is using common sense and a interpretation of our existing policies in order to keep an important area of the encyclopedia on task and focussed. Also, the user was blocked for edit warring with an admin - ok, this block should have been done by a seperate admin and the issue discussed in more detail elsewhere first, but the block did what it was supposed to do - stopped the edit war.

Remember, wikipedia is not a discussion forum - jokes do not come within the purpose of the site. The reference desk is one of the first points of contact for many users of this site and as such should be kept focussed - if it is not, then the site may lose some credibility due to what is in essence silly banter.

I think this is an issue that needs further discussion, maybe on the talk page of SCZenz's proposed guideline page?-Localzuk 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on! Thats not a proposed Guideline! Its not been presented as such. Its been presenteted as SCZs Law!. I proposed guidelines weeks ago! SCZ said my guidelines were uneccessary and common sense would do!. So why has he suddenly changed his mind?--Light current 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened is that I wrote out my common-sense conclusions for the benefit of people who wanted to know what I was doing and why. My page is nothing but an explanation of how existing Misplaced Pages policy (plus a bit of common sense) already covers appropriate use of the reference desk, and what to do about inappropriate use. -- SCZenz 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I ve said so many times (but you were obviously not listening) Your common sense is NOT necessarily the same as other peoples. Get it yet? So you need to get consensus to ensure that a common sense of common sense is achielved!. Understand it yet?--Light current 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind WP:CIVIL, theres no reason to shout. semper fi — Moe 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold text is emphasis. THIS is shouting 8-)--Light current 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Samir_(The_Scope)

Guys, it's okay to have fun on the reference desk, as it's okay (and recommended!) to have fun elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, but please keep the conversations close to the topic at hand. A lot of users turn to the reference desk for answers to legitimate questions; it undermines the role of the desk somewhat if they end up with an irrelevant commentary in an attempt to be funny. I wholeheartedly support the intent of SCZenz's actions -- Samir धर्म 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do feel bad that DirkvdM was blocked, though. He helped me immensely on the reference desk a couple of months ago, and I've noticed that he's given some exceptional RD answers to other questions -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad about it too. -- SCZenz 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the next time this comes up I might be tempted to file an arbitration request to settle this damn issue once and for all. Do you imagine a real reference library would staff its front desk with children (or child-minded adults) making potty jokes? Thatcher131 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison. If Misplaced Pages was paying us, we might be willing to put up with a humorless and autocratic environment, but they are not. StuRat 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pay peanuts... Actually I think the RDs get a damn good deal from the RD editors. THe only payment we get is a few jokes (not many of them now)--Light current 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem. What we see as a plea for simple decency you see as humorless and autocratic. Do you see a way to address this without handing it off to arbcom? Thatcher131 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the solution is to bring such issues up at the Ref Desk talk page, discuss them there, then come up with a consensus for a solution. This is the method which was working, with a few bumps here and there. But, since SCZenz didn't like how we were handling things, they chose to decide, without consensus, both what is appropriate and when an inappropriate comment rises to the level of requiring removal. I don't consider having any one person deciding such things to be appropriate, whether they are an Admin or not. StuRat 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What do you mean by simple decency? Whose standards would you be using? Yours, mine or someone eleses?--Light current 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole consensus discussion is a red herring. I'm not in favour of removing content from the RD, but IMO it's come to this because people have been so stubborn about defending indefensible contributions. IT'S A WIKI. Every single page belongs to the WikiMedia Foundation, and we release every single character we type to the GFDL. This means articles, talk pages, userpages, and the RD. Users generally have dominion over our userpages out of courtesy, not because we own them. But anyone can edit them. The editing or removal of on-topic talk page contributions is frowned upon because it defeats the purpose of the article talk page, which is to achieve consensus on the content of the article. The RD is not a talk page. Our every contribution is not sacrosanct. We are working towards solutions to individual problems posed as questions by individual posters, and as such, off-topic contributions are subject to removal. They haven't been up to now, but now they are. It doesn't need a change in policy, and it doesn't need consensus. It's as simple as that. IT'S A WIKI. Anchoress 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Im very sorry to have to say this, and its not an attack, but I find Anchoresss comment totally neutral and unhelpful in every way! It does not advance the discussion 8-( Really sorry! No offence! 8-( --Light current 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is a talk page. Let's look at some of the differences and decide where the Ref Desk falls:

ARTICLE RULES
===================================================
Don't sign posts.
Make any changes you think improves the article.
Rigid format rules (ie, for "References" section).
Length is limited by deleting redundant info.

TALK PAGE
==================================================
Sign all posts.
Only add to the talk page, except for archiving 
 and removing abusive language.
Lax format rules.
Length is limited by archiving.

StuRat 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with arbitration for this; I think this can be handled at the admin level, which is what I've been trying to do. Unless other admins have concerns about my approach, I'm perfectly ~~happy~~ willing to continue removing inappropriate comments and (if necessary, and after due warning) blocking those who restore them. I don't think what I'm doing needs to be endorsed by ArbCom to be valid—but if other admins think having a statement from authority is preferable to my current approach, then I'll go along with that. -- SCZenz 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely support what you are doing, without arbcom endorsement. I might suggest an intermediate step of banning a problem user from the reference desk for a period of time, under threat of block, so they can edit elsewhere for a while. But if bans are the only way to get the point across that this is the community consensus (or at least admin consensus) then so be it. Thatcher131 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins deciding unilaterally to block people is not community consensus, and should only be used for severe abuse of the Ref Desk, not for telling a bad joke. StuRat 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The block was for the repeated and disruptive restoration of the irrelevant discussion, despite a clear warning. There was no consequence for making the joke except removal with a polite note—as indeed there should not be. -- SCZenz 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a direct consequence of removing the comment, as no block would have occurred if you hadn't started the revert war then escalated to a block when you were unable to convince the user of your POV. StuRat 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCzenz 's actions were not unilateral as so far they have been supported by every admin who has commented on the page. Obviously then, there are people who agree with him and he isn't acting in a vacuum. I don't think arbcom is needed here either. Nor does it have to be an admin who removes inappropriate comments. "You're taking the fun out of Misplaced Pages" is an immature argument for leaving irrelevant penis jokes on some of our most public pages. pschemp | talk 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unilateral in that it was decided before asking for the opinions of others. And, frankly, I bet Admins would support one another against the user community except for extremely blatant and obvious abuses. This isn't exactly surprising, as the question boils down to giving Admins more power and Users less power. As for anybody being able to remove a comment, that would allow the original user to restore the comment if they disagreed. However, when an admin removes your comment and you put it back, you get blocked, this is the issue. Your comment that SCZenz's actions are "supported by every admin who has commented on the page" also contains the hidden assumption that only the opinions of Admins matter, and all comments from the general user community (including regular Ref Desk contributors) can be ignored. StuRat 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his explanation page has been there a while and other people have looked at it and agreed with it. You didn't know that, but it was discussed before action was taken. Therefore the actions was not unilateral. pschemp | talk 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The proper place for the discussion was the Ref Desk talk page, where it was discussed, and I don't believe there was any consensus reached that SCZenz should start deleting any comments he didn't like. And, in any case, each individual deletion is still unilateral, unless that specific deletion has been agreed to based on a consensus. For example, we might well all agree that death threats should be removed, but an Admin removing a statement that "bin Laden may be killed soon" would still be unilateral, because we have not agreed that this was a violation of the "no death threats" policy. StuRat 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All opinions are important, but I think we especially value those from people who contribute to the Ref Desk regularly. After all, you guys are the ones actually doing the work of answering the questions. But don't you think some of the less-than-relevant commentary could be toned down a bit, StuRat? It's one of the things that personally turns me off the reference desk also. I see a lot of medical questions that I could answer, but they often devolve into joke-cracking threads that I feel somewhat silly adding to. -- Samir धर्म 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that irrelevant silliness should be limited. However, this is not the same as saying we should start censoring the contributions of others, and most definitely not the same as saying we should start blocking regular contributors. This type of overreaction is more of a problem than the irrelevant silliness ever was. StuRat 08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying is, if a user adds content to the reference desk that's bad for Misplaced Pages, I have no right to take any action? -- SCZenz 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not unless it's really horrendous, and it wasn't, in this case. Put it this way, which is better, to have that joke removed and Dirk banned, or to leave both alone ? StuRat 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering just this one incident, it would be better to leave the joke. However, your argument will apply every single time the reference desk is used inappropriately. In the big picture, it's better to draw a line somewhere and insist that the reference desk not be misused. Dirk's decision to disrupt the reference desk to make a point about me being a despot was his own... and the consequences were what I warned they would be. -- SCZenz 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"It takes two to tango". That is, it was your decision to remove the comment, and yours to block him for restoring the rather innocuous comment. These actions seemed to be more about your pride than improving Misplaced Pages. StuRat 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf61 comment

My I add a comment, as a non-admin but long standing Wikipedian and regular RD contributor ? SCZenz is acting on his honest belief that the RDs need to be regulated and cleaned up. He has put some thought into this and has written up the standards to which he thinks RD questions and answers should conform. He has started to enforce these standards by deleting responses, and sometimes whole threads. Unfortunately, he does not have time to patrol the RDs regularly, so his deletions have a sporadic and ad-hoc quality. His actions are also encouraging victimisation of certain RD contributors by others - see recent discussions on the RD talk page. If there is concensus that SCZenz is doing the right thing, then there should be no need for him to patrol the RDs on his own. Please help him set up a process to regulate the RDs properly by applying an agreed set of rules regularly, consistently and fairly. The current vigilante situation is very unsatisfactory. Gandalf61 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

Samir, note that if the deletion of inappropriate stuff becomes policy any medical questions would be removed, so any answer you gave would also be removed. Be carefull when judging something you haven't felt the full brunt of. For this reason who should decide ref desk policy should be determined by how active they are at the ref desk, not by whether they are an admin. DirkvdM 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the block is a minor issue (actually, I now notice the block has already ended). What's at stake here is the nature of the ref desk, and any discussions about that should take place at the talk page there. About SCZenz's behaviour, may an admin use his powers (in casu blocking me) in a discussion he is one of the original parties in? I thought that was not allowed. On my talk page I've split the issue in four subtopics: what should be allowed on the ref desk, whether that applies to me and LightCurrent, how should any misbehaviour (when that is defined) be dealt with and if SCZenz is allowed to decide that on his own (ignoring the fact that there is still a hefty discussion going on about this at the talk page).

Oh, and since that term was again used here, it was not a penis joke. It was an amusing misunderstanding followed by clarifying info. A joke is something you come up with and I didn't come up with it, it was something amusing that happened to me. But like I explained on my talk page, I wonder if SCZenz has a hidden agenda. He says he wants to remove off topic remarks. But he doesn't do that (consistently). In stead he seems to just remove stuff that doesnt' please him personally, in casu a subject that has to do with a reproductive organ. This is selective zero tolerance. Very dangerous. Rules should be applied systematically, not at someone's whim. And for that there should be rules in the first place. Let's first establish rules for the nature of the ref desk and how to deal with them. I'm rather tempted to start removing all off-topic remarks at the ref desk, to show how disruptive non-selective zero tolerance would be. But I won't be so childish (yet). :)

Btw, SCZenz, do you report all your deletions to all the people in the sub-thread? (And is that at all do-able?) If so, I'm surprised this is the first time you've deleted anything by me, considering I make loads of side-remarks and you claim to have been doing this for a long time already. (So you must have been doing it very selectively then.) DirkvdM 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and you don't always warn people that you removed their contributions. As would indeed be impossible, even with a bot. And that is rather a major issue here. DirkvdM 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding complaints that I'm selective... I'm one person doing my best. We're all volunteers here; articles with no references get improved when someone have time, hoax pages get deleted when people notice them, admins are promoted when bureaucrats get around to it. Doing the right thing is still the right thing, even if it can't be done consistently. I have been removing primarily the most egregious examples of off-topic remarks, not indeed in the hope of getting them all, but rather in the hope of illustrating by example what kinds of discussion is definitely outside the purpose of the reference desk. In the long term, I have no intention of being the official reference desk "censor." I'm trying to draw a line in the sand, in order to help bring things back under control. The reference desk is off course, and helping it come back is a matter of applying existing policies, not arguing about new ones. And the reason other people aren't joining me in doing this is, frankly, that I can handle it myself and they have other things to do.

Regarding my "hidden agenda"... Yes, the fact that it was a juvenile penis joke is an aggrivating factor in my view. Talk about all the sex organs you like if it answers a question, but if new users think they're going to randomly have crude jokes thrown at them when they ask something not related to sex, it will intimidate them and keep them from using the reference desk. That's not okay, and Misplaced Pages not being censored doesn't mean I have to pretend it is. We don't censor content... but we're not talking about content here, now are we? We're talking about a pointless joke.

Ok, that's it for me commenting in this section, unless something else goes wrong. A number of other administrators have reviewed my actions (more than have commented, almost certainly) and I have yet to receive any word from them that I'm taking the wrong approach... so for now, I'll keep at it. You can make pretty speeches here some more if you want, or ask for more general and organized feedback at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment... but as that page says, it's not a step to take lightly. -- SCZenz 17:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Zoes input

As an admin who frequently posts on the Reference Desk, I think the deletions and the block were completely out of line. SCZenz does not own the RD, and it is not his/her responsbility to police it. The Reference Desk is, indeed, a fun place, where there are a lot of jokes, but it is also a serious place where lots of questions get answered. Dirk's comment was hardly over the line, and, in fact, was probably perfectly reasonable. I strongly oppose SCZenz's actions, and would suggest taking it to the RD's Talk pages before repeating them. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This surprises me. However, without administrative consensus, I will not continue as I have been. I've tried to clarify my actions and the reasons for them on your talk page. -- SCZenz 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. SCZenz and I have had a discussion on our Talk pages, and we are looking for further consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, that you would be selective was a bit too specific, but the point I was making is that unless this is done consistently there is the risk of unfair selectiveness. To avoid this, it would have to be done by a larger group of people. And to avoid people getting too upset about it, it would have to be done by consensus and we're a long way from that. So far you haven't done too much deleting (you're nowhere near deleting all the of-topic remarks), and you've already got LightCurrent, StuRat and me, three of the most active people on the ref desk, on your neck. Step it up and the ref desk will become one big edit war zone. Don't step it up and you're being selective. The deletion at hand here was one that was much less off-topic than a whole lot of other stuff, so why did you delete this specific one? If you keep this up I will be tempted to start a revolt by applying your rules (your rules!) consistently.

You talk about getting the ref desk back on course, but we've both started working on it just over a year ago, and it was the same then as it is now, which is part of the reason I liked it so much.

And for the last time, it wasn't a juvenile penis joke. It wasn't a joke. And the other half was informative. But you have now confessed that that was the (extra) reason for deleting it. And that is what I mean by 'selective'.

As for the opinion of admins, like I said, it's the opinion of people active at the ref desk that counts, irrespective of whether they're admins. People need to know what they are talking about. DirkvdM 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The only people here who know about the ref desk are LightCurrent, StuRat, Anchoress, me, and to a lesser extent Gandalf 61, Zoe and you. And between the seven of us, there is not quite a consensus. Actually, most agree with me. DirkvdM 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that people who don't edit the ref desk aren't fit to comment? You are bascially saying Samir and others don't know what they are talking about. If you are going to wield such accusations you may want to do so in the open. Personally I agree totally with SCZenz and just because you Stu and LightCurrent think irrelevent penis jokes are an appropriate thing does not make you correct. pschemp | talk 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been paying attention. We all agree that certain Ref Desk content may be inappropriate. What we disagree with is that an individual Admin has the right to decide unilaterally which content that is, remove it, and block any user who happens to disagree. And yes, we do feel that people who actually contribute to a project should have more say on the rules for how that project is managed than those who never, or only rarely, contribute. This is because it's very easy to come up with strict rules for others, so long as those rules never apply to you. And, if you never contribute to the Ref Desk, then those rules don't apply to you. StuRat 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like to say, in the spirit of standing up and being counted, that I don't have any problems with penis jokes (relevant or otherwise) on the RDs either. And also to point out the SCZenz's proposed criteria for deletion are far wider than just jokes - his criteria for deletion include "comments that are off-topic, opinion, or argumentative". Gandalf61 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAARGH!! There was no penis joke! DirkvdM 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't turn into that sort of pissing contest. I regularly work the reference desk, and I happen to agree with the practice of trimming out the really off-topic potty humour. You're welcome to be funny (within reason) if you're also being helpful. Otherwise, do try to remember that the Ref Desk is one place where a lot of new people may get their first exposure to Misplaced Pages, and that filling it with in-jokes and off-colour, off-topic humour is not exactly putting our best foot (or best face) forward.

On a related note, I think it's a really bad idea to edit war just to ensure that a stupid joke stays on the page. How, and who, does that help? What's the point of making that effort, exactly? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If nobody does anything to stop this sort of unilateral action by individual Admins, then they will continue with this obnoxious behavior. StuRat 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if I say I agree with the action? It's no longer 'unilateral' – and how I hate to see that word dragged out every time someone makes a decision – now. Where does the edit warring over Dirk's foreskin (in answer to a fashion question, for goodness' sake!) fit in on your scale of 'obnoxious' behaviour? How does having that comment on the page make the Reference Desk more useful to anyone? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still unilateral in that he didn't ask anyone BEFORE deleting the comment and blocking the user. The most obnoxious part is the block, over what was a very minor issue, if even an issue at all. StuRat 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He did ask someone BEFORE he deleted it. You just didn't know about it. So no, it wasn't unilateral. pschemp | talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Really ? Who did he ask about the specific item before he deleted it ? Can you provide a link ? StuRat 06:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every conversation about this has taken place on Misplaced Pages Stu. The is no link. 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is no proof that any such conversation ever existed, is there ? Please sign your posts. StuRat 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I take strong exception to the suggestion that only those with substantial RD experience can comment on its purpose and direction. But to assuage that criticism, I'll weigh in. I have previously been a substantial contributor at the Science RD, not so much anymore. Besides all the in-jokes about bay-gulls and such, I have found myself turned off by the rather chauvinist tone, whose most extreme form was seen in the thread (previously discussed here) about how a man could force his girlfriend into a sex act she was not comfortable with. I would estimate that at least a third of the "medical" questions there concern male genitals. Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD. I do propose that all RD contributors consider that people from a wide variety of backgrounds see it, and that they address topics with appropriate maturity. --Ginkgo100 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's say this applied to you. We will say a new position is created, called Admin_Judge. They don't do anything but criticize the actions of Admins, delete and undo what Admins do, and threaten and/or block Admins. They make up their own rules for how Admins must behave, the Admins themselves no longer have any say. If they "discuss" things with Admins, it's only telling the Admins how it's going to be, they don't actually listen to anything an Admin says, no matter how thoroughly the actions of the Admin_Judges are shown to be bad for Misplaced Pages and a violation of policy. Is this something you would find pleasant ? Would you remain willing to work as an Admin ? StuRat 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thats a damn good idea Stu: an Admin behaviour review committee made up from non Admins only! Why not put it on the PumP?--Light current 06:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that I have been an editor for a long time, and an admin for a very short time. --Ginkgo100 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you haven't yet been an Admin long enough to be corrupted by the power ? StuRat 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As for chauvinistic questions, we now have two feminists as Ref Desk regulars, one sexually liberal and one conservative, so that should provide balance there. I would suspect that most Ref Desk readers are young males, however, as surfing the web in general is mostly a young male thing. So, we would expect to get lots of questions relevant to young males, who would be uncomfortable asking them in an environment that wasn't anonymous. I think it's a good thing to be able to answer questions like "Is it unhealthy if a male doesn't ejaculate regularly". Note that this question might have been asked by a girl, who is being pressured by her b/f into sex using this argument. I have suggested a separate Sexuality Ref Desk, however, to shield the squeamish from such questions and answers. StuRat 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this question is appropriate for the RD, which is why I stated "Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD." Rather, I asked that this type of question be approached in a mature fashion. And very often, they are handled appropriately already. Unfortunately, there are also occasions in which this does not seem to be the case. --Ginkgo100 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think it's possible to get 100% compliance with any rule, however. This doesn't mean that we should start deleting comments and blocking users for those few "violations", however, as some Admins want to do. StuRat 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem of which would be that one doesn't know what might get deleted unless it's done consistently according to a clear set of rules about which some sort of consensus has been reached. One central problem is that it is difficult to keep track of what is being deleted. The histories of the ref desks are way too long to dig through. If some people start to delete stuff it might seem to others that that is normal behaviour. Including others who don't know or understand the rules (if any). And that will (not 'may' but 'will') result in people deleting stuff they don't like. Coming up with a way to keep tabs on deletions is something that should be done first. We need that at the ref desk anyway, because people probably do it already, considering how much vandalism there is on Misplaced Pages. Encouraging them by giving the wrong example is a very bad idea. DirkvdM 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder how one could technically track deletions, though. Perhaps any edit where the result is, say more than 100 bytes shorter than the starting length ? That wouldn't be perfect, but better than no check, I suppose. A "D" could appear in front of such edits in the history, where the "N" for new or "m" for minor edit goes now. We could also allow editors to self identify deletions as they do for minor edits. I wouldn't expect them to do so consistently, though, so the size change check would also be needed. StuRat 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Justanother's input

I missed the bulk of this discussion but as a regular on the subject board I want to make my feelings known.

Most importantly: While I appreciate SCZenz' desire to improve wikipedia and his efforts to do so, I strongly oppose arbitrary censorship. I, personally, am more than willing to put up with a *possibly irrelevant* penis joke (though it actually did have some relevance) in order to protect my own right to make comments as I see fit (fit as being relevant to the discussion at hand although perhaps not popular with some wikipedians).

Other than that, I think that many, if not most, of the contributors are experienced wikipedians and are perfectly capable of policing the desk and dealing with disruptive influences. But it important to remember that one reason many of us like to hang out there is the jokes and banter. Only a part of the reason to be sure but part nonetheless. The intellectual stimulation and, often the tangents, have value to us. If they don't then we can ignore them.

Also, I think that article talk page rules are not analoguous and do not apply. The purpose of article talk pages is to develop an article that complies with wikipedia policy; it is important that they honor those policies. The purpose of the reference desk is to either answer a question or steer the questioner toward the answer. The postings there, especially on the misc. desk, will often consist of original research and may not cite their sources. That is entirely appropriate. The Reference Desks are their own beasts and perhaps need additional policy developed. If such policy needs developing it must be developed through the normal review process.

--Justanother 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen's proposal

I note that User:DirkvdM is down to ascribing a "hidden agenda" to SCZenz, and User:StuRat to assuring us that the views of admins are of no account, since admins "would support one another against the user community" anyway. (I don't think he can read ANI much.) Nevertheless I want to register my opinion that this is a matter suitable for handling at this board, and not the kind of thing Thatcher or SCZenz have any need to involve ArbCom in. And I support SCZenz's actions. It goes without saying that the "user community" involved must feel free to request arbitration if they see handling via ANI as inherently unjust. If everything has been said—and having just read the entire thread, I don't see how it could possibly have not been—is it perhaps time for somebody to put one of those snazzy colored frames and stop-talking headings on the thread? Bishonen | talk 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Geogre's view

On the strange wrestling over talk vs. article pages, the reference desk is a project page. Project pages are like AN, AN/I, AfD, RFA, etc., so that explains the mystery of how they can require signatures, allow some wobbling toward chat, and yet be subject to the rules of staying on topic. Ultimately, we're back to the problem of Internet discussion in general: it takes two people to go off topic. If no one answers, applauds, or condemns the silly jokes and chat, if no one tries to answer the troll questions, then it all stops. When, however, two or three people have the same interest in chat and/or play, then their habits can overwhelm the original purpose, and that's when it becomes appropriate for the other folks to show up and 1) urge, 2) cajole, 3) enforce topicality.

The RD pages have always been prone to "christians are stupid i think dont you" questions and "fags is going to hell" questions, as well as "I am taking a trivia test in a bar and I need to know who invented World War II." These questions invite smart aleck responses or adolescent banter. For the most part, the participants have an internal sense of when they're going off the beam, and therefore trolling questions tend to get no answers. However, because everyone is always new at Misplaced Pages, eventually those questions will find their own level, attract offended and amused and bored folks.

I agree with the rest of the site showing up to ask RD to stay on topic, but I think it's bad that we've gotten to the point where it becomes adversarial. Generally, RD has stopped chasing the bouncing balls without adversity when a gentle reminder comes in. Like chatter, belligerance takes two sides and bad timing. I think the intentions of David and SC are both pure. The way forward is for more folks to go to RD and keep an eye on when we start frolicking in the meadow and gently reminding each other that we need to stay on task. If it's fifty voices instead of a campaign, the chances of offense are lower. Geogre 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another late comment

My view is that there is a need to keep the Reference Desk from going off-topic and discussing irrelevant stuff. There should be a set of agreed guidelines put up for review to attain consensus, and then the opprobrium of those that don't like this won't fall on one user. If this feels too much like instruction creep, make it a general set of guidelines covering any 'desk' or 'noticeboard' (eg, WP:AN, WP:HD, WP:RD). I also think that any admins and users regularly involved at the RD should talk to each other to get changes in the culture of 'jokes' and such like stuff. But those admin regulars at the RD should not get involved in blocking to 'control' the RD. Instead, they should post a notice elsewhere (WP:ANI?), asking an uninvolved admin to judge when a block may be required. Carcharoth 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tajik's incivility continues

Tajik was banned for 24 hours, then for 48 hours for incivility. Now that he is back, he posted a stalking accusation on my talk page, with no supporting diffs, because there are none. Please look at my last 500 copyedits and Tajik's and see if there is any evidence that I am following "every step" of Tajik's. False accusations are not civil. KP Botany 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tajik's request was reasonable, and I see no (real) evidence of incivility since he was blocked. Khoikhoi 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, please post the diffs that show I am stalking Tajik, because the request is only reasonable IF I am stalking Tajik, and this accusation, as you should know, requires him to provide some evidence. He provided none. He didn't even attempt to provide any.

And I suspect you are supporting him simply because I have called you to task for protecting pages you have been edit warring in. And posted a comment about that. You are also personally involved in a lot of the edit wars that Tajik participates in, and because you are not neutral to the issue you should not have responded without evidence for your assertions. Like Tajik, you provided nothing. I am NOT stalking Tajik, cannot imagine anything more boring, and there is no evidence for my stalking Tajik, and never will be. He provided none, you as an administrator personally involved in the issue came in here and supported Tajik with no evidence of his stalking me and provided none of your own.

I am not stalking Tajik. If administrator Khoikhoi thinks it is civil for Tajik to falsely accuse me of stalking, then that's a new definition of civil that I'm not familiar with. If administrator Khoikhoki thinks accusations without proof are fine, let's hold this administrator to acting in the future upon my accusations without any evidence.

What the heck, let me make any request without any evidence or anyone else but Tajik ask Khoikhoi without evidence and let's see how far the request goes. I am NOT stalking Tajik.

Here are forty or so of my last edits, just show me where I am stalking User:Tajik, or stop making false accusation.

Administrators making false accusations against editors because of personal prefernces and biases is not appropriate. Isn't there any requirement that administrators at least pretend to be neutral? There should be.

Tajik will do anything to own the Afghanistan article from all other editors on Misplaced Pages, he should not be aided and abetted in this by a biased administrator who also doesn't bother to support baseless accusations. KP Botany 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that you have any high ground here. Where's your evidence that the editor in question is WP:OWNing the Afghanistan article, and where is your evidence that Khoikoi is disagreeing with you because of other disputes? -Amarkov _edits 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as to evidence Khoikhoi is disagreeing with me because of other disputes? And, looking at the time Khoikhoi posted and looking at Tajik's talk page it seems Khoikhoi didn't even bother to look and see if there was any evidence that Tajik was being uncivil. So, that is my high ground: there was evidence of Tajik's lack of civility, a comment on his talk page about edit wars, and his comment on mine about my stalking him without any evidence. What exactly is it that Tajik can accuse me of something without any evidence and I don't have the high ground? Why do I have to provide evidence, but Tajik provided none and Khoikhoi provided none, and the existing evidence, Tajik's talk page contradicts what Khoikhoi said? As to Tajik trying to own Afghanistan, just look at its talk page, and the fact is, if he is accusing me of stalking him, I think they're the only edits we have in common for our last 500 or so, my half a dozen edits on Afghanistan, and the same number or so on its talk page. KP Botany 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, if I'm "stalking" him it's because my edits of Afghanistan are not allowed, and if they're not allowed, then it's because Tajik has successfully owned the page by simply accusing me of stalking without any support or evidence or diffs and Khoikhoi supported him without any, either, and in the face of evidence to the contrary. KP Botany 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

KP, you yourself are making a lot of baseless accusations about me. A look at your contributions shows that you have a history of reporting Tajik for everything he does. How were you able to gather all those diffs of him if you claim you weren't stalking him? He asked you to stop, and in a manner that wasn't really incivil at all. You're accusing me of being a biased administrator, but if you yourself want to be unbiased, you should try reporting people besides Tajik for personal attacks, i.e. . Khoikhoi 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it's simply personal bias against me by this administrator. Khoikhoi did not post any "baseless accusations," but rather simply threw out this accusation against me. Repeat: simply personal bias by this administrator against an editor.

And I don't have any idea why Khoikhoi posted the example to Afsharid dynasty, as it's not a page I edit or watch. If Tajik does nothing reportable, I won't be able to report him, but that's not what stalking is, and one doesn't have to stalk Tajik to catch his diffs, simply wait for him to blow up the first time then go to his contributions page--he generally can't stop once he starts. But that's not what stalking is, here is the page, and the policy in a nutshell: WP:Stalk

"Do not stop other editors from enjoying Misplaced Pages by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."

I have never threatened Tajik, I have never nitpicked his good-faith edits, in fact, I have repeatedly complimented him on his good edits, I don't personally attack him, although when he falsely accused me of making substantive edits to Herat when I only made copyedits I got into a spat with him, and I've never posted any personal information about him. And I've seldom edited any of the pages he routinely edits, except for copyedits on probably 2 or 3, and that is what Tajik accused me of "following every step" he makes on Misplaced Pages. This requires evidence--like my editing his edits. I don't, I didn't, I'm not even interested in them. That's what stalking on Misplaced Pages is, and that's not anything I've done. I've never edited the page Khoikhoi posted, so it's entirely irrelevant, Khoikhoi hasn'et posted any evidence other than a page I've never edited.

Oh, I do comment to other editors on the Afghanistan article about their negative behaviours, also. User:NisarKand, User:Ariana310, I have e-mailed other users repeatedly urging civility, and I request users to be more polite, not just Tajik. So, my accusations have basis, I have provided them, I don't report Tajik for everything he does, just some things, and others have reported him too, and his talk page had comments by others already both times Khoikhoi posted, he asked me to stop something I wasn't doing without any proof or evidence I was doing it, and Khoikhoi leaped to his defense, this latest post shows the bias, because it includes accusations that I only report Tajik, well, NisarKand backed down, Ariana310 is trying really hard, and when I reported Tajik, I was certain to include an example and a comment about another user's behaviour at the same time. And the example Khoikhoi gives of me failing to report bad behaviour is of a page I don't watch or edit. KP Botany 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And, neither NisarKand nor Ariana310 started attacking me and making false accusations against me when I asked them to back off the personal accusations. This is what Tajik does for my reporting his lack of civility, he makes false accusations against me. The other editors did not do this, and I was quite a bit harsher with NisarKand, initially, than with Tajik. KP Botany 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to question your good faith...And I hate to say it, but from the looks of things, you've been on a personal vendetta against User:Tajik, which may fall within the definition of WP:Stalking. Inevitably, such obsession with the other users contributes to an unproductive and hostile environment in Misplaced Pages, which is not something you want when a building an encyclopedia. Looking at your accusations toward Khoikhoi, I must say you are also in breach of WP:Civility. --Mardavich 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of what? What evidence do you have to show that I have been on a personal vendetta against Tajik? Where is the evidence? Why can't anyone provide evidence of my stalking? I don't even edit the same pages as he does, and he provided NO Evidence, simply threw out an accusation and everyone jumps to his defence, with NO EVIDENCE. Please show the evidence. Or stop accusing me. How is it bad faith on my part to ask for evidence when I've been accused of something? Tajik provided NONE. You provided NONE. Khoikhoi provided NONE and gave a page I don't even know about, that I'd never edited.

Is this Misplaced Pages policy? Anyone can accuse someone of anything, without ANY evidence and adminstrators gang up to make sure it sticks? What is going on here?

What stalking? What vendetta? Tajik's the one with the vendetta, but, it seems that the method on Misplaced Pages is to not provide evidence, not provide diffs. KP Botany 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course KP Botany is stalking. He is following every single step I make in Misplaced Pages. All of this started when I opposed his various edits in support of known vandals and sockpuppets (see User:NisarKand, User:King Nisar, User:Pashtun, etc). He reported me to admins with refernce to the article List of Turks: . KP Botany had never participated in that article, nor does he seem to have any interest in Turks-related articles . He simply got to that page after spying on me. In my opinion, this is a clear proof that he IS stalking me. Tājik 15:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Tajik is the one stalking, and he knows it--he posted this without basis, Khoikhoi comes in and supports him without basis, a friend of Tajik's comes in and supports it without basis, acting as if he is an administrator, or this is an RfC. Tajik harassed me for editing the Herat article, when all I did was a copyedit. He falsely accused me of who knows what, demanding that I provide sources for a copyedit, here is the copyedit, which Tajik also said was my reverting or removing his edits. He accuses me of being a racist, a Taliban supporter and who knows what else.

Please look at what he posted, and look at the links I posted, the first one is to User E104421's talk page, the second one is to the same talk page and the third one is from the first two, and it is on the list of Turks.

It is a good laugh, though, as the user I was "spying" on was E104421, who, lives in Turkey, and is a naturalist and backpacker. I am a researcher in endemic plants of depauperate mediterranean ecosystems, with a background in geology and mediterranean endemics, and Turkey is home to quite a few interesting ones, and is well studied for members of the Brassicaceae on certain edaphic ecosystems, as are many other countries of the Mediterranean Basin, and, like other major ecosystems I am researching is home to an important, well-researched, and major Tertiary sedimentary basin, that has very little information about it on Misplaced Pages. So, in spite of the ego deflation that will have to occur, the user I was spying on is E104421, who also has a sufficient science background that he will be able to, and hopefully will be willing to, provide Public Domain photographs relevant to articles Misplaced Pages needs in natural history areas, in particular the natural history of Turkey. Pages I do edit, research, and/or monitor: plant and botany pages, mediterannean ecosystems, serpentine soils, geology, and battleship pages.

Here is an interesting article on Turkish hyperaccumulators to see the relevance of Turkey to anyone who is interested in edaphic ecosystems. There are more if you want, just contact me, it's a fascinating subject.

However, this is not the point. Tajik was not blocked because I complained. He was blocked because independent administrators agreed with my complaint that he was, again, being uncivil.

But, thanks for the laugh, Tajik. KP Botany 17:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but does not work, because - whatever E104421 may be in real life - 99% of his edits, especially the ones in the last 2 months, have been ONLY about Turkish history and other Turks-related toppics . He was even partly blocked, because there was some speculation about him having sockpuppets (such as User:Karcha).

So, since you were spying on him, you must have had a reason to do so. E104421 had no edits in plants-related articles. So the question remains: how did you get to know him?!

The only logical explanations are that you were either spying on me (= stalking) or that you were contacted by E104421 because he was spying on me and found out that you and me had some disputes going on.

In both cases, you are part of a conspiracy against me, and that's against the rules of Misplaced Pages. Whatever you have in mind: PLEASE STOP IT AND LEAVE ME ALONE!

Tājik 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tajik, but when I tried to leave you alone, you complained that I did. I continued to leave you alone, and you went off and found a new victim, when I posted the notice about you attacking him, you accused me of stalking you. And, until you find something on Misplaced Pages that says I can't edit Tukish articles or have interest in what anyone besides you is doing (as all you do is edit war and Admin shop, no one is as interested in what you are doing as you seem to think I am), then you're simply making this accusation of my activities on Misplaced Pages because you are stalking me, and no administrator is willing to tackle your horrendous behaviour on Misplaced Pages, maybe out of fear you'll stalk them, or because you have an administrator like Khoikhoi who is willing to bend all rules to accomodate you.

Your behaviour will catch up to you soon enough. In the meantime, it appears that Misplaced Pages administrators are going to allow you to stalk me--in particular Khoikhoi, who protects your edits and participates in edit wars. This will catch up to Misplaced Pages, also, as you, Tajik, can't seem to restrain yourself from edit-warring, and attacking anyone who tries to copyedit the Afghanistan article or any other article you own. You're attacking me because you're still freaked out, it seems, about my copy edit of Herat, you can't tolerate anyone editing an article you own, and will drive every single editor of that sort out of Misplaced Pages.

You didn't read E104421's edits, or his/her page, or you are falsely representing them here in order to gain some support from others who are assisting you in stalking me. I don't have to know any user outside of Misplaced Pages, this user posts user boxes. This does not surprise me, that you didn't read the user page, and it should not suprise anyone who watches you edit war the heck out of articles and run screaming, "It's a scholarly source, leave it alone," then revert, revert, revert, then get some handy administrator to protect the page.

You lied about my stalking, or you didn't read WP:Stalk, or you are simply trying to use your accusation of my stalking you to stalk me. Here it is for you and for administrator Khoikhoi, again:

"Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)."

I have edited only 2 or 3 of the same articles that you have edited, and these I have only done copyedits on. You, however, immediately reverted or went balistic on the talk page about my copyedits, thinking they were substantive edits, because, again, you were either lying, simply to be malicious in an attempt to make my time on Misplaced Pages as miserable as possible to drive me out of here, or you didn't read them and simply went ballistic on me out of malice. Tajik is the one following me around. This isn't about watching someone else's contributions on Misplaced Pages, it's what you do with them. Tajik is the one who has displayed evidence of stalking--I haven't, because I'm not.

"Targeted personal attacks"

You're the one who called me a Taliban supporter for my copyedit of the Herat article. You're the one who posted false warnings templates on my talk page in retaliation for my asking you to back down from personal attacks.

"Posting of personal information"

I've posted none.

"User space harassment "

You have placed at least 2 false or questionable warnings on my user page, both in retaliation for your bad behaviour. You got a WP:NPA warning because you issued a personal attack against me, you retaliated by posting the same warning on my talk page with no support. You posted a WP stalking notice on my talk page in retaliation for my reporting you for your incivil behaviour towards another user. Now you continue to accuse me of stalking you, and you have an administrator supporting you without any supporting evidence.

Tajik's behaviours is stalking. He and his administrator offered no evidence of my behaviour that qualifies as stalking. There is no reason that Misplaced Pages gives that says I cannot look at his edits, or that I cannot look at another user's edits. Again, I remind folks, Tajik was blocked because of his behaviour, not because I told on him.

It's rather more than disingenuous to ask me to just stop, when I asked this of you, and because your biggest complaint about me is that I "vanish" or "disappear when things out of control." Of course I do, this is Misplaced Pages advice, which Misplaced Pages administrators didn't seem to support me in, and you don't seem to have read. You don't want to be left alone, as you are stalking me to do everything you can to continue to engage me by posting false warnings on my talk page, when you get blocked for your misbehaviour. (See and which I have repeatedly pointed out to you, in particular the remedies, "Second step: Disengage for a while," which, apparently if editors disengage the will be attacked by users like you for doing so, then attacked in addition by administrators like Khoikhoi.) You're obsessed with me. Everything I complain about, you mirror--I ask you to leave me alone, and I back down, and you accuse me of stalking you. I left you alone, you complained that I did and started posting lies about me on my talk page. When I left Afghanistan and Herat you complained:

Tajik says, "With all due respect: I am really tired of your pointless efforts in messing up articles and then suddenly vanish when everything is out of control (see Afghanistan where you first supported all the nonsense of NisarKand, including his racist comments against Iranians, and then suddenly dissapeared when things got out of control until an admin protected the article!).

This is typical behaviour for Tajik, and is, actually, what got Tajik his last block, that Tajik was asked to back down from his incivility and the other user did, while Tajik didn't.

There's no conspiracy, Tajik. When I backed down, you viciously attacked me for doing so, calling me a Taliban supporter and accusing me of supporting racism. Now you accuse me of stalking you, when you're the one stalking, doing everything you can to make my experience here intolerable.

And WP:Stalk: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Misplaced Pages by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information. You are doing everything you can to prevent my continuing as an editor at Misplaced Pages by posting false or questionable warnings on my talk page, by falsely accusing me of stalking you when you have no evidence, by getting an administrator to support your baseless accusations, and by repeatedly attacking me for your behaviour, one of the few things you edit that you don't seem to own on Misplaced Pages.

KP Botany 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Community block for Supreme Cmdr

Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) has been blocked five times for revert-warring on Derek Smart. The last block was for ten days, ending 25 November; today Supreme Cmdr is revert-warring on Talk:Derek Smart again. In addition, he seems to be unable to remain civil and avoid personal attacks as any random sample of his contributions will prove. --Ideogram 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Supreme Cmdr is Derek Smart's screenname/forum name, and that this is likely him (if the contributions are pro-derek). Derek smart is also well known, perhaps even notorious in the press, for his incivility and personal attacks against people on his forums; wikipedia shouldn't be a stretch. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I must support a community block for him. I blocked him about a month back for similar behavior and it seems he has no intention of changing. Cowman109 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be the only page the user edits, so a community ban from only the page would have the same effect. Cowman109 21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you were to do that, you'd have to ban him as well from articles about the games he created (Battlecruiser series, et al), because he'd likely take his aggression out there. That's assuming he even obeyed the ban: Smart isn't known for doing that. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. I support banning him from all Derek Smart related articles. --InShaneee 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think such a ban would be a good faith gesture rather than an outright Wiki wide ban. I suspect that such an article based banning may not matter in the long run though. (→Netscott) 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Little note, Derek Smart sues anyone and everyone who disagrees with him in any way. So if he gets blocked, and it really is him, he'll probably throw around some legal threats somewhere. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be any objection to the article ban. Would anyone like to inform him? I'm already quite involved in the situation so it would be best if I didn't myself, of course. Cowman109 05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --InShaneee 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, you should list specifically the articles from which he's banned. By my accounting, that's Derek Smart, Battlecruiser 3000AD, Universal Combat as well as any redirects (e.g. 3000AD, Universal Combat Special Edition). Also, whether it apply to the associated talk pages. This just to avoid the inevitable "Well, you weren't specific"... - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this straight. I get banned based on a consensus by the very same people who got me banned those past times? Not to mention that this was done in a secretive manner and none of the prominent editors of the Derek Smart were even aware of it, let alone get a chance to offer their opinions? Yet another example of what is so very - very - wrong with Wiki. You folks on a power trip think that Wiki is where you can get to display your power over someone. And to those of you who stupidly keep saying that I'm Derek Smart, you should be so lucky to think that he even gives a damn about what a bunch of nobodys are writing on a Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thats Wiki for you. Its the virtual version of a Kangaroo court where if enough dissenters get together and gang up on someone, they can inevitably reach a consensus. I for one do NOT support this ban as it is highly dubious and unwarranted. WarHawkSP 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Supreme_Cmdr has just done a revert over on the Derek Smart article. Ehheh 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like, there is no consensus for the ban and I will simply not honor it. Here, let me quote from WP:BAN for those of you who think you can just get together and ban someone.

Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct.

Supreme_Cmdr 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The choice was either a site-wide block or an article ban. The article ban was chosen as the less-restrictive of the two. If you reject it, your forcing the choice or option A.

This is actually how it's done. ANI is hardly a secret board, it's the usual place for reporting disruptive editors. ---J.S 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr has been blocked for another 2 weeks for blatantly violating this article ban. I'm beginning to lose my patience with him, as it is clear he will not acknowledge that he is not to edit the articles relating to Derek Smart any further. Perhaps an indefinite block should be considered once more? Cowman109 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectively note, this 'consensus' was not established by a Request for Comment and in fact is very different from the legitimate consensus established by his last RfC. Addhoc 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As many may be aware this user has been repeatedly blocked and has an RfC filed about his behavior- Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Daniel575. Now, in response to my comment here he has made this edit which while not a death threat per se is pretty close to one and says as such that he has no intention of cooperating with other editors. We may want to consider the community ban. My patience at least is exhausted. JoshuaZ 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to make an indef ban I'm not completely convinced be under the death threat criterion. It is not rare among charedim to make comments of the form "if the meshiach arrive then we would _" where _ can range from executions to animal sacrifices to whipping Jews who charge each other interest. Unless we think that the arrival of meshiach is eminent this isn't a threat in the traditional sense. It amounts to almost saying "if God came down and gave me permission to kill these people I'd do it gladly (but would never do so otherwise)" which isn't really a death threat. Still the comment is bad enough that I would think together with Daniel's earlier comments this merits a ban under exhausting community patience. JoshuaZ 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with the above. It is, indeed, rare among chareidim to make statements like that to non-Jews, or to secular Jews. Charedim might talk amongst themselves theoretically about the control and role of the Sanhedrin in the messianic era, but it is seriously in bad form to threaten anybody in quite the way Daniel has done.--Meshulam 23:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is despicable!!!!!! Is somebody going to do something about Daniel575???? MetsFan76 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry JoshuaZ....I just realized you posted this already right before I did. MetsFan76 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Combinging section for convenience). JoshuaZ 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JoshuaZ! MetsFan76 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicted four times) ~~I think that's close enough to a death threat to warrant a block or ban for it. --Core desat 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)~~

I strongly support an indefinite ban. MetsFan76 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading the situation, I don't think it fits the description of "death threats" that would warrant banning. It IS an incredibly incivil comment, however, and appropriate action should be taken (perhaps a mid- to long-term block). --Core desat 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on this single edit, I blocked him for one week for inappropriately hostile remarks. I felt this one edit by itself was enough to warrant serious consequences. Not familiar with his previous history- perhaps indefinite is appropriate. No objection to anyone changing the duration. Friday (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Volunteering to kill Messianics sounds pretty threatening to me. MetsFan76 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a threat in the more standard sense of the word, see my above comment. JoshuaZ 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not strictly a threat, but it's still way over the line of what's appropriate. Other recent edits look to me in a similiar vein. Friday (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your words Joshua, a threat is a threat regardless of the religion. Saying that he would gladly kill someone else is a threat. I don't think your description would hold up in a court of law if he did attempt something like that. MetsFan76 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there have been precedents in some jurisdictions that comments like this one aren't treated the same way as conventional death threats. In any event, the real question is whether this type has the same comment as standard death threats. I'm not convinced it does. At this point, I'd not object to a community ban for exhaustion of patience but I don't think this dif constitutes a death threat. JoshuaZ 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether what he says constitutes a standard death threat or not does not make it right. It is deplorable!! I would not be surprised if after his ban is up, he will continue his actions. MetsFan76 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important in encyclopedias, in decision making and in teaching someone what they did wrong to clearly distinguish between related yet different concepts. Hostility (shown by talking about killing) is what was done wrong. It was not a death threat. WAS 4.250 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine...it wasn't a death threat, but it was still uncalled for. MetsFan76 00:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, I would say that looked like a death threat to me. Saying someone deserves death, and volunteering to bring about the death yourself is both racist and wrong. But I can (vaguely) understand if you guys want to have leniency (although the argument "the guy belongs to a certain Jewish sect so death threats are OK doesn't fly with me"). But in view of recent fracas with the {{NotJewish}} template, this has gone from ridiculous to sublime. His "opponent", who apparently has no civility either, was just indef'ed for ridiculous 3RR violation. I would say 2 weeks would at least be appropriate, in view of this awful comment and other nonsense with the template. But, as I said, I don't see how that could be construed as anything other than a bigoted death threat, orthodox Jewish or no. -Patstuart 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

the issue brought up was charedi not Orthodox. JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Does it really matter what it is JoshuaZ? Whether it was Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or whatever, it was horrible. Personally, I was offended that you tried to justify his words by stating "precedents in some jurisdictions that comments like this one aren't treated the same way as conventional death threats." Not cool and good riddance to him. MetsFan76 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart, I'm glad to read your refreshing words. If this does have to do with being in a certain sect, then that DEFINITELY does not fly with me either. Personally, I think an indef for Daniel575 would be more appropriate until he realizes his actions are wrong. MetsFan76 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that the user has become completely uncivil in all manner: ,, (said after he removed the said section). He also gave another death-like threat right before these statements: .. A look at his contributions reveals as much. Joshua, I know you agree with some of his points, but this is out of totally out of bounds, and I don't see how a simple one-week block is justified, considering past behavior. Only a longer block may get him to consider that disruption, rudeness, and death threats are totally wrong. Statements like Thank G-d the guy is dead and rotting, and if he weren't dead, I would kill him myself, with my own bare hands. I would tie his hands and feet, and beat him until he died. Get it? Don't you dare telling me such things. And don't you are ever calling yourself a Jew or any of your whole heretical Christian sect by any name which includes the word 'Judaism'. are so out of bounds as to constitute banning. If this kind of thing were said about another other race or religion, would it not get the ban-hammer? Patstuart 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, Pat, you don't need to convince me. Please note that I brought the matter up here at ANI saying that I thought his comments merited a ban. The only aspect I was pointing out was that his attack on my page was not a death threat as such (and Coredesat agrees see above). They are bannable comments but we should be clear in what context we are banning him under. JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry. I didn't mean to come across too harshly. -Patstuart 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement by the user, which in part reads: "I love attacking Messianics. They should all be killed ... I volunteer to carry out the executions. What do you think it will be, decapitation or stoning?" is utterly unacceptable. I up'd the block to indefinite. El_C 02:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you El C.......I glad you realize that threats like this unacceptable. MetsFan76 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this indef block. Daniel has gone too far too often. He refused to respond to an editor recently because the latter was Muslim, and there are frequent comments about how this or that editor is a non-Jew. It's too much. SlimVirgin 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the block as well. All previous attempts at changing his behavior through RFCs were met with indifference by Daniel, so it seems this is the only way. Cowman109 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. Khoikhoi 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Support as well. In my opinion from working on dispute resolution involving him, Daniel is absolutely incorrigible. As mentioned above, he responded to his RFC with indifference and ridicule, and he is extremely aggressive toward anyone who disagrees with him. Put this to rest once and for all. --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Indef is too harsh. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think indef is too harsh as well. First time I ever agree with Nielswik on anything. - crz crztalk 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think it is too harsh? In the time Daniel has been here has had so no sign of improvement and little willingness to follow Misplaced Pages policy. JoshuaZ 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as well. How is this too harsh? From what I have seen, nothing really intelligent came out of Daniel...only hate. MetsFan76 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in essence, he's disruptive and very fresh and he does editwar a lot, but he did not deliver a death threat IMO, and he did contribute productively quite often... - crz crztalk 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter that he contibuted alot?? Look at his behavior!!!! Death threat or not, the guy is out of control. MetsFan76 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've not looked fully at Daniel's full contribution to disruption ratio but I'm inclined to think that his death threat style commentary alone warrants indef. blocking. (→Netscott) 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heated dispute could do with additional eyes

I blocked Fys (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) this morning for edit-warring on Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as being disruptive by serially reporting as vandalism the reversion of his addition of a blog-sourced comment. Whether or not it's valid is pretty much irrelevant, the default is to exclude problematic content unless there is consensus to include, especially on a WP:LIVING article. Anyway, he's Wikilawyering away like a good 'un, and I am not much disposed to discuss it further with him. Some independent input from others on his Talk would be appreciated, as would a review of his unblock request by an admin other than the two of us who are already active there. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support Guy's block, even though I was about to give him another chance on the 3RR (having made absoloutely sure he knew about the rule). I support the block because of: the 3RR violation, the incivility (see talk page) and the disruption (serial reports to aiv, the constant arguing, editing/deleting guy's comments if he doesn't like them. I would welcome the input from other admins however, I just gave up trying to get him to calm down/see reason, there appears to be no point - at least at this stage. Viridae 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is over this edit. Detoxification (talk · contribs) has removed the text a number of times, Fys (talk · contribs) has replaced it. At first glance, both users are in violation of the 3RR. Fys claims that this doesn't apply since the removal is vandalism. However, the information is negative in tone, and sourced in a blog; Detox therefore claims it is in violation of BLP. They have discussed this on Fys's talk page, where Detox explains why the information is improper, and Fys asserts that "Until the site is removed from the internet, the reference stays." Without knowing anything further of the circumstances, it seems obvious to me that this removal is not simple vandalism, and that Fys was properly blocked for revert warring. (Radiant) 13:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a clear violation of 3RR. The block is justified. However, the edit warring was about vandalism in fact. User:Detoxification was removing sourced content. The section in question is based on two sources and not solely on the blog link. I've just read the timesonline's article A strange case of espionage and warfare inside the commuter belt which is referenced on the section. Maybe he was just furious that no one sees teh removal of the sourced content as vandalism. So i don't totally agree w/ you guys about Fys being that dispruptive and uncivil this time. -- Szvest Ω 13:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the attempts by Detoxification to talk about the issue I took it as a content dispute - wether that blog was appropriate to be mentioned in the article and not vandalism. Viridae 13:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And Fys has without question been an editor for long enough to know this even if it hadn't been pointed out to him several times. If this is a significant criticism then there will be a better source than a political attack blog. Blogs with articles describing the subject as a "dipstick" are not, I'd say, even in the same time-zone as a reliable source for a . Fys asserts that this has been covered in the national press. Fine: let him source it from the national press. A citation to the Times is unlikely to be anything like as controversial as a citation to an attack blog. As an aside, he is right that the other accounts are almost certainly associated with Milton's office, but that does not actually change matters at all, since if the subject of a biography has a problem with questionably sourced content, policy says we remove it there and then without making them find the Foundation's telephone number. Simple vandalism this is not, and the problem is much more with Fys' steadfast refusal to accept that fact - and by extension the deliberately strongly-worded terms of WP:LIVING - than with his other behaviour. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I somehow tend to agree w/ you on this! -- Szvest Ω 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And see my response. Fys. Ta fys aym. 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that Fys claims that a talk page consensus exists for his version. Examination of the talk page shows that this issue was first brought up in June, with a variety of editors arguing for and against the case. There does not appear to be a consensual resolution, and the last talk page edit was October 5th. (Radiant) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And in all that time we still have no better source than the blog itself, despite assertions it's been covered in the press. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this edit - particularly its charming edit summary - could get him a longer block, and at least suggests the initial block was warranted. Proto::type 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've commented a few times about the usage by some wikipedinas of such language in this noticeboard and everytime i've been said to shut up. It's been like if it was me who uses that garbage language. Weird, weird stuff. -- Szvest Ω 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all about the context it's used in; Misplaced Pages is not censored, but telling someone to 'fuck off' is clearly rude, and incivil. Proto::type 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fys' probation (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom) also allows admins to ban him from any article he edits disruptively. I haven't looked into the situation, but suggest this as a possibility once a shorter term block expires. Thatcher131 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I find Fys' entire approach bloody aggravating. He is still arguing about how he was right all along (despite the fact that nobody else seems to agree), and is now producing sources which, had he provided them earlier instead of simply edit-warring, would have made some difference in the first place - and even that is missing the point because he has yet to acknowledge that this was not simple vandalism (per the judgement of every admin who's looked at it); he is also insisting that good faith be applied to him while assuming exclusively bad faith on the part of others. His past history of disputes on biographies of political figures indicates that this is a stable feature of his editing. He is wasting people's time with low drama when a more reasonable person would have fixed the problem by not citing an attack blog in the first place and certainly by not continuing to report it as vandalism after it had been pointed out to him that it was not. He cannot possibly be in any doubt that this kind of behaviour is disruptive and counter-productive, yet he persists. "Sorry, I'll source it better" or "sorry, I'll take it to talk" would almost certainly have worked - "unblock me now, I was reverting vandalism" when he's been told several times that it isn't vandalism was never going to work. As a desysopped former admin, he clearly has a working knowledge of policy, and cannot possibly be unaware of the issues to do with WP:LIVING, especially after the arbitration case. The major problem then was edit warring instead of discussion, and that is precisely the problem again here, so I will endorse without hesitation any escalation of this block. It is quite a feat to make me in any way sympathetic towards a member of the Monster Raving Tory Party, but Fys has managed it; that much, at least, he can count as an achievement. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a one month ban from all political biographies, enforceable by blocking, as provided under the probation? Thatcher131 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Christ knows. I despair, I really do. Fys is an idiot, and I have told him so in as many words. What on earth is the point of baiting people when you want them to help you, and demanding that you are treated as a valued contributor when you have an ArbCom sanction against you? He has behaved like a spoilt child from beginning to end, expecting us to take his word as a desysopped serial disruptor of political biographies against the removal of material based on an attack blog from a WP:LIVING article. Oh yes, that was bound to work, wasn't it? Especially as he then decided to drip-feed the information he should have provided up front if he actually wanted to enlist any support. What a titanic waste of everyone's time.

He has undertaken not to repeat the behaviour and to take it to mediation, which is fine by me and I have unblocked him on that basis, but please, everyone, feel free to slap him with a 40lb Wikitrout if he even so much as thinks of resuming his edit war. I'll be off to choir practice soon. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the case of User:Tobias Conradi → . Maybe a mentorship would help but maybe a former admin would not agree on that! -- Szvest Ω 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What JzG should have thought is this: if blocking produces a "titanic waste of everyone's time", why did you do it in the first place? You didn't need to. If you'd come and asked me not to edit the page, but to provide evidence for the notability of the mention, then I would have spent time doing that and not arguing about the block. Blocking always exacerbates a dispute. In all the cases where I've been blocked, it has been accepted in the end that the position I promoted was the right one. PS Thatcher, I think that would be a very bad idea. Fys. Ta fys aym. 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. It was your attitude that wasted time. Your time and ours. As my mum used to say, "it must be lovely to be right all the time". You have to read that with a really heavy overtone of sarcasm for the full effect, obviously. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

However

Just because Fys shouldn't have been revert warring here doesn't mean that Detox is correct. The account has 11 contribs to date, and that vandalism, such as this. As Fys states, the article Anne Milton has been the "target" of single-purpose accounts before (as unfortunately is par for the course for a public political figure). It would help if someone knowledgeable in British politics took a closer look at the statements in the article. (Radiant) 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You may note that I left a message to that effect on User talk:Detoxification. It is probably significant that the edit you link above applies the same epithet to Ireland as he applies to Milton. It seems to me as if the two sides are bringing their fight to Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the case is this important, and in case this behaviour persists, why not ban Fys from editing such articles as per Thatcher above? Maybe Detox would deserve the same if the case is presented to the ArbCom! -- Szvest Ω 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, prior to applying a broad block an admin would need to investigate per Radiant's point above. If two people are edit warring a unilateral block might make things worse and be inequitable to boot. But, the probation makes it at least possible to apply a more targeted remedy than a site ban. Thatcher131 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the single-purpose accounts disrupt articles and refuse to engage in dialogue then they can simply be blocked. Tim Ireland obviously hates Anne Milton with a passion, and the feeling is quite likely mutual. Their views on each other may be notable, the specifics of their spat probably are not. But I leave that to the mediators and editors on those articles. What is clearly unacceptable is edit-warring by Fys, whose tendentious editing of political biographies has been documented by ArbCom and resulted in his desysopping and sanctions. This is, I would suggest, irrespective of the other parties involved. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not "tendentious editing" which was at the heart of the ArbCom case. The desysopping was prompted by an unconnected incident and only passed because I declared I would not have the article ban at any price. Fys. Ta fys aym. 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom case documents your tendentious editing. Dress it up how you like. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued trolling

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I have archived Fys' trolling from my Talk page. If anyone thinks it should also be removed from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for JzG is free to do so, I don't think either the question or the reply tell the world much about me other than that I'm an admin who is willing to block ~~aggressively tendentious editors~~ aggressive edit warriors. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NB I thought JzG's change of mind between his first and second version here was significant so I've preserved it using strikeout. Of course his desire to censor his ArbCom questions is also significant but I don't think anyone else would be so silly as to accede to this request. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would prefer the latter version, but am quite happy with either. You are a tendentious editor, that is, an editor with strong bias who edits aggressively and disruptively. Dress it up how you like. Incidentally, congratulations on using the word censorship, the reliable benchmark indicator of someone without a leg to stand on. As any admin knows, an allegation of censorship, especially when applied to the suggested removal of trolling, is without exception proof positive that trolling is precisely what's going on. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that you are asking for the removal of legitimate questions, I'd say the word I used was entirely appropriate. You didn't have to go from the general to the specific in answering the question but you chose to. Now you want to have the entire section removed. Mistake on your part, perhaps. Fys. Ta fys aym. 20:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See those two words at the beginning of the sentence? I dispute that your attempts to save face after being blocked for a particularly stupid bit of edit-warring, including a 3RR violation which which you quite plainly knew was unacceptable, amounts to a legitimate question. Whether it stays as an example of your idiocy or gets removed, I don't actually care overmuch. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Land of Bosoni

Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a.k.a. Ancient Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a.k.a. Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been causing considerable disruption via:

repeatedly removing XfD notices
repeatedly adding non-free images to his user page
vandalism
disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point/gaming the system/assuming bad faith by posting reports on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents alleging bad faith on the part of and requesting blocks against users who have nominated his pages for deletion.
creating non-notable articles (e.g., Gojko Janković, Ranko Ćesić)
vote campaigning through aggressively cross-posting
posting comments which other users consider to be incivil and/or personal attacks (see User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni#Re: Your personal attack)
creating POV forks of various pages:
misuse of the "minor" edit summary flag, such as when adding non-free images, or when making controversial edits

The user has been warned about the above, in some cases repeatedly. It seems that every time he's warned about a particular disruptive behaviour, he goes on to commit a completely different one. It may be useful to block this user until such time as he confirms that he has read and agreed to abide by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:N, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SPAM, WP:MINOR, WP:POINT, and WP:COPY. —Psychonaut 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd account listed was blocked indefinately for copyright fraudulence, so that might be grounds for blocking all the rest of them. 68.39.174.238 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any prior blocks for any of the accounts. Perhaps you're confusing this user with someone else…? —Psychonaut 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to add high incivility (a near-personal attack against me and User:Duja) on my talk page. --PaxEquilibrium 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, I was thinking of Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see "serial copyright violator" section above. Sorry to everyone for confusing the two. 68.39.174.238 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Has this report been considered and declined, or has it been overlooked? If it has been declined, some confirmation would be appreciated. —Psychonaut 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Block review - User:Walter Humala

I blocked Walter Humala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for this edit. There is also some recent vandalism that was self-reverted, but my major reason for blocking was the apparent (possibly joking) attempt to create a vandal bot and the personal threat. If someone wants to look over this block I'd appreciate it. --Ginkgo100 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what to do about that myself. There appears to be no good contributions to any articles, almost all edits have been to his own userpage - so no great loss either way. Wiki is not a free webhost anyway, and thats what it appears the userpage was being used for. Viridae 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Users have been indefinitely blocked for threats, so I think this isn't too out there. Hbdragon88 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

His still-open request for unblock, which I recently saw, amounts to "it was a joke". I don't find such jokes very funny and I have no objections to this block, although I probably wouldn't have been as bold. Sandstein 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed his unblock request and changed to a 24-hour block. --Ginkgo100 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Walter Humala - Emperor of West Misplaced Pages 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks, harrassment, baiting and pestering by user:Oden

User Oden (talk · contribs) has been recently involved exclusive in a controversial activity of challenging selected by him users attacking their images. I put aside for now the issue of the interpretation of the WP:FU policy as good people obviously disagree in good faith on the policy interpretation as well as the policy itself. However, even if one chooses to take upon himself such a sensitive task as implementing a policy for the good of Misplaced Pages, such task can only be taken with utmost sensitivity to other editors. With a couple of other editors joining what many perceived as a disruptive crusade in whose process the worst attitudes were displayed, several editors opened a Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali against one of such crusaders. Notably, the RfC is not about the policy or implementing an unpopular policy but about the unacceptable attitude and abusive Harassment.

Shortly after, user:Oden posted to the RfC this disgusting attack directed at all the involved editors bringing all sorts of unrelated issues that had no relation to what the RfC was about thus substituting tackling the issue with attacking the opponents. And hour or so ago Admin:Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who was not involved in the dispute in any way gave Oden a (rather soft IMO) warning reminding of WP:NPA and WP:Harassment policies. Reaction of user:Oden was this barrage of irregular stuff.

When I commented on his response as being lacking the substance, Oden responded by a series of entries where he baits Khoikhoi and brings up another barrage of irrelevant stuff (see also WP:DFTT#Pestering).

Third party input is requested. --Irpen 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past contributions of the other editors contributing to the RfC.

WP:NPA states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

WP:STALK states: "This does not include reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Misplaced Pages are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why User:Khoikhoi reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).

Final note: User:Irpen's comment on my talk page (at 6:29 UTC) came after I left my first response and second response on User:Khoikhoi's talk page (4:29 UTC and 6:04 UTC). I must be very talented indeed to be able to see into the future!

User:Khoikhoi has as of yet not responded. I will leave a message on his talk page urging him to comment here. --Oden 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This "response" illustrates the user well on top of the original diffs above. Please check his "comments" at the RfC linked above and match them with his response (along with this protracted baiting of Khoikhoi who rightfully warned the user). It is easy to tell between trolling and proper discussions. --Irpen 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi (who is an admin/sysop) has as of yet not responded. From my first response at 4:29 UTC until now he has made almost 40 edits, so apparently he's online. I have stated on his talk page that his failure to respond stands in sharp contrast to the serious tone in his warning where he threatened me with "blocks with the length being increased each time" (diff). His first signal was that he was to busy to respond (diff), his second that he was too lazy (diff). --Oden 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Oden has asked me to provide a comment here. When I saw Oden mention my name in his list of monsters and vandalizers I was quite insulted. I agree with User:Irpen and User:khoikhoi that User:Oden's comments were highly inappropiate. Dionyseus 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I really can't see that Odin has done anything out of line here. He mentioned that we'd all been blocked before, and that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Not a particularly helpful comment, but not a "disgusting attack" either. Note that I was one of the editors mentioned by Odin in his so-called "disgusting attack", and I just can't find any way to be offended. This is really a tempest in a teacup. I guess Odin should doublecheck his comments in such a delicate situation to make sure he won't offend the thin-skinned. But really, Irpen's comments above seem at least as provocative as Odin's. I think all involved should take a deep breath, assume good faith, and get over it. – Quadell 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to comment, but I shall. Oden has been contributing to the RfC noted above by Irpen, however his contributions haven't been especially helpful. While most editors involved in the discussion have been obviously frustrated with each other and the debate has been quite heated at times, Oden's comments haven't really been about the RfC at hand so much as about policy. For example, he posted a lengthy screed on the RfC talk page about how the RfC has turned into a policy debate, however pretty much the only comments he's made that aren't an attempt to "call out" Irpen have been repeated posts about policy. I don't know if it's intentional or not but he isn't really doing much except to stoke the flames. TheQuandry 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find his comments on RfC to be offensive and incivil, bordering on trolling (comparing block logs, yeah that gives a true measure... <_<). It violated quite a few basic policies and should imho be dealt with accordingly. -- Grafikm 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Grafikm_fr's comment:

WP:NPA (policy) states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

WP:STALK (guideline) states: "This does not include reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

--Oden 07:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there seems to be some misconception (User:Grafikm_fr, User:Irpen and User:Sebbeng) that an RfC can only bring scrutiny on the editor subject to the RfC. However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Misplaced Pages are provided in order to discuss improvements the articles.

On a more general note: the entire process of a Request for Comment regarding a user could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA, WP:STALK, and also quite provocative. The fact that all editors can be subject to scrutiny only serves to ensure fairness in the process.

--Oden 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe

This user being an admin was engaged in rewert-warring in Josef Stalin with other users. Seeing he is in minority, he indefblocked all his opponents (including me, who did only one edit), falsefully accusing them in meatpuppetry. He later refused to unblock me until I change my political views and confess my edits to be wrong. Your comments.--Nixer 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not require any further admin intervention, but I do take issue with Zoe's misuse of the rollback tool. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one do not. "Being in the minority" hardly applies when the majority consists of a load of socks. "To a certain extent through heroic figures like Klaus Fuchs, the brilliant activities of the Soviet intelligence service resulted in the early loss of America's monopoly on the destructive atomic bomb." is clearly POV pushing that should be cut. Other edits by Zvesda clearly suggest a virulently pro-Stalin POV. is perhaps the best example. Zoe was entirely correct in reverting, with rollback or no rollback. Allegations of near-3RR on behalf of Zoe are just plain wrong. Admins should be able to do their job without getting whacked over the head by a lynch mob at ANI, especially when dealing with individuals with block logs the length of your arm - quite literally. Moreschi 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean admins have special rights to push their POV? And how many sockpuppets do you see there?--Nixer 15:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Zvesda@netscape.net is one, for starters. Indefblocked as such. Moreschi 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - whether the Zvesda account is related to you I do not know, but I assume not - AGF. However, the presence of such socks rather debunks your assertion of a majority agreeing with you. Moreschi 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What socks do you speak about?--Nixer 16:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

These edits are so POV they arguably constitute vandalism. Use of rollback tool was fine. JoshuaZ 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits of user Zoe was simply mass deletion of sourced information, which is much more arguable vandalism.--Nixer 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Zoe has shown commendable behaviour in preventing Misplaced Pages from being hijacked. --Folantin 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe's reverts have been proper and there are strong indications of sockpuppetry usage in this article. Admins are required to use their best judgement in contentious situations, and Zoe's judgement appears sound. Doc Tropics 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again: where do you see sockpuppets? I see only one sockpuppet of Zvesda user, but he used it after being unjustly blocked (in violation of all rules)--Nixer 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. I blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely for performing the 3RR, and only then did I block Zvesda for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No evidence that Zoe has abused anything here.--MONGO 18:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that our blocking policy states Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.? Shouldn't he have simply contacted another admin to take a look?-Localzuk 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, taking a look through the history, I cannot see any more obvious sockpuppetry (other than the user mentioned above). The information, whilst it has POV issues, also contained a variety of sources to back up sections. Zoe appears to be removing this information. This seems like a content disupte and as such should follow our dispute resolution process, not unilaterally blocking editors such as Nixor.-Localzuk 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Zoe did not post any message in the talk page where the initial changes by Jacob Peters detally explained.--Nixer 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When engaged in a content dispute, yes, that is the policy. However, Nixer's Block Log is the most extensive testament to disruptive editing that I've ever seen on WP, and his last edit before the block was to restore deleted material that had been posted by a sockpuppet. Under the circumstances, Zoe's actions were totally appropriate, and the block was justified. Doc Tropics 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Now I know that admins have right to block me when they want. One more question though: by which sockpuppet was posted that material? Who of the users is sock? Give us the knowledge!--Nixer 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Excluding Zoe's recent block, Nixer has been blocked thirty times, for a total time of almost two months. At what point do we say enough is enough? Although I don't think Zoe should have blocked indefinitely a user with which she was having a content dispute, the indefinite block was not exactly a bad idea. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Other blocks were the same. POV-pusher admins feel free to block those who do not agree with them in circumvent any rules.--Nixer 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that as an involved party in this dispute, Zoe should have gone elsewhere for admin intervention. If admins are able to just block users regardless of their own involvement in a dispute it starts to give them carte blanche to do what they want, and opens up the floodgates for increases in users crying foul of admin actions (which, having looked at this page for several months are common enough anyway). In a case such as this, even though the block may have been justifiable, outside opinions should have been sought.-Localzuk 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How would you justify a block for one edit?--Nixer 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have been consistently disruptive and appear unwilling to stop, a block can be legitimate. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you decide that I am distructive from the blocks? For example, once some users added information into article Comparative military ranks of World War II, which was perverted and vandalized by a vandal Roitr. I reverted them to a consensus version which was edited in a temporary page for more than a month by a number of users, explained the situation, but the users continued to add the info. Then I was blocked for a week. Their edits were completely perverted by Roitr and when unblocked I added manually all their info into non-vandalized version (and now I was supported by even those users). This version continues without sufficient changes until now. But nobody asked me to excuse. After such blocks admins feel free to block me whenever they want.--Nixer 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who is classing this as a content dispute must have far better eyesight than I do. All I can see are edits so obviously POV and trollish in nature ("brilliant and heroic" for some spy???I'm not saying I disagree, but most of America would!) that they desperately needed reverting, and blocks for the users involved. My compliments to Tariqabjotu for counting all those blocks: I gave up halfway through. Enough should have been enough a long time ago, and Zoe's indefblock was entirely correct. Moreschi 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And why we should have here American bias?--Nixer 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. Look, to describe somone - uncited - as brilliant and heroic - is awful POV that the only remedy for is cutting. There was no American bias before that edit - I don't think that person was even mentioned. Even if he had been, provided he had been described in a neutral manner that is not American POV and should not be tampered with.

In fact the article was very biased. But I did not revert to support the "brilliant" wording. In fact I reverted the deletion of the material I've added.--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and your blocks. I don't think you can claim that in each instance of the 30 you were dove-pure innocent, specially when they all seem to say the same thing - 3RR violation. After 30 blocks - no, I don't trust you. Does anyone? Moreschi 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Now any admin feels free to block me.--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This was not a content dispute. Nixer has clearly violated policy, and it was perfectly justified for Zoe to block for those violations. I agree with others that an indef block is long overdue. I would suggest we begin discussion of a possible community ban for this editor; it would certainly seem justified, just on the evidence of his Block Log alone. Doc Tropics 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Which policy did I violate? And if it is violation then why not to block other users who also reverted to the same version (Humbabba, Mista-X, Jacob Peters)?--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I would enthusiastically support a Community ban, something that should have happened a long time ago. Moreschi 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there identified puppet accounts? Tom Harrison 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that a ban is appropiate, but it was not appropiate for User:Zoe to administer it because it was a content dispute she was involved in, she should have asked another administrator to do it. Dionyseus 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That "content dispute" thing at Stalin's page was ridiculous. Its like haveing a "content dispute" with neo-nazis on Hitler page. Just one perfect example of Nixer's propaganda from deportations part: During World War II, the Soviet government conducted a series of deportations. Treasonous collaboration with the invading Germans and anti-Soviet rebellion were the reasons for these deportations., isnt it nice wording, especially considering the fact that first deportations were conducted before barbarossa at the time then USSR and Germany were big friends.--Staberinde 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not me who inserted this. Though the sentence seems right.--Nixer 21:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more I sense something odd going on. User:Jacob Peters and User:Zvesda have eerily similar contributions. Secondly, both accounts have already been blocked for revert/edit/move warring. Deja vu, anyone? Here Zvesda pops up pretty much out of the blue to support Jacob Peter's version in the move wars, which is just a little odd. Zvesda, as we know, has definitely used sockpuppetry. User:Humbabba has an equally suspicious contributions list. I would suggest CheckUser on all of these accounts. Moreschi 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support the checkuser.--Nixer 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way I have to point out that we still have one question we did not answered yet. As said Staberinde, he views defenters of the USSR to be similar to defenders of Nazi Germany. If to accept this point of view, then in fact all those who defend the USSR are disruptors and vandals. But would this be NPOV?--Nixer 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, putting words in my mouth is not effective strategy, if you didnt understood what i meant i suggest to read my comment again.--Staberinde 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While I believe that Zoe should have asked a non-involved admin to review the case 'just to be on the safe side', it is rather obvious he did the 'right thing' by blocking clearly disruptive users.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well. Nice little kerfuffle here while I was out Christmas shopping. Nixer had reverted the ridiculous Soviet propaganda that Zvesda had inserted three time. I warned Zvesda about a three revert warning, and he immediately created User:Karl Fuchs, whcih I immediately warned was going to count as a violation of the 3RR if it was used to attempt to revert the article. Instead, Nixer did the revert. I was planning on blocking Nixer for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but once I saw his block log, I figured that 24 hours would mean nothing to someone who's blocked all the time, and so I initiated an indefeinte block. Remember, please, that indefinite is not permanent. If Nixer had agreed not to re-insert the vandalism, I would have immediately unblocked, but instead he decided to whine. I see that Nixer has been inappropriately unblocked -- a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation, whether performed by one person or by a group of people, and all are to be blocked if they are involved in the violation. I had nothing to do with any sort of conent argument over this article, all I was trying to do was to get rid of Zvesda's silly additions (see the addition to Gulag that he also added, which I also reverted). I told him not to add his personal opinions into articles, and he immediately did it again. I warned him not to 3RR, and he did it with his sock puppet, which I have also indef blocked, and I blocked Zvesda for 24 hours. I have now re-blocked Nixer for 10 hours, which is probably about the length of time his block should have continued. Although why this should have to be discussed, I cannot fathom. Wheel warring over blocks is never appropriate, especially without discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation, whether performed by one person or by a group of people, and all are to be blocked if they are involved in the violation. - What? I am confused - I thought WP:3RR stated an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages page within a 24 hour period. and Using sock puppets (multiple accounts owned by a single user) to avoid this limit is a violation of WP:SOCK, but the policy does not apply to groups.? Doesn't this directly contradict that? Just so we are clear on this. Yes, Nixer's actions seem to have been inappropriate, but 3RR doesn't apply across groups - unless you can show that Nixer is the same person as those other editors. (I would support a checkuser in this case).-Localzuk 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, if a certain trolling organization, or Wikipediawatch, or some web forum decided they didn't like a Misplaced Pages action, all they have to do is to coordinate an attack on an article so that each member only performs three reverts, and we can't do anything about it, even if it's pure nonsense? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not my point. You stated that they were blocked for 3RR - and shouldn't be. It is a bit of an assumtion of bad faith to state that they are all part of the same group with no evidence (especially in this case where Nixer is shown to be a seperate editor, and was adding sourced information into the article).

With your attack analogy, if it is pure nonsense, and the users are obviously meatpuppets/sockpuppets then they can be blocked for vandalism (they don't have to have the full 4 warnings), or the page can be protected/semi-protected.

My point here, all along, has been that 1) You had a conflict of interest on the article (which I seem to be in the minority in believing) and 2) your label of the block as a violation of 3RR was incorrect. I am not trying to be persistent, just trying to make sure that you don't think you can block different people for reversions under the 3RR, and to make sure that you don't think it is acceptable to block people you are in a dispute with (it still looks like a dispute to me, as the user was adding information that was sourced so isn't simple vandalism or simple pov pushing).-Localzuk 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So a user comes along and adds "George W. Bush" is the biggest war criminal in history" to the Bush article. And I remove it, and warn them not to add their personal opinions to Misplaced Pages articles. And they add it again, and I remove it again. And they add it again, and I remove it again and warn them of 3RR. And they add it again. I can't block them or remove the edit because "I am involved in the dispute"? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that admins should never block in content disputes, I sometimes see a worrying tendency to call something a content dispute in order to challenge a block. (I remember that in the case of Mel Etitis, too. He became involved in something as an administrator, the user continued the disruptive behaviour, Mel blocked, and hey presto, a thread was started on one of the noticeboards about his "abuse" of blocking powers.) I've looked at the history of the Stalin article. Zoe's last edit before 2 December was a rollback of vandalism in August. How does that make her "involved"? I'm particularly concerned that Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington put in the block log that it was a "ridiculous block" and that the blocking admin "was involved in editing dispute". Block log entries need to be worded very carefully, as errors cannot be corrected later. AnnH ♫ 18:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly concur with AnnH's assesment; the charge of "content dispute" is simply a red herring to distract from Nixer's ongoing habits of disruption. Doc Tropics 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to this - Zoe had been removing the posts of 'Zvesda' - but Nixer disagreed with this, obviously thinking that some of the information was acceptable. This is a content dispute - another editor, seperate to the revert war between Zoe and Zvesda had made it obvious (by means of a revert) that they don't think it should be removed. How is this anything but a content dispute? I just can't see how it isn't one. And it seems a couple of other editors (2 admins) agree with me too.-Localzuk 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you understand what I am saying? Adding 'George W. Bush is the biggest war criminal in history' to the article on Bush is a violation of WP:BLP and would be simple vandalism too. Revert warring over it would not be necessary - they are being a vandal. In this case, the user was adding information that was partly sourced. Please try and see what I am saying - we have policies governing blocks and I do not see how you can say that what you were reverting was vandalism or that Nixer was breaching 3RR. Yes, there were problems with it, but lots of edits are a mixed bag of good and bad things.-Localzuk 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser

Her's the CheckUser result, without wading into the middle of the discussion. Nixer is probably not Zvesda, Zvesda@netscape.net, Jacob Peters, Victor Serge, or Klaus Fuchs. However, I can say fairly certanly that all of those accounts are the same person. Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, DMC. I have permablocked all the sockpuppets and gave Jacob 1 week block for his sockpuppeting and block avoidance (on top of his 48h for Holodomor move and edit war). Alex Bakharev 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Humbabba linked to any of those accounts? Best, Moreschi 09:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also how about User:Mikhail Frunze, User:68.126.6.70, User:68.126.240.181, User:68.123.224.156, User:68.123.227.112, User:69.111.8.1? Alex Bakharev 10:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Humbabba looks distinct and Mikhail is too old to check. I can't really make any comment regarding the IPs since I'm not comfortable giving out personally identifiable information yet. If you suspect an IP is being used for block evasion, I'll look at it. Dmcdevit·t 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User:Irate

Using User:84.9.192.124 Disruptive editing, offensive comments and refusal to discuss on talk pages. MRSC • Talk 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please block this IP? He continues to make edits. MRSC • Talk 09:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that Irate has rotating IPs?? --SunStar Net 13:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please block him, he will not respond to discussion but continues to make edits. MRSC • Talk 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:84.9.192.124 has now been blocked. However, he is now evading his ban using User:87.75.130.177. Can someone please block User:87.75.130.177. Thanks. 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Puppy Mill as sockpuppet

This user seems a sockpuppet of Daniel Brandt, or at least a user acting very similarly. He asked me a string of candidate questions for arbcom at that obviously refer to Brandt, his first article edit (after making his userpage) was to Daniel Brandt, and his vote against Cynical's RFA is based on similar concerns to Brandt's: . Furthermore, his questions to Will Bebeck at reflect other concerns recognizable from Misplaced Pages Review.

Seems very clearly either Brandt or some other banned and disruptive user using the account to quietly push the agenda they got banned for pushing aggressively before.

My inclination is to block indefinitely (and in fact that's what I did, then backed off and decided to be more cautious) - any thoughts here? Phil Sandifer 16:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has a few good contributions on unrelated material. I would issue them a strong message about not pushing such issues and not asking obviously loaded questions to ArbCom candidates. Also, suggest running a checkuser to see if its Brandt. JoshuaZ 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the questions in and of themselves - I intend to answer them. They're valid questions. But the overall pattern of behavior looks like Brandt or another WR poster making an account that won't be an obvious sockpuppet. It is, if you'll pardon the term, an obvious non-obvious sockpuppet. Phil Sandifer 18:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't block people for affiliations with external websites. We don't block someone for being at ED or WR, I hope. If this is a sockpuppet of an actually indefinitely banned user, we have to find that out by CheckUser. There is no blocking for pursuing the causes of an external website. Heck, if we did that we'd be blocking people for seeming to be like people who seem to be like people who claim to be GNAA. Geogre 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All true, none of it what I was asking. The account looks at every level to be a sockpuppet - showed up, immediately hit Brandt, quickly began edits in line with an existing crusade, is serving as a mouthpiece for banned users. It screams sockpuppet, and CheckUser has always been treated as a nice bonus in these cases, but not necessary. Phil Sandifer 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block under the circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Irascible curmudgeon

Some dude by the name of User:Wavy G is dominating the Fred G. Sanford article. I looked on the article and I saw the phrase "irascible curmudgeon" there, and replaced it with the more simple, rational, "irritable" on the article. He has dominated the article and continues to dispute and remove changes to the article. Any help?

That looks like a content dispute more than something an admin is going to help you with. Try Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. -Amarkov _edits 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is your opinion?

You don't want to know my opinion. Danny Lilithborne 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is don't edit war over two words. -Amarkov _edits 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I know, you think it is a stupid argument - but come on "irascible curmudgeon." What the hell? It is a bad way to word the article, which is already redundant in describing Sanford's characteristics.

Okay. Good. Now please go discuss that on the article talk page? -Amarkov _edits 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please. Edit warring over "irascible curmudgeon" and "irritable person" is about the lamest thing possible. Get back to writing an encyclopedia instead of arguing over semantics. And, like what Amarkov said, argue on the talk page, not here. --physicq (c) 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I quit, WIkipedia sucks, especially if it is full of editors that put words like that in articles - I curse this project to hell

I'm sorry, but if you're going to quit because another editor disagrees with you on one word... I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. -Amarkov _edits 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why am I imagining one or both parties in the dispute clutching his chest and shouting, "I'm coming, Elizabeth, it's the big one?" (Besides, Aunt Esther would make anyone irritable.) Geogre 13:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Scientology sock?

User:Highfructosecornsyrup appears from his/her contributions page to be a relatively new user. And yet s/he jumped rapidly into controversial articles about Scientology and began editing in a disruptive and rude manner, covering articles with spurious tags and provoking fights with other editors. I suspect this person to be a sock puppet or "hatted" (officially assigned) meat puppet of banned editors User:AI or User:Terryeo. --FOo 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no basis for these paranoid accusations, and I only began earnestly editing Scientology articles this very evening. For the most part I haven't even been editing per se, I've just been pointing out some POV/sourcing problems and trying to open it up for consensus on the talk pages. I don't think my use of tags was "spurious" and am happy to discuss the matter with impartial editors. I've been explaining my edits on every talk page, which is more than I can say for the editors who automatically revert without using the talk page. Finally, the claim of "provoking fights with other editors" is a just-plain lie, no other way to say it. This whole Scientology thing tonight has been quite bizarre. I've been on the receiving end of the fight-provoking, not the inciting end, and I can prove it with diffs if anyone really wants to drag this into a big debacle. I'd prefer to work on improving the articles, however. Highfructosecornsyrup 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he can spell, so it's not Terryeo. yandman 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, freaky this is like deja-vu. This is an extract from an email I sent maybe 6 hours ago;

Are you thinking Terryeo, or AI? (or god forbid another..)

I dunno, he's agressive, obviously made about 100 or so non Scieo edits first - and is DEFINITELY a sock of someone:

He created an article immediately, used correct categories, sections, external linking, wikicode, stubbed and used an edit summary (big teller) and then signed correctly on his first ever talk page edit.

At best he edited as an anon first, but then why stay away from Co$ articles until registering?

And since, nommed articles for like Stacy Brooks for AfD (which I think Ive saved), labelled copyvios and is quoting WP:RS back at us...

There's also User:UNK/User:JimmyT as other sock possibilities (who I actually think were User:AI/User:Nikitchenko anyway). So, Bets anyone?? ;) Glen 11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When you friendly people get done speculating and insulting, I'd like to get back to discussing the bias problems with the articles. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, right after you come clean re your prior activity here I guess huh? Glen 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What gives you the right to make such accusations? Highfructosecornsyrup 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

C'mon. Are you honestly asserting that before the creation of that user account barely ten days ago; that 20 minutes after creation, you created Fenster School (which you made in one edit). And that article was laid out perfectly, used the correct stub tag, categorized perfectly, and even used the edit summary... 20 minutes after creation... if you are saying, that was your first edit here, If thats your story, then. cool. Glen 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that you're surprised that I am not a moron. I've been following Misplaced Pages closely for two years now. I knew what edit summaries, sandbox, Wiki-markup, stub tags, categories, AfDs, etc. were over a year ago. Maybe you've become so burned out by the neverending barrage of kids who start editing Misplaced Pages ten seconds after they discover it, that you've forgotten that some people study it for years before seeing a need to jump in. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, thats exactly what I'd thought you'd say. So, you studied wikipedia, wikipedia is interative so you are saying you have edited it before. Fine. You're also very knowledgeable about Scientology. You picked a copyright violation out straight away, and know the subject, well, like you have studied it for two years. Thats fine, so have I. But, what I dont believe, and nor do many others; is that you've been here, studying wikipedia for two years (your words) - with a clear point of view when it comes to subjects, like scientology. And, with all the unbsourced, bias artcles you seem to think we have = over that 2 year study period, you never tried to add a source, fix some POV, vote for something, for 2 years. Then you create an account one day, and all hell breaks lose. Thats what happened? Glen 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology isn't my raison d'etre here. Schools are. Highfructosecornsyrup 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that everybody who sees the set of articles on Scientology as having exaggerated focus on controversy and criticisc, or as poorly sourced is accused of being a sockpuppet. This includes user:Fossa who also complained about poorly sourced criticism of Scientology. I have not a reputation of being lenient against cults and NRMs but I support User:Highfructosecornsyrup requests for sources and for reducing the sometimes extremely prominent space of controversy and criticisms such as in the template:Scientology. 17:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Block review request

Was I wrong indefblocking IP of blocked user:Will314159 block log who was evading the block? I thought I am doing the right thing, but it seems Centrx doesn't think so so I decided to ask the community. On the second thought, the duration of Will314159's block probably should have been extended for his evasion. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless it is an open proxy, I would just extend Will314159's block and then block the ip to match. Viridae 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be an open proxy...I'd just block it for the same amount of time Will is blocked. I would also reset the original block instead of extending it. Khoikhoi 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx insists that this is a dynamic IP, so I have unblocked it in the spirit of good faith. ←Humus sapiens 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, its dynamic in the sense that it appears to be a cable modem, and the user could force it to reset if he knows how. Thatcher131 12:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For most IP vandals, a 3 month block is effectively an indefinite block, and IP's do get reassigned. If the vandal's parents ever send junior off to military academy, or if the angry poster decides to get rehab, or if the lonely vandal finds a significant other and mellows out, or if the power company turns off the juice to the cable modem (speaking in general terms, here, and not this particular one), then the IP may attempt to do some good. Big blocks are indefinite blocks, unless we're dealing with some of our professional vandals. Geogre 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock report

If you look at ] you will see that User: 74.225.215.248 and User: 65.33.193.105 are making the same unverified claims as if they are true and obvious. Having looked through the talk history too I noticed several IP addresses that seem to be one in purpose with this user. Although my IP address shows up there too when I forgot to sign in, the difference is that I went back and signed my user name next to it. I know that it is not neccessary to sign in or register, but this user has utilized multiple IP address with the apparent intent of sockpuppetry, I know that he has been chastised at each IP for misconduct, is engaged at what can only be called vandalism at the aforementioned article, and has even signed his name (on the Strata talk page) so as to not show his IP address but rather redirect to the Misplaced Pages article "Blah." This seems wrong to me. I would like him to stick to either one username, or one IP unless he has a good reason otherwise because its deceptive. I think he edits under multiple IPs to give the impression that his content is acceptable to multiple people rather than the lies it is. Furthermore, I want his lies out of the article I was working on. Thanks Green hornet 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected. I hope this is sufficient. If, in the future, it appears that the user is using multiple IPs to avoid 3RR, and the problem is ongoing, you can have the page protected again. 18:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-consensus page moves

Administrator intervention is requested to stop a few users who are engaging in non-consensus page moves of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of television episode articles. There has been a dispute at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television) for a few weeks now. The page is marked as disputed, attempts at discussion have been ongoing , and the issue is now moving on to mediation. However, a few users, evidently frustrated with the slowness of the process, are declaring premature "consensus" and engaging in large quantities of page moves . I understand that anything that is moved can eventually be moved back, but we're talking a couple thousand pages here, plus redirects, plus many of these pages are at names which have already been the result of elaborate consensus-building discussions by various WikiProjects, so I think it would be better if we had a complete freeze on these kinds of naming changes for now. The situation has been exacerbated by extreme uncivility and uncooperative behavior: "respond to this crap" , "bad faith delay tactics" "proposing a poll is uncivil and disruptive" . Can I please get a neutral admin to pop in to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television) and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and simply say, "Stop with the moves, take it to WP:DR, don't move anything else until it's been worked out"? --Elonka 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Several admins have commented on the situation, but each time Elonka has deemed them "non neutral" because they disagreed with her. -- Ned Scott 09:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the poll were re-run and found in Elonka's favor, it would still require exceptions to be established at various places - either a Wikiproject or at an individual page. In fact, it would just require WP:RM to be run for pages which don't meet the current guideline - which is already advisable. The page moves would still be appropriate for ones that have not established exceptions - which is most all of them. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As a note, both Ned Scott and Wknight94 are active parties in this dispute, so don't really count as neutral opinions.

For a recent example of how this group of editors is steamrollering through various sections of Misplaced Pages, I point to Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987) episodes#Disambiguation, where an earlier naming convention has been attacked, with multiple controversial page moves being pushed through without discussion. The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006. Then, a couple days ago, as overflow from the dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television), an editor from the dispute, in a violation of WP:POINT, jumped in to the TMNT category and started moving articles around, giving only about 24 hours notice that they were going to start , and then when no objections immediately surfaced, they proceeded. When the situation was noticed and objections were raised, the talk page has turned into a battleground, as other editors from the NC discussion have poured in. And the pages can't be moved back, because they're editing the redirects to "lock" them. Please, this group of editors is working its way through multiple sections of Misplaced Pages, making a kangaroo court consensus, and moving many hundreds of articles. We need for these moves to stop, so that normal WP:DR procedures can be followed. --Elonka 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And again we have all tried to explain to Elonka that there is no problem. There was no previous consensus, just some guy went and named a bunch of articles that were a little out of line with WP:NC-TV. No big deal. We moved them, there are redirects all in place, no double redirects, and no rational reason whatsoever to use an article titling method that doesn't fit with WP:NC-TV and WP:D. In all honestly, the only issue here is the users who are making it an issue. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's sentence, The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006 boils down to one editor who misplaced one note stating his sole preference. No evidence of either "TMNT editors" or "several iterations" has been given by Elonka. Just one guy with one iteration all by himself 9 months ago. This is the type of misrepresentation we've been dealing with for a month at WP:NC-TV. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka is asking for someone to say "take it to WP:DR" — however, dispute resolution is underway. An RfM has been filed, but is currently stalled after the RfM page itself was locked because of an edit war largely perpetrated by Elonka. (Incidentally, I believe that the RfM dispute is settled, and if a neutral party would like to unprotect the RfM page it would be greatly appreciated — the admins hoping to participate in the mediation have been asked not to unlock the page ourselves.)

What Elonka calls a "kangaroo court consensus" is the result of extensive discussion at WT:TV-NC. Elonka feels that due to some irregularities in an earlier straw poll, no consensus has been reached on the guideline; she is calling for a second poll. However, subsequent to that poll a supermajority of participating editors expressed support for the existing guideline, and the discussion following the poll showed a strong supermajority supporting the principle "disambiguate only when necessary". Most editors on the page consider this a consensus, but Elonka vocally disputes this.

Incidentally, at least five admins have examined and/or participated in the discussion at WT:TV-NC, and all five have agreed that a consensus exists for the current guideline. For the record these five admins are myself, Chuq, Steve Block, Radiant! and wknight94(along with many other comments on the subject). Any other participation in the discussion is, of course, welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is all users need to calm down, take two steps back and take a deep breath, all this moving helps nothing; Especially if mediation is to be successful, I advise that it stops until consensus can be achieved. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually "all this moving" is just the result of following a policy, making the naming of wikipedia pages more consistent and in line with WP:D, WP:NAME and WP:TV-NAME. On the other hand, I don't know what insisting that consensus doesn't exist when it clearly does, insisting that an active guideline should not be followed, and trying to change a guideline without consensus via revert warring helps. It's just disruptive. And it should be noted, the guideline is no longer marked as "disputed" (it never should have been in the first place as there wasn't consensus for that addition) and it looks like this issue is not going to mediation. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sfacets, Sahajhist, ownership issues

FYI, Sfacets (talk · contribs) and (minorly) Sahajhist (talk · contribs) have been exerting strong ownership over the articles connected to their acknowleged guru, Nirmala Srivastava and the associated movement, Sahaja Yoga. The ownership has been expressed by repeatedly deleting legitimate sources and criticisms on flimsy excuses while inserting barely-sourced positive information. Sfacets has also been involved in including derogatory information about competing gurus and opponents. When asked pointed questions about his editing and uploads Sfacets suddenly (but unevenly) became too busy to reply. Sfacets appears to be involved in gross POV pushing, fraudulent image copyright tags, and tendentious editing. When he returns to active editing I will seek further dispute resolution steps (e.g. mediation). These intra-guru battles should be handled with utmost neutrality. -Will Beback · † · 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion and I can understand your frustration. The formal insistence by user:Sfacets and user:Sahajhist on (near-)impeccable sources for criticisms strikes me as a bit unfair and not in accordance with the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I tried to find (and to some extent have found) reputable sources for criticism. Andries 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We all appreciate the need for high standards according to BLP and the encyclopedia project. These standards should be applied consistently, not bent forward and backwards according to the topic. The editor in question has been making high demands on critical sources for his own guru while restoring unsourced defamation about other gurus. . -Will Beback · † · 10:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have always been open to discussion regarding these sources, and have provided reasons backed by Misplaced Pages policy why some of the sources are not suitable. The dialogue, sadly, is mostly one-sided.

I also requested a RFC on one of the sources, to which other editors concurred with my view that the source in question was unreliable.

Each of the sources have been scrutinized, studied and discussed by the editors involved, and argument have been provided why to keep or discard these ources

I am in no way asserting ownership, and if I am concentrating more heavily on this article at the moment it is because many sources/external links which failed the WP:RL and WP:EL policies were being added, and because, being an "acknowledged" follower of the movement believe that I can add to information missing from the article. I have in fact been working on a large section on beliefs, which User:WillbeBack has commented on it's incompleteness.

In response to "restoring unsourced defamation about other gurus" if I may direct you to the examples in question you will notice that one of them was reverted because it was uncommented, and the other because it had just been added, and needed time for editors to find sources to prove it, before removing it. I edit many articles, and never to push my POV.

I enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages, and one of my favorite guidelines is "Assume good faith". I have been (and still am) busy in real life, and can only ask that User:WillbeBack understand that this is the reason I have been unable to answer his enquiries on the images he refers to above. Yes, 2 of them have incorrect copyright info, I will fix this when I have time (feel free to remove them until such a time, if you feel the necessity)

Peace out, Sfacets 11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:RFC and other means of dispute resolution. The administrator noticeboard is not Misplaced Pages's complaint department. Only bring up things that need urgent attention. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

One day Misplaced Pages is going to have to deal with the issue of how to positively use the contributions of editors who actually have some real-life knowledge on the entries they contribute to. I use the same user name here as I do on yahoo, lulu and blogspot - so you can check me out - and even buy my books. :)- Sahajhist 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pisgat Ze'ev

Can anyone review the conduct there? I think ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs) in paricular deserves a blocks, since s/he's the one repeatedly upsetting the status quo. Thank you. - crz crztalk 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add that he has been reverting 5 separate editors on this article since June 2, 2006, rejecting an earlier consensus, but has yet to make even one comment on the article Talk: page. The account itself edits fairly intermittently, and seems to be editing this month mostly for the purpose of reverting that article. I'd support a block of anywhere between 1 week and 1 month, but I leave the exact length up to you. Jayjg 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As the editor being discussed here, I'd just like to say that I represent that remark that "the account ... seems to be editing this month mostly for the purpose of reverting that article". I direct your attention to my list of edits in November, the last full month; you can decide for yourself whether I devoted most of my attention to reverting Pisgat Ze'ev or not. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Consistently with my Self-imposed Block Probation, I am imposing a five day block on ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs) for s/his conduct on Pisgat Ze'ev. Please direct further communication to my talk page. - crz crztalk 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

From an admittedly brief look over this, it does look like a block could be justified. Am I the only one thinking five days might be a bit strong? If a shorter block is enough to "get the message across" and change their behavior, leading to dispute resolution and more reasonable behavior, good; if not, it would seem easy enough to re-block. Any takers? Luna Santin 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking 72 hours... Daniel.Bryant 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think 5 days is fine. Jayjg suggested up to a month. Feel free to shorten it w/o discussion if you feel it's warranted. - crz crztalk 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree 5 days is entirely appropriate. If anything its lenient. This user has been edit warring over months, repeatedly reverting back to his same WP:POV edit without any attempt to reach a consensus on the talk page. If this had happened on a couple of occasions, then a 5 day block would be too much, but a sustained, long-term edit war is a serious matter and we need to send a strong message. This is unacceptable behavior that seriously damages the fundamental processes of Misplaced Pages. I have already declined the user's unblock request. Gwernol 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let this one sit, unless fresh opinions or evidence come up to the contrary. Luna Santin 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no earlier consensus on this page. I strongly object to the block for reasons I have now set out on the talk page. Either both sides in this edit war should be blocked or neither. Palmiro | Talk 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Further note: pursuant to my raising the question on his talk page, Crzrussian told me that "I blocked the one who was stirring trouble, the one who was reverted by multiple editors." Since the current spate of edit warring started the user who has been blocked has made 15 reverts and been reverted by two other users (one of them Amoruso). User:Amoruso has made 13 reverts and has also been reverted by two other users (one, obviously, being the blocked user). Clearly Amoruso deserves a block too, though arguably only thirteen fifteenths as long as ILike2BeAnonymous's. Or of course, neither could be blocked. But sauce for the goose = sauce for the gander. Palmiro | Talk 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Please take this to WP:DRV not here.--Doc 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spanish Gibraltarians

The article has gone thru 2 Afds so far. Although i am not accusing Mackensen of acting in bad faith when closing the 2nd Afd, i am just questionning here the validity of the argument presented as a summary of the closure. Presenting the article for the deletion review once more would be viewed as a WP:POINT or as if i am acting in bad faith. Is there someone who can review this and comment about it? Cheers -- Szvest Ω 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the place you are looking for is deletion review. Sandstein 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

... or if you just disagree with the closing comment, not with the AfD outcome, you could discuss it with the closing admin on their talk page. I'm not sure what you expect us to do here. Sandstein 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, first I've heard of it. I find it useful to explain my reasoning when closing complex deletion discussions. By all means if he has a beef he'd do better to talk to me, or take it to deletion review. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you talk about "beef" i just find your comment so beefy Mackensen. I haven't though you'd consider it personal especially that i remained objective. I explained above why i posted it here and your comment is an example of uncivility from an ex-arbitrator! -- Szvest Ω 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackenson's comment is here is hardly uncivil, it sounds like you are the one taking this personally. And yes, he is an "ex-arbitrator" and that was a cute but failed attempt to make those words an insult somehow. Nice try though. Next you can tell us how horrible his behaviour is because he's an admin. pschemp | talk 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hardly uncivil" is a POV as it is the way i considered it. Have you had something related to the comment i had made above about the Afd closure or are you here to defend people? -- Szvest Ω 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I am an ex-arbitrator, and I wake everyday grateful that I chose to resign! Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing I dont understand is why the article, which had been undeleted after a votation, was then deleted by Mackensen without a clear consensus to do so (9 votes to keep out of 19). Is this not against wikipedia rules? --Burgas00 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision policy At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Misplaced Pages:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains.

Where is this rough consensus?? I seriously feel that the page should be undeleted since Mackensen has blatantly flouted wikipedia policy.

--Burgas00 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. I think the forum you're looking for is deletion review. I saw no consensus to keep--none that was based on policy, at any rate. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy guidelines. A consensus is needed to delete not to keep. Its simple enough.--Burgas00 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in your statement that invalidates the close. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand your reasoning, Mackensen. It is against wiki rules to delete an article without a rough consensus to delete. You have done so. In what way does my statement NOT invalidate your behaviour?--Burgas00 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Bowser Koopa

A few things look odd at this category, Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Bowser Koopa. I really feel like the creators of the category are, in fact, sockpuppets of Bowser Koopa (talk · contribs). The Showster (talk · contribs) and You're The Man Now Dog (talk · contribs) were both registered 6 minutes apart, within 10 minutes of the registration of Bowser, King of the Koopas (talk · contribs) a Bowser Koopa sockpuppet. Anyone else seeing this? Metros232 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about those two users being socks of Bowser Koopa (though the way it was written makes it seem likely), but that category had to go. -- Steel 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was recreated, I deleted it and warned The Showster not to create it again. Metros232 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

user mass-replacing various image deletion tags with "promophoto"

Pixel ;-) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Incidentally, do we allow emoticons in usernames? — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't. It's not insulting or obscene. º¡º got away with it, too. --Kizor 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has asserted that he/she is doing this because the deletion tags = WP:CREEP. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Plese don't distort what i said.Ther's a huge difference betwen what i said and what you read.

No it doesn't it just allows our uploaders to automaticly identify those cases which are likely not to be good fair use cases. No extra instructions are added.Geni 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is by definition WP:CREEP.If it's not what is then.i'm not posting here any more.buy buy.--87.65.190.178 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24 hours for blindly making WP:POINT violations. I picked four of the images at random and none of them had source info before the autoreplaceable fair use tag was removed, which means they're still fair game for deletion anyway. Kimchi.sg 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he just posted to my talk page as 87.65.226.171 (talk · contribs). — CharlotteWebb 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously him. He also posted to whatshisname's page using IP 87.65.153.140 (talk · contribs). I looked back through his image edits and it appears he may have been trolling from day one, replacing free photos with copyrighted ones, using some sorry rationales like "he's too old in the other photo" or "this is a photo of him accepting the nobel prize, NOT REPLACEABLE", etc. etc. see for yourself, I reverted a lot of his edits. — CharlotteWebb 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me how I know this, but he won't be coming back from the 24-hour block. — CharlotteWebb 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He won't be coming back, period. The user's password was pasted on the userpage, and as per poilcy on open accounts, the account has been blocked indef. User:Zscout370 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP: 87.65.153.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was also patently him, and yesterday evening (18:58 UTC) I gave the IP a 31 hour block. M a rtinp23 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SAAB forum question

hello,

we recently bought a new saab 9-2x aero and joined an excellent users forum: http://saab92x.com/ while doing a search on wikipedia for our car, i noticed that our forum wasn't listed as an external link, and edited the links to add our forum.

i posted my actions to our forum, and i was informed that two previous external listings to our excellent forum have been deliberately removed. i am bringing this to your attention as removal of valid links is clearly not consistent with stated wikipedia's policies.

please advise,

mark.a.solomon <emailremoved>

Misplaced Pages is not for advertising your forum - see WP:SPAM -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More generally please read the guidelines for external links. Thatcher131 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Evading Indef Block, Again

ThornhilllWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sockpuppet of VaughanWatch (making it something like 62 now... Besides the obviously username vio, his edits are again consistent with VW's earlier patterns, especially this. An indef block would be appreciated. -- Chabuk 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

While I can't speak to if this is Vaughan or not (I don't remember encountering him), the user does seem to fit the pattern of indef'ed sockpuppet returned under another name: immediately jumping into articles with proper tagging, proper use of terminology, and edgy combativeness. Patstuart 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
And then there's this. No, I take it back, I have encountered him before, and it looks like Vaughan to me. Patstuart 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on WP:V

There is a dispute on WP:V, over the difference between these two versions. In particular, the debate appears to be about exactly how many "content policies" Misplaced Pages has, and whether it's important to cite this number on WP:V. If I understand correctly, one party asserts that there are exactly three content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) and that this number must be listed, and the other party asserts that there are several more content policies (such as WP:NOT and WP:GFDL) and that the number '3' is either incorrect or irrelevant. Some other people, such as myself, fail to see why this is such a big deal either way, but since WP:V is an important page it would be nice if some outsiders chimed in, on the talk page. (Radiant) 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like another example for Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars. The two editors should be given a heavy dose of perspective, and perhaps sent to an article that needs improvement so they can use their powers for good and not evil. --Jayron 32 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen King being vandalized by IPs

Could we please get Stephen King semi-protected? It keeps getting vandalized by random IP addresses. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Finlay McWalter took care of the IP being used, and the article is back to normal. I dont think semi-protection is needed anymore. Thanks anyway, though! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave a note at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection the next time you want a page protected. Cheers - Aksi_great (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of banned books

List of banned books has been vandalized by 24.19.206.161 3 times after warnings. I think he deserves at least a small block. Alex43223 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take this request to WP:AIV. That is where you notify administrators of vandalism, not here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't reported a vandal in a while. Done. Alex43223 20:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Chempep's inappropriate username

Chempep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s username is inappropriate because every edit he makes will insert linkspam for http://www.chempep.com into the edit history of pages. My report concerning this user on WP:AIV was removed with an explanation of "Husond has handled" -- however, while User:Chempep might not engage in further creation of spam pages, there's no reason to allow him to employ his username for the purpose of linkspam. John254 20:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what there is to do, beyond what is done:

He's been reverted.
If he repeats his spamming, he'll be reverted and blocked.
The existence of his talk page affords so little spam benefit that we needn't worry about it. And a bit of deleted spam isn't a good enough reason to delete a user talk page.
We're not going to take up a bureaucrat's scarce time changing the username of a user with three surviving edits.

Ironically you've aided his spam campaign by repeating his username on this page several times, together with the link to the site - there's no link to the site anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, I think. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Users with inappropriate usernames are normally blocked indefinitely. If we don't block him, then any further edits will insert linkspam into the histories of the articles he edits. We can't then decide to change his username, because an involuntary username change violates the GFDL by not attributing his edits. I'm well aware of the irony of this post affording this user further publicity; however, the posting on WP:ANI wouldn't have been necessary if this user had been indefinitely blocked for having an inappropriate username when he was first reported on WP:AIV. I see no reason not to enforce Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate_usernames against this user. John254 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the indefinite blocking of users with inappropriate usernames is a standard practice, described in Template:UsernameBlocked. John254 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As noted, it violates the section of WP:U dealing with "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website", and as such should be blocked. If he'd like to change it to something meeting policy, that'd be fine, but either way it shouldn't stay as it is. -Hit bull, win steak 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandal text appears on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/RSS_%28file_format%29 (it references HABBO's genitalia) - but I cannot see the text in the edit blocks (the vandalism is in block 2 or block 3 - but editing these does not reveal the text). 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)~

Already gone. Viridae 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (second nomination)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (second nomination)

I've reverted a non-admin close of this debate, but since there has been some rough-housing on this IP's talk regarding my non-admin closing of debates, I thought it wise to place a notice here. - 152.91.9.144 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, boldness over the fact that an administrator is never explicitly stated as necessary to close a non-delete AfD (as far as I know) has gone far. -Amarkov _edits 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it was closed a day early. It wasn't really suitable for a speedy keep, and only admins should close early anyway (says so on Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions), so you were right to reopen it - thanks. --Tango 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't entirely disagree with reverting the close, but a) 152 participated in this discussion, and the close was against him, and b) re-opening would have been sufficient; there was no good reason to relist it on today's AfD page here. Opabinia regalis 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it didn't need to be relisted. Presumably, it was still on transcluded on the correct day's page (if it wasn't it was a very bad close). --Tango 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, reverting the close was proper, but it shouldn't be used to extend the debate past normal limits. Doc Tropics 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Opabinia is correct, I should have noted the perceived conflict of interest in the re-open. I'm not clear on the harm done by relisting, however, as debates tend to go "stale" pretty quickly at AfD and additional information had been presented. - 152.91.9.144 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the close was not proper. There is no rule that non-admins may not close obvious keeps, which this was. This is a case of sour grapes on 152's part. He did not like the way the AFD turned out. The close was good, it was proper, plenty of time was given and it had already been through a DRV that decided to undelete. In fact, he only voted on the AFD to begin with not minutes after a user with a message about it gave him a warning about moving sections on this noticeboard. The bad faith is blatant here. pschemp | talk 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a rule against non-admins closing any AfD early. --Tango 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Tango "rules" aren't everything. There was no wrong doing here and it wasn't that early. pschemp | talk 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've closed this again. It probably shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin (things like unanimous keeps or speedy deletes can be), but that doesn't matter now. It's been open long enough, and after being on DRV has had plenty of time to attract attention, so there's nothing to be gained by putting it back on AfD for five more days. --bainer (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling (and personal hatred?) by Tankred (talk · contribs)

The first one was also trolling, since I stated on my userpage well before , that I do not log in usually .

I do not know any wikipedia policies, wich says signing in is a must, or a policy wich states "only one person/PC". Otherwise, I did not broke any lines of WP:SOCK, but got blocked :) Maybe you should read that policy again, since it was misused in my case. --Vince 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting it. His complaint isn't that you don't log in all the time, his complaint is that you say something using an IP, and then support it with your logged-in account, which is indeed giving an impression of greater support than there actually is. -Amarkov _edits 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

-edit conflict- To be clear again, I was supporting myself always :-) My internet provider DOES NOT give a fix IP to its users, and I never denied that they are belonging to me. Simply: I was not asked, since he never assumed good faith. Never. You know, WP:FAITH would be enough. Just a question before this. If I deny it is right, but I DID NOT DENIED IT no, never! This is why I also took the case as a personal attack. Because it is. Not an easy to realize for outsiders, because this is a rare form, but per WP:NPA it is obvious.--Vince 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were asked, you would have admitted to it. That's fine, I'll assume good faith there. But you weren't asked, so the impression was given that there was more support for the change than there really was. -Amarkov _edits 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There was not, since they were all me, some of them I also overwritten the User:IP to User:Vince. This was an awfully hostile action, wich I took as a pa, because it is. Or such hostility is accepted here?

Otherwise Tankred is edit warring on Hungary's article for the 3rd day now. This is a content dispute, not resolved on the talk page yet. Should be at least warned. (both sides has <refs> to their versions - see my version)--Vince 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if someone (for ex Tankred) is not sure, how many ppl is really supporting something, wich is the normal, WP:FAITH way? Dropping a question abt the IPs, or ingoring all my comments, and acting such hostile? (answer: droppong a question)--Vince 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, VinceB has a long record of vandalism, personal attack and trolling. He has been blocked several times. Now, he is simply lying as I can easily prove. Let me quote what I have written earlier in a similar discussion at User talk:VinceB/Blabla1 because there are relevant diffs included: VinceB refused my suspicion that he/she had ever used the 195.56... IPs and he/she even called my initiation of the formal CheckUser procedure a "personal attack" . For being one of two editors who exposed the connection between VinceB, Slovan, and the IPs, I have been harassed at Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The "personal attack warning" templates have been placed by VinceB on my talk page. I will quote VinceB's reason: "I know that I didn't used sockpuppets, beause I has a username here." Please compare it with the present version "I nearly always do anonim edits instead of using this account". In other words, after the CheckUser confirmed his/her sockpuppetry, VinceB's version of the events was changed from not knowing the 195.56...s into using them in a benign way. I am sorry, but I do not buy it. The use of sockpuppets to vandalize articles and to create impression that a controversial edit is supported by more than one editor is not legitimate at all in my opinion. Tankred 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A short version: VinceB refused my suspicion that he used the 195.56... IPs here.. In an edit summary, he even "agreed with" his own sock puppet as if it was someone else. Tankred 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow I alwas agree with myself :), what a reveal! Dropping a question would be enough. But you did not do it. --Vince 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ususal misinterpreting. I reflected to that User:Slovan or the IPs are sockpuppets of mine. Well, not, because IPs were me (if he would ever drop a question, I would confirm it, but this did not happened). IPs were a month before confirmed by me (see link above - sept 13? anyway september), when checkuser was made (oct 13? - anyway, october).

So In fact checkuser simply proved, that I am not lying, and what I state (for ex on my userpage) is true. Well, knowing this, this above is a personal attack, or not? See. And this line: "In other words, after the CheckUser confirmed his/her sockpuppetry, VinceB's version of the events was changed from not knowing the 195.56...s into using them in a benign way." is a LIE. Oops. Gotcha!

Oh, and whatever I say, Tankred says the same, I accused him POV pushing, he accused me of POV pushing, I accused him of trolling, then he immediately accused me of trolling, etc. The difference was that I always cited my statements, and gave diffs. --Vince 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, again and more slowly: VinceB explicitly stated that 195.56.242.11 was not his IP and my suspicion that 195.56.242.11 was used by him as a sockpuppet was just a personal attack of mine. A CheckUser proved that he indeed used 195.56.242.11 in a disruptive way. Now, he is saying "IPs were me" and "The first one was also trolling". Who is lying now? And as for the ongoing CheckUser, I do not understand why my request is listed as an "incident" here. CheckUser is a standard procedure. If VinceB is innocent, CheckUser itself will clear his name. Tankred 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe read again my comments, since you missed some parts of it while reading. "(if he would ever drop a question, I would confirm it, but this did not happened)". So now you're trying to prove that what I said did not happened - in fact did not happened. :D --Vince 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You should read this also: to see, what is he doing against me. I warned him the same way many tomes to stop calling me a vandal, wich he refused may times. Calling an editor troll/vandal, without evidence is a PA, see WP:TROLL and WP:NPA pages. I just acted the way, it is written down, by giving npa templates. --Vince 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All the diffs of your previous vandalism can be found in the archived version of your talk page. I never use strong words (such as vandalism) without providing evidence. As to the link to a discussion from October that you have just posted here, I do not understand its relevancy. You were on probation at that period because your block was conditionally shortened from one week to 48 hours. What did you do? You reported a false violation of the 3RR rule by another user (no, not me in that case:-). The link is a discussion about that incident and I do not understand why you have put it here now. Tankred 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It demonstrates yr behaviour against me :-), but it's the same as here. Since we're having this discussion above for the 8th or 10th time, and you still does not understand/ignore/dunnowhat-you-do my comments, responses. I see at you as a troll in this case. One time is more than enough for discussing this. This is the 8th (?) time, my link above is at least the 7th time of this discussion. My link where I said you're trolling on yr userpage links to at least the 6th(?) version of the very same discussion between us wich can be seen here. So, you are now troling.--Vince 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. This is a blatant and irrefutable case of VinceB trying to bolster his position by masquerading as two separate users. The block was appropriate. There's nothing to discuss. You're wasting our time, VinceB. Hesperian 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism-like page move

Looks like Duja is not online. Could someone help him out? See User_talk:Duja#vandalism-like_page_move. Thanks! --Espoo 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also revert the vandalism-like edits (the history's been interrupted) that deleted important and valid information and violate WP policies on approved RMs and achieved consensus. The fact that these were done by an admin at the Swedish WP (User:MoRsE) means that these are very serious offenses. He knew exactly what he was doing. --Espoo 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:Cute 1 4 u

I think that Cute 1 4 u has made another sock, User:PumpkinPie. The reason I say this is because User:Pumpkin Pie (notice the space), who is a sock of C14u, welcomed User:PumpkinPie. PumpkinPie also only has on word on her main page, and that is the word "testing". I am reviving this because this discussion was lost in archive 150, and there was only one person that responded, saying that the last edit PumpkinPie made was in July. I can't remember what else that person said, I think it was that we didn't need to worry about it since the last edit was way back in July. I think we still need to block PumpkinPie if it is a sock. If it's not, then sorry for any trouble I may have caused - The RSJ 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, PumpkinPie is basically an abandoned account, and even if it was a sock, there would be no way to determine whether or not it was a sock through checkuser as the account is way too old. We can't even compare edits at this point.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The RSJ 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by classmates with my first and last name

Just about every day, I revert vandalism on Misplaced Pages in my school library. Now, unfortunately, two of my classmates have seen me doing it, and have started vandalizing Misplaced Pages.

The problem is, they keep putting my first and last name in articles (see 1 2 3 for ones I definitely know about).

What I know is that they create accounts through the IP User_talk:208.108.145.4 and then vandalize Misplaced Pages with them, sometimes putting my name in articles.

I dont want to violate WP:LEGAL here (just trying to keep myself from getting banned), but could someone please delete those revisions and possibly block the IP for one month with account creation disabled to get them bored with vandalism?

I appreciate any help here. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you go to WP:RFO, you can request an oversight to permanently remove the edits. As for the user being dealt with, I (not an admin) don't know how Misplaced Pages would deal with a school IP inserting personal information. // I c e d K o l a 03:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, its not the school IP, its accounts made by the IP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You really ought to be taking this to your school authorities too. Hesperian 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If I do so, they'll block the site, perhaps permanently. I dont want that to happen! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have prevented account creation for your school's IP address and extended the block (which was going to expire on December 9) until December 23. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, its started up again through User:Onikudaki and User:LucyJenkin2. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

HELP! My talk page is being vandalized by them. I've requested semi-protection, but HELP NEEDED NOW!!!! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, User:208.108.145.3 (and possibly User:208.108.145.11 could be used) are also being used to create those accounts. Theres a current block on there that expires on December 13th, but account creation wasn't disabled. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be pushy, but is anything going to happen to User:208.108.145.3? If its blocked, I'm betting all my troubles with the vandals will end. Originally posted by 24.50.211.226 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC), who was Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) logged out.

Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm

Note: This incident was automatically archived without resolution. I am reposting exactly as it appears in the archives. It's a pretty straightforward case and I would appreciate any feedback/remedies you guys can offer.

I thought about taking this to WP:SSP, but decided to try posting here first. Blocked user Eowbotm (talk · contribs) appears to be evading his block with the use of accounts Eowbotm1 (talk · contribs), Eowbotm2 (talk · contribs), Eowbotm3 (talk · contribs), and Eowbotm4 (talk · contribs). All of these accounts have committed vandalism:

Vandalism, POV, and other reverted shenanigans (a lot of which is very subtle)

Eowbotm1
Eowbotm2
Eowbotm3
Eowbotm4 (I just now re-added this, is properly cited and should not have been removed)

Evidence incidcating that they're the same accounts (besides the names)

And an edit indicating that Eowbotm3 is Eowbotm2.
And edits by Eowbotm3 and Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm, suggesting a link.
An edit by Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm4, in case more evidence is needed.

I've also found that this user cleared vandalism warnings off his talk pages for Eowbotm1 and Eowbotm4. And just did so again with Eowbotm1 (a day later).

Can we get these sockpuppets of a blocked user who has consistently vandalized on his socks blocked as well? And perhaps an IP ban or something to keep him from doing this again? Thanks in advance. —Lantoka 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded by me, as one of his victims Mgoodyear 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:SSP? -Amarkov _edits 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't socks of indefinitely banned users just be banned by an admin though? WP:SSP takes 10 days. =/ —Lantoka 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can at least say that WP:SSP isn't necessary for vandalism-only accounts, and if those aren't sockpuppets, they're impersonators, which also violates Misplaced Pages policy(not sure which, however).--Vercalos 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked all. People may want to review Eowbotm1 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), the other three are unequivocal vandalism-only socks. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much JzG. —Lantoka 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You've won the battle, but you havent won the war...get down on your knees and take what's coming to you...eowbotmwashere 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub warfare?

StubMcJones (talk • contribs)
Appears to be a single-purpose-account created to obviate the "bat stub" in favour of the "mammal stub." Why anyone would care enough to do so, I have no idea. Does not respond to talk page messages, nothing on either template talk, I'm just guessing here.
152.91.9.144 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops... there are only so many {{bat-stub}}s around, now it's {{cat-stub}}s. Do we have fat-stubs, mat-stubs, and rat-stubs as well?
152.91.9.144 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. Looks like it may be botting, and besides that it's seemingly obvious vandalism. Someone want to help revert all of these? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Several contributions per minute, obvious bot. Patstuart 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (news) disruptor is back again

Was using anon IPs, but is now using newly created, single purpose accounts, with objectionable attack-based account names. Consider this dif . You have to hand it to this guy for his perserverence. Perhaps, however, he needs a new hobby. --Jayron 32 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The linked user appears to be blocked now. - Mgm| 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I thhink it is way past time to take this to the foundation.--MONGO 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Range-block had been placed on the IP ranges. (no edits from the IP, but account creation allowed) The ISP has been contacted repeatedly regarding this, but no reply yet. If I don't hear back from them today. The next step is Range-block with account creation not allowed. Of course, this may (regretfully) affect other customers on that ISP. Until the ISP chooses to respond, this may be necessary. I can get the foundation to attempt a contact to the ISP. Unfortunately, we aren't federal disinformation agents as has been accused and can't wield our magical powers and secret technology. --Aude (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Geh, this noxious dude was also responsible for creating the Misplaced Pages:Clowns to further his trollery. 68.39.174.238 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Still On Duty. Just stormed again. Could you please go on w/ your suggestion Aude? -- Szvest Ω 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User:Irate evading block with User:87.75.130.177

Can someone please block this IP? His edits are causing disruption. MRSC • Talk 08:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My gosh. Glen S has blocked the IP address for a period of 72 hours. Now checking to determine whether or not this is an open proxy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AIV

There's a bit of a backlog building up at WP:AIV. Thanks. yandman 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

MT now.Geni 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Greier

Greier was blocked recently for a week for edit warring. This block was his fourteenth distinct block for edit warring and incivility. He was given a one month block after his eighth back in May, and since then has received multiple blocks of a week or more, but shows absolutely no inclination to modify his unacceptable behavior. Atypically, the blocks don't seem to have been escalating in any order, and so he's now racked up an atrocious block log with no end in sight. He should have been banned log ago, in my opinion, and I have extended his current block to indefinite, expecting that no one will object, and the community's patience is (well beyond) exhausted. This is up for review. Dmcdevit·t 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. Repeated infringement of 3RR shows that he has no intention of abiding by the rules. --Srikeit 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed and also support this indef block. --FloNight 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support indef block.--MONGO 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support block for one year with 1RR probabtionary period to follow.—Doug Bell 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Long overdue. --Ghirla 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this guy toeing the 3RR line more than often; and he has been gaming the system in the past. Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unambiguous case, he can maybe ask to come back when he's accepted that edit-warring is wrong. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Really see no problem with that one. 14 blocks is edging into the ridiculous. Viridae 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While he's had a veritable crapload of blocks, not one has lasted longer than 2 weeks. I don't really have a problem with an indefinite block, but I'd have given a 3 month (or 6 month) block, to give him time to think about his behaviour, and why it is not acceptable. If that doesn't work, then block him indefinitely. Proto::► 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mas Ahmad

Mas Ahmad (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) I hope you dont mind but I went through his contribs and absolutely nothing but vandalism, so I indefblocked. Glen 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with it. I handed out a slightly longer than usual "first block" because I strongly felt this was a bad-faith user, so I'd be inclined to agree with you, but I suggest you post this to WP:AN or WP:ANI to find out if a wider range of admins agree with you. Please let me know where you psoted to so I can also give my feedback there. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay? Glen 14:24, December 4, 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide context, the above was posted to my talk page because I originally blocked the above user for 48 hours for mass vandalism to a variety of random articles. Glen then extended the block to indefinite and let me know. FWIW, I support this block as I really doubt that Mas Ahmad has anything but vandalism in mind. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see - in the space of 14 minutes, the user made about 39 edits - every single one was page vandalism and/or blanking. Straight out on his ass is the right way to go. let's not waste any more time on an obvious "one-handed" poster. --Charlesknight 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Block is good. An obvious indef and a waste of our time if it were shorter. pschemp | talk 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block as above, all contributions were various forms of vandalism, some of which has since been deleted and no longer appears in this vandal's contribution log. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Don't even bother asking with cases like these; I've indef-blocked editors with less than a dozen edits if they're all vandalism. It's barely even worth the time of leaving an indefblock template on their pages, but it's good manners. --jpgordon 15:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Well done! Same fate for Sentient Being Smasher 1236-- Szvest Ω 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be that I wasted Glen's time in suggesting that he post here. Sorry to waste his (and your) time... --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. We're all friendly around here. That is,except for this one user... (I wont name him for fear of being blocked for incivility/personal attack violation). That guy gets me so...(!) Sorry.

Anyways, your actions were correct and no hard feelings. By the way,if no one said hasn't already said so before; Welcome to Misplaced Pages!DranoDrinker 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I know where all those missing socks went

There are socks popping up all over the place regarding the great "federal officials using Misplaced Pages as propoganda" conspiracy. Here's some to keep track of, although they seem to be shedding their socks quickly:

GenericClownTaunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ScaredOfClowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NotScaredOfClowns…NoSirNotMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RespectableWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EvenMoreRespectableWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MyFavoriteMutiny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

More to come I'm sure. Just a heads up. —Doug Bell 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed you missed a couple ;) Glen 20:58, December 4, 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Someone who knows the underlying IP should just give it a hard block, even if only for a day. -Patstuart 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Has a checkuser/IP check been run at RFCU? I would scan the page or archives myself, but I wouldn't even know what name to look under. (For more socks, check the history of MONGO's question page for the ArbCom election.) Newyorkbrad 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He's on a dynamic IP. The ISP has been notified and when myself and my accomplices of A.P.E. track him down, he's going to get ~~a free ride~~ rendered to his new home.--MONGO 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a range-block (including on account creation) until the ISP chooses to reply, and this followed up on. It's unacceptable that pages such as Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for MONGO need to be semi-protected. --Aude (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, please review

Per this and previous discussion

I have temporarily blocked these IP ranges, including account creation.

These are my first range blocks. Please review they are done correctly. Though these ranges were previously blocked a few days ago and are the same ones now. This situation has been going on for almost two weeks now. --Aude (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me..if it stops for 48 hours, then we know. Hopefully enough users that may be using that range will complain to the ISP and they will do something about the problem.--MONGO 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a list of all the accounts created on the blocked IPs in the last day? Might make it easier to find any other socks. —Doug Bell 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been adding these names to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot as I can trace them down. Some of his previous IP addresses are on the page as well. I'd still love to see a Checkuser on Cplot just to confirm that he was in this same range. --StuffOfInterest 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is linked above and confirmed. My wonder is why the posts mentions the ban of Zen-master...pattern certainly fits the storyline.--MONGO 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, great. Thanks. I'm going to add a link from the sockpuppet page just to help any future bumbling admin like myself. Actually, wait, make that a bumbling federal agent. --StuffOfInterest 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Be careful...you might also be accused of being a secret agent.--MONGO 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Either they switched to a new IP range, or the blocks didn't hold--MONGO 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

HitTheRoad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another unblocked puppet.--Tbeatty 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another one: SoColdTonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MER-C 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

King Shadzar and his court of sockpuppets

Can somebody do something about King Shadzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets? He's been vandalizing the Naruto and Naruto Uzumaki articles, adding complete nonsense and creating new socks each time his new accounts are blocked. Is an IP block at all possible? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He's now vandalizing as The Master Of Mario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can somebody please deal with this user? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I blocked his accounts before and I'll continue blocking if he comes back. I semi-protected Naruto yesterday and I just semi-protected Naruto Uzumaki. If you guys see this guy again, report to AIV or message me on my talk page and I'll deal with it asap. Nishkid 64 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of pictures clearly under fair use

The user Chowbok is removing a large number of images of political leaders under a faulty legal premise (that portraits of state government officials cannot be shown non-commercially on the Misplaced Pages). This user isn't a vandal, but these actions are causing considerable harm to the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Can anything be done? --JesseBHolmes 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fair use is not the same thing as the U.S. legal doctrine. If there are images being tagged for deletion that do not fail Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria (usually numbers one and ten are the problem), you can tag those images for further review. Jkelly 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears the benevolent dictator agrees with what Chowbok is doing. From my viewpoint it is tough love...--Isotope23 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Our Glorious Leader that Chowbok does a lot of necessary work; I'm just saying that he's removing a good number of images under a faulty legal interpretation. How can this issue be addressed generally, rather than on an image-by-image basis (which would be very hard, Chowbok is quite prolific). --JesseBHolmes 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The first step is to get over the idea of a "faulty legal interpretation" -- you will only frustrate yourself and others if your interest is in opining upon U.S. copyright doctrine. If you want to argue for liberalising Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria, the place to do so is at Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use. If you think that Chowbok is incorrectly applying WP:FUC, that's probably best discussed at User talk:Chowbok or at the RfC. Jkelly 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

nuke this

Could a friendly neighbourhood Admin nuke this - I tagged it, but a mixture of identifiable persons and locations plus god know what future additions means it should be taken out sooner rather than later. --Charlesknight 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Core desat 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Author promoting book in refs/ext.links?

User:DASonnenfeld (contribs) has been linking his own book, available for $77.50 or $25.95, in references & external links sections in, so far, more than a dozen articles in one day. Or perhaps (good faith?) someone else has assumed the author's name for this mission. Either way, I'm aware of no wikipolicy approving this practice. Athaenara ✉ 01:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't stand this self-promotion spam. The editor did not much else but spam various articles, so I, not an administrator, reverted them, and posted a spam warning on his page. And administrator should feel free to do something if it warrants it, but this is actually a farely common occurence on Misplaced Pages, nothing special--Sonnenfeld may just not know the rule. KP Botany 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fast work there, KP—good job. –Æ. 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page protection policy

yes, yes, I know it's policy, so there's no reason to request semi-protection, but what is happening to Down syndrome on the main page isn't good for anyone. Sandy (Talk) 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In exceptional cases, people have rarely had problems with semi-protection. ~~And with 5 vandals in a minute?~~ Something reealy needs to be done. -Amarkov _edits 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite that bad, but still bad. Please protect it admins? I'll give you a smiley face! :) -Amarkov _edits 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's apparently been vandalized about 50 times in 80 minutes. I've semi-protected for now... I will unprotect soon per the status quo. --W.marsh 01:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sandy (Talk) 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A template on the page has apparently been vandalized... help needed ASAP. --W.marsh 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

a lot of the vandalism seems to be the work of one user, albeit working from different Ips- notice the oversized signature in all the vandalisms. Borisblue 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is as bad as I've seen - can we get a longer protection period, in spite of the policy, considering the offense that may be created? Sandy (Talk) 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to unprotect in about 10 minutes... I've found that for whatever reason a brief protection is surprisingly effective at calming down the vandals, plus some have been blocked now. But if it continues... we'll just see what happens. For whatever it's worth, some discussion is ongoing at Misplaced Pages talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. --W.marsh 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

>.< Can someone protect the templates on the page? Today's FA concerns shouldn't apply there. -Amarkov _edits 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out what template keeps getting vandalized... if anyone knows I will full protect it and block whoever's been vandalizing it, if possible. --W.marsh 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

{{featured article}}, I think. -Amarkov _edits 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was {{Infobox Disease}}; W.marsh has protected it. Melchoir 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the vandalism is the work of the same vandal operating from a dynamic IP from Reston, Virginia. If we block that guy on sight the problem should be averted. Just check the WHOIS of the vandal IPs when this goes back onlineBorisblue 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The attacks are coming from public proxies; try Googling 66.184.56.98 or 85.25.139.149. Apparently we need to do a better job of blocking them. Melchoir 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone unprotectd already - fun. Sandy (Talk) 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gah. This is the first article on my watchlist that's been on the mainpage. I'm glad to know this isn't normal. God, people really suck sometimes. But when you unprotect, rest assured, there's folks on the case. I'm ready to revert this article for hours. One of the things that keeps happening is that so much vandalism happens in a brief period, that the reverts end up keeping some there. I was thinking about copying a good page into my clipboard and then just pasting into any vandalous version that comes up. Is that kosher?Dina 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it's been protected again (not by me). Hopefully we can discuss rather than wheel war this time. --W.marsh 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Something is happening at Template talk:OMIM Sandy (Talk) 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow this page (AN/I) has a template that's been vandalized similar to OMIM...? --W.marsh 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell what happened at OMIM, but it's part of the disease infobox, and it popped up on my watchlist as vandalized. Sandy (Talk) 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely need to protect the templates trandscluded on the down syndrome page. Borisblue 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The {{ICD10}}, {{ICD9}}, and {{ICDO}} templates have been semi-protected (this first was vandalized severely). I'm okay with leaving the main article unprotected if others feel the vandalism is manageable. -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone might as well get PMID as well, before "they" find it. Sandy (Talk) 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the culprits have been blocked, a remedy with a lot less collateral damage than sprotection. Let's see if the blocking and warning worksBorisblue 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Before someone thinks I'm going overboard, see what happened to {{ICD10}}. It went undiscovered for a couple minutes because it took awhile to discover the template that had the severe vandalism. I can't imagine much collateral damage from (temporarily) semi-protecting templates that shouldn't really need editing anyway. -- tariqabjotu 02:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no probs there- new users should stay away from these templates. Anyway, the blocking and warning seems to have worked- the vandalism in the main page article seems to have stopped. Borisblue 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Template vandalizing isn't new and it can be effective. When Bulbasaur was up on the Main Page, someone vandalized the {{pokenum}} template with a picture of the male reproductive organ. Quite effective. Hbdragon88 06:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of image violations by User:Wikimania2

User is repeatedly performing this reversion in the Kobe Bryant article. The original picture is free; the one the user insists upon putting in is copyrighted. User originally claimed that copyright work is fair use because the using the picture generates no profit. User has been explicitly referred to Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Fair_use_considerations and explictly told to note that fair use requires there to be no free alternative to the copyrighted work. (In this case, obviously there is a free alternative, so fair use cannot apply.) User ignores this and continues to put in the copyrighted image, offering no justification beyond putting "refer to Misplaced Pages:Copyrights" in their edit summaries. It has been explained to the user that under the above mentioned fair use polilcy, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights actually contradicts, not supports, the user's position. The user has offered no response, either on user talk pages or the article discussion page to further justify the user's position. Further reversion of the user's edit by myself will just be a continuation of an edit war since the user seems interested neither in explaining their position, nor in backing down, and would further put me in violation of WP:3RR. So perhaps it's a situation best handled by an admin. Mwelch 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mwelch, your position is absolutely right, and well handled so far, too. I have rolled back Wikimania2, and deleted the image as not free use per your observation that we already have a free alternative. Post here if further action is needed. Hesperian 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Please know that it is very much appreciated! I'll advise if there is anything further. Mwelch 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Light current

Light current (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) :There's been some disagreement over at the reference desk- see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Disrupting_the_reference_desk_to_make_a_point. My personal opinion here is that Light current is either completely clueless or is intentionally trolling, and I've given him a stern finger-wag. However, my supply of AGF is probably running out with this guy so I wonder if anyone else has opinions. Friday (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a situation before at one of the content policies that appeared to involve trolling from Light current. The warning was a good idea. SlimVirgin 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Good luck. See his block log. A warning was proper though. Considering the numerous ones he's had in the past, I wouldn't mess about if he continues however. pschemp | talk 04:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current doesn't really strike me as bad, but he sometimes acts in a juvenile manner. Dragons flight 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. He either does not have, or does not use, good judgement about what to say. At a certain point, however, even if we assume the best of intentions, something has to be done. -- SCZenz 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know I have responded to all current criticisms and taken corrective action (including deletions). If there are any other outstanding issues, please let me know. 8-)--Light current 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current, be aware that it is common for people to be banned from places they disrupt. I hope you have decided to stop the nonsense. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to all the issues raised. If you raise a specific issue that has not already been dealt with I will respond.--Light current 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeat offender on image copyvios

Native Boy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has (again) re-uploaded some of the same images (and mis-tagged them as being {{GFDL-self}}) that were deleted last month. Image:Aerial okc.jpg is clearly a copyrighted image with a watermark that points back to the owner . The user in question has uploaded this particular image to wikipedia at least three times now. Multiple image copyvio warnings have been left for the user by OrphanBot, Meegs, and myself. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the third time around for most of these uploads. I've taken the rest of their images, all of which are suspect, to PUI and left them another message. No further action is needed right now. ×Meegs 09:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Intervention regarding Sweetest Day Images debate

For those familiar, this is more Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) stuff. About a week ago I nominated a bunch of his low quality images that were used (or tried to be used) in the Sweetest Day article: nomination 1 and nomination 2. The main issue here is that these are low quality, grainy, skewed photos taken of a newspaper article from a webcam or something. They also are orphans. Anyway, Miracleimpulse has turned the debate into more of his POV-pushing (see deleted The Sweetest Day Hoax) rhetoric. Consensus is clearly against him. I guess I'd just like to have an administrator enter the discussion to try to get it back on track to be about the images, adn not the larger debate. Thanks. Not a dog 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Having just perused Miracleimpulse's contribution history, the user's edits are certainly prolific, persistent, and highly focused topically. Is this a textbook case of a single purpose account in action? --Kralizec! (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Having no other edits outside of the various deletion discussions of the articles he's involved with, as well as POV pushing at two other semi-related pages, I believe I brought it up earlier, but Miracleimpulse is definitely an SPA.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the editor's continued hostility (disrupting an IFD is just icing on the cake) and POV pushing, I would be willing to certify a user conduct RFC or give a statement in an ArbCom case if needed. Some form of action (perhaps the community or topic ban proposed earlier) needs to be taken given his persistence, and his status as a single-purpose account is absolutely unquestionable given his unwillingness to contribute to any other subjects in the encyclopedia. --Core desat 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to stop, immediately, though.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to do something about it. He has been doing this persistently, it's very disruptive to the IFD. I wouldn't mind helping out in any RFC, Mediation or AC case. Will keep track on his contributions too. Ter e nc e Ong 08:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Those interested can see Talk:American Greetings for more background relevant to this situation. Newyorkbrad 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I like how he calls registered users anonymous in trying to get his way.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We being called anonymous users??!!! It's quite lame though to call us anonymous users, we have accounts and stuff. Definitely not the other meaning of anonymous i.e. Anonymity. Ter e nc e Ong 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, is this a personal attack or is it just too late for me to be up?—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly a bizarre one alright. In the end, if MI were able to cite reliable sources for his "hoax" thesis then he might have a leg to stand on, but I don't recall any such, and this is not the first time I've looked at this article. The images are certainly of pretty poor quality. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The whole problem from the beginning has been that there are not reliable sources that absolutely verify this contention of a hoax. It's conjecture and Original research based on the primary sources that User:Miracleimpulse has found. WP:AGF, but User:Miracleimpulse would appear to have an axe to grind with American Greetings and Hallmark Cards, and apparently Sweetest Day which he attributes to them (on a side note, it's been insinuated that I and or others are the person User:Miracleimpulse has been arguing with on that message board). He basically edits just those 3 articles. I've never really been involved in an ArbCom or user RfC before, has this gotten to the point where it would be considered for one of those?--Isotope23 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Hoax or not, POV or not, sourced or not, these images stink, and that's what the IFD is supposed to be about. MI can argue that they provide source material to back up his claims, and that can be debated elsewhere. But uploading such crappy images isn't the way to provide citations, and I can't seem to get that through to him. Not a dog 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I've blocked Miracleimpulse for a week while this discussion concludes. Regardless of what is decided here, I think we can all agree that his current behavior needs to stop now. --InShaneee 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am considering an RfC or ArbCom, but I'm going to hold off pending User:Miracleimpulse's return to see if this continues (and because it is pretty unfair to initiate any proceedings while he is unable to respond to defend himself).--Isotope23 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Either username or vanity...

It's not vanity, well, unless he's a revenant. Maybe that should be added to his article. Jecowa 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

*face palm* How embarrasing for me. - 152.91.9.144 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They can edit their own articles, must be a Famous Wikipedian. Hopefully not an impostor. Ter e nc e Ong 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You might have missed the revenant comment. Johnny Briggs died in the early 1900s according to the article, so it's ehm, probably an impostor. --Jeff 10:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:HitTheRoad

This user is making some strange changes to sock notices. Please see . --BigDT 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. -Amarkov _edits 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really... he's been past the point of anything even resembling humour for about 3 days now. I've reverted all the WP:POINT violating edits, personal attacks, etc. Amazingly enough, he has 2 or 3 minor edits that weren't vandalism. --tjstrf talk 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny...as in unbelievable, or funny that your fellow editors are being personally attacked?--MONGO 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

See User:VANDALBOT007 Jams Boond. (Apologies if already taken care of). Regards, Asterion 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Glen blocked him. You can post these on WP:AIV in the future. --Core desat 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Delete the link to my six-year-old resume

Hello,

In the discussion/vote about the possible deletion of the entry about me (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Pierce_%28second_nomination%29), the user timecop has chosen to link to a six-year-old resume of mine that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

Also he's wrong at his slander towards me on two points.

He claims that I hadn't held a job for more than one year, when, if you look at the resume is clearly untrue (it's just a poorly written resume written by a friend of mine).

The debate is whether or not me or my blogging is notable. Something that I didn't start doing until 8/2001. Therefore how is a resume that ends in 2000 of any importance?

Further he claims that I am the "self-proclaimed blogfather." Although it's true that some call me that, including whoever wrote that line in my Misplaced Pages entry, I've always said that that term belongs with Glenn Reynolds, who has been also blogging since 2001, and whose politics I totally disagree with, but who has spawned more new bloggers than probably anyone. Any search of my 5 year old blog can back me up that I've never claimed to be the blogfather (http://tinyurl .com/yjaypw).

I am a big fan of Misplaced Pages. I think that large groups of intelligent people discussing things rationally are better than individuals. I think that you guys should stick to whatever you guys have done to get to this point. Obviously I disagree with those who have agendas against bloggers going out and trying to delete Wiki entries about bloggers, not just because I am one, but because it goes against one of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principals of only editing things that you are neutral toward (http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:NPOV), which timecop and some others are clearly the furthest thing from neutral.

Not sure what you can do about that, or if you guys still feel strongly toward that fundamental, but if you can, will you please delete the link to my olde resume if it isn't too much of a bother.

It happens on this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Pierce_%28second_nomination%29) and he wrote it on 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, Tony Pierce 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Link removed, left message on your IP talkpage.--MONGO 08:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

changes on my userpage

user:Kronecker keeps changing the language setting on my userpage from 3 to 2. I dont think thats consistent with an alleged IQ of 135. Could somebody please tell him to stop?--Tresckow 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left him a message asking him to stop... and might I add that incivility about someone's IQ while reporting something on the administrator noticeboard probably isn't the best idea. If he keeps editing your page, try reporting it here.--Isotope23 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience says that Ian is on probation for science articles. Reliable sources are important for many of the articles we edit. Yet I'll note this edit to Wolf Effect had Ian including sources from a variety of unreliable sources, none of whom were basic researchers in the field. This included a science writer (not a scientist): Jeff Kanipe, a self-employed crystal technician C. F. Gallo, and employees of Xerox Corp. How are these reliable sources for basic research into quasar redshifts? They don't study the material. Ian knows this, but he continues his tactics anyway, in violation of his probation. I ask that he be banned from editting Wolf Effect. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably want WP:ANA (the ArbCom enforcement noticeboard) rather than WP:ANI. --ais523 13:47, 5 December 2006 (U T C)

Thanks. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Arab scientists and scholars

Dear Admins, I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post, I don't know where else. This list was created on 4 April 2006 . To avoid sensitvites regarding ethnicities, the following disclamier was inserted; taken from List of Iranian scientists and scholars and List_of_Russians#Scientists. The Disclamir is:

This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World and Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus) that lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. In some cases, their exact ancestry in unclear. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic".

This happened with the guidence of two neutral admins: User:Alex_Bakharev and User:InShaneee. Now, 8 months later, a newcomer, User:Beit_Or, simply deleted the disclaimer . This triggered a new ugly ethnicity war and the whole article started collapsing.

My apeal on you: is to put back the disclaimer and warn those who try to remove it.

Thank You, Jidan 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi has already raised the issue of Jidan's behavior above. This posting indicates that Jidan keeps edit warring and defying consensus. Beit Or 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see also Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Shamir1 for a clear case of RFCU abuse by Jidan. Beit Or 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaching of my privacy

User:-jkb- repeatedly breaches my privacy by revealing of my real name: , . I warned him many times: and User talk:-jkb-. I ask for his blocking. -- Zacheus 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... Is there any particular reason you disguised your edits as "fixing a link" or some such? -Amarkov _edits 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at you find that before my fix it pointed to nowhere. -- Zacheus 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You created an account that was the same as your real name and someone has realized that the same person operates both accounts? It seems you let the cat out of the bag, not -jkb- Shell 15:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I exercised m:Right to Vanish. Revealing of my real name after I dropped it is breaching my privacy. -- Zacheus 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See pls here. As i do not have so much time as some sock puppets (I have to go on with the Czech Wikisource which is my primary goal, not this), I am preparing a brief report on the user V.Z. and his sockpuppets, but it will take some time. In the mean time: he (all his accounts) has no right to vanish, as he did not left Wikipedie, in the contrary, he is attacking other users again. Thx, -jkb- 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin plays detective...what next?

Ever want to sleuth down one of the long term vandals? Well a couple of people think I've succeeded. My summaries of the matter are at User_talk:Durova#Editor_X_.2F_Joan_of_Arc andTalk:Joan_of_Arc#Return_of_Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse.23Joan_of_Arc_vandal.3F, which I daresay make interesting reading especially if you put on a pair of dark sunglasses and play The Pink Panther theme. If my evidence holds up to scrutiny, this guy has been disrupting Misplaced Pages's Catholicism, homosexuality, and crossdressing articles for 26 months without getting caught (December 8 will be his anniversary).

Trouble is, because he's been so slippery, I probably can't get a checkuser on this sock drawer. Doc Tropics suggested an RfC. I'd like to find out whether I'm right and if I'm on the mark I'd like to seek a community ban. So all of you Sherlock Holmes types, come on over and bring your magnifying glass. This one might boggle your eyes. Durova 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That took a while to read! You have amassed a bevy of suggestive evidence; statistically, Editor X could have won the lottery before being two people from the same town with the same in-depth knowledge and yet rather bizarre theories, unless of course, he has converts. In either case, the behavior is incredibly disruptive not just because of the behavior itself, but the subtly with which it undermines the article. The editor has already been almost completely unresponsive to discussion and attempts to reform their behavior including being dishonest when cornered - since it doesn't appear meaningful contact can be made, I'd support the idea of a community ban. Shell 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Blimey. That was a patient and thorough piece of work! I suspect that support for a ban based on this will be pretty much unanimous, but one could always take it to ArbCom in case of doubt. Gold star, either way. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:76.16.70.153

This user has been engaged in trolling, but due to the nature of such users I would rather not issue a block myself. Among issues was where he called another editor mentally unstable, various things in an AfD he's involved in (namely: accusing myself and another editor of reasoning in an unjust emotional manner, accusing myself of emotionally corrupting the other user, accusing the other user of blind acceptance of my argument, etc.), talk page nonsense , and so on. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This editor's comments and insinuations on User talk:Consumed Crustacean (see recent page history) are totally unacceptable and warrant a block. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages noticeboards