Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 16 June 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Azerbaijan (Iran)

I would like to draw community’s attention to the situation with Azerbaijan (Iran) article. This article has been a source of dispute for quite some time, and has been protected a number of times too. Right now the dispute is about over whether it is ok to add info of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports. Some users delete this verifiable info from the article under the pretext that “Misplaced Pages is not a forum or a soapbox”, however I don’t see how adding verifiable info from a third party source is soapboxing. I know that this may not be the most appropriate place to raise this issue, but I would like to ask experienced and impartial editors become involved with this article to help resolve the disputes, and also ask the admins to keep it on their watch lists. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now the dispute is about over whether it is ok to add info of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports to the history section of this geographic name,and to add that same text to four more other articles about history & etc and also to add our personal point of view to the original source or not to do so !! --Alborz Fallah 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are organizations with their own political agendas. To the best of my understanding, information must come from reliable sites, and those sites aren't. Od Mishehu 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they have any agenda other than protection of human rights, plus what's wrong with reporting the opinions? Grandmaster 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The same information on human rights of Azeris in Iran is already available on Azerbaijani people, Iranian Azeris and Human rights in Iran. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, you can not spam Misplaced Pages articles with the same information on four different articles. The article Azerbaijan (Iran) is a geographical article, not an ethnic one. AlexanderPar 10:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about human rights per se. It is about recent history. I made edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan based on multiple sources . user:Pejman47 2 times blindly reverted it without reasonable explanation. First time he left short comment on talkpage and after that I reintrouduced my edit with new sources as he requested reliable sources. Second time he just reverted without comments on talkpage. He did it after I urged him to explain his behaviour. It is interesting that user:Pejman47 arrived at this page to revert me after user:Alborz Fallah who, an hour earlier, reverted me on another page Iran-Azerbaijan relations. And user:AlexanderPar also delete multiple sourced information. I opened RfC case for that but abovementioned editors instead of deliberations keep removing historical information--Dacy69 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything has a place and a purpose. WikiNews is for current events, and Iranian Azeris, or Human rights in Iran are the appropriate articles for ethnic issues and human rights reports, not geography articles like Azerbaijan (Iran). You, however, have been inserting the same poorly-sourced information on multiple pages from "Foreign relation of" articles - to geography articles, this is blatant soapboxing. AlexanderPar 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 is attempting to spam the same information on several articles. The issue they want to insert into Iranian Azerbaijan is already included in two or three articles.Hajji Piruz 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, WP:AN/I is not for the content disputes. You already have an RfC open on the article. Unless you want from us swift administrative actions (like block somebody) please argue on the RfC page. Alex Bakharev 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I reported not about content but about behavior of editors. Thanks.--Dacy69 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a problem with User:Hajji Piruz's usage of word "spam" left and right against editors. The comment above is just one example. Is there a warning or some form of reminder that can be issued to the user about it? Thanks. Atabek 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

now I see that that stuff handpicked by you from sources like isn.ethz.ch/ and amnesty international, "the most unbiased information source of the world") has been copy-pasted in the 4th article , I understand that some users have called that edits "spam", and you have not yet explained your misguiding "edit summery" in --Pejman47 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge admin to interfere with blatant vadnalism of User:Hajji Piruz and others orchestrated by him. without discussion they redirected page which was suggested by third party during RfC --Dacy69 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what vandalism did I commit? LOL, what did I do? Dacy69, the only one not discussing anything is you.Hajji Piruz 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz meatpuppets Pejman47 and Alexanderpar again reverting - now what it is suggested by third party mediator during RfC--Dacy69 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to mark out, that the article explains itself as a region without any narrow link and isn't attached to any elucidative category. It apparently needs an attention of an expert on this subject. --Brand спойт 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete - compromised admin account

Please undelete Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 650l2520 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been restored by another admin, but what the heck was that deletion about? WP:POINT?--Isotope23 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the deleting admin Vancouverguy (talk · contribs) might bear some watching. Account has been inactive since October 2005 and suddenly shows up to make a WP:POINT deletion of the CSD category today.--Isotope23 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's trying to tell us that he was really fast at deleting images, and we have silly backlogs. At least that's my AGF version. Keeping an eye on him is a good idea, though. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely. I blocked him after he was desysopped by User:Bastique, after I reported this account as likely to be compromised. After he played silly buggers with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion - stupid move - there wasn't much doubt IMO. Moreschi 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Isotope23 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No more AGF after he continued trolling using admin tools. Pretty fast response time, little damage. Good work. Kusma (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainlly looks like it was got at - good call. --Fredrick day 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a footnote, 87.175.68.193 (talk · contribs) and 194.54.189.173 (talk · contribs) made a few similar edits immediately after. :-( --AnonEMouse 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How would the account have been compromised? I thought the weak passwords were changed? Carcharoth 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

His associated e-mail could have been compromised?--209.115.153.68 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have an idea. Email accounts are hacked easily, and all a vandal needs to do to get hold of an admin account. Is get the email account, then click the button sayijng "Email new password." emailing the password to the email account, allowing the vandal to log in... Francisco Tevez 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised or not compromised, doesn't massively matter. If not compromised, then admin actions like that are just vandalism with admin tools. Not clever. If the account was not, in fact, compromised, he'd better have a bloody good excuse. Moreschi 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser needed? Francisco Tevez 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the two IP's we've associated with the hacking come from Germany and Poland respectively, and VancouverGuy is from, um, Vancouver, I doubt it was really him. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy's authentic contribs are too old for checkuser. Thatcher131 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, the IPs he used were, unsurprisingly, Tor. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What's really confusing is this: if someone has gone to the trouble of hacking this, why waste it with two silly, high profile, but not very disruptive,pieces of vandalism - think of what he really could have done?--Doc 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said vandals are smart? Seriously... those who have been around here long enough to be creative are few and far between.--Isotope23 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Best de-adminship spree yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the account was not compromised, an admin from 2005 might find the Brave New Misplaced Pages of 2007 quite a weird place. ˉˉ╦╩ 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With that in mind, is there any reason why an account that was dormant for a year and a half was still an admin? That strikes me as a bit of a security hole. Resolute 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We've been over that before, I can't find the link, though.. there are both pros and cons for doing it. Neil ╦ 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And his action of deleting C:CSD was especially annoying today of all days - I've been working like a mofo on keeping it clear. Neil ╦ 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD has been more manageable during the past couple of weeks due to the efforts of a handful of vigilant admins. I am amazed at the amount of work you guys have done. ˉˉ╦╩ 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN, why we don't desysop inactive admin accounts is there. Moreschi 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• However, the assumption that inactive accounts are less likely to get hacked than active ones is questionable in light of the last couple of months... Georgewilliamherbert 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (tell me where to propose) - I propose that admin accounts inactive (no edits) for 3 months are put on suspension - admin bit is flipped off, but will be restored 24 hrs after resumption of normal editing and upon filing a request on WP:RFA. Request does not need RFA approval, just create a new section there for handling it, so the bureacrats don't have to watch other pages. Admin will remain "an admin" during the suspension, just with the bit flipped temporarily. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Three months might be too short a time period, but the Misplaced Pages:Inactive administrators proposal, which was on the page that Moreschi linked seems ideal to me. This very case would suggest its usefulness, and there is also the general security issue. Working tech support, I wouldn't ever think of leaving someone with admin privledges active should they leave the company. It is just begging for trouble down the line if that person returns with a different attitude towards the company. As Misplaced Pages grows and becomes a bigger and bigger target, it needs to minimize risk where it can. This may be a proposal that could benifit from a second look. Resolute 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The usual place for speedy sysoppings at the moments is the 'crat's noticeboard, not RfA. --ais523 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think 3 months is too short a time (a summer vacation, or military duty, for example). Let's make it a year. And we can even use a recent Arbcomm ruling in addition:

• All admin accounts which have been inactive for a year may be immediately desysopped, and since they were desysopped "uncontroversially", they may be resysopped upon request automatically, without need to go through RfA.

I'm trying to think of any examples of how this could be seen as controversial, but I can't think of any. Anyone else? - jc37 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to throw out all the apple because one let a worm through. 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How are we "throwing out" anything, if, once active, they can immediately re-receive it (without going through RfA again)? - jc37 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And why can't somebody who has compromised the account just ask for the bit back? 15:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

homophobia and vandalism

unresolved He's back (15 June 2007)

hi user DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left a request for the user to civilly discuse issues of articles. If the user continues such POV pushing, please bring it up here and remove the resolved tag. Cheers! -- moe.RON 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some folks may remember this guy from last year when he used AOL IPs User:195.93.21.74 and user:195.93.21.69. He was dubbed the "John Wayne vandal", and blocked several times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance he also goes by Chunda18 (talk · contribs), as the topics and approach to submissions is identical, and Chunda18 stopped "contributing" at almost the same time that DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) started. It's always similar: certain major stars (primarily John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart) are right-wing Republicans and therefore any positive thing about them should be removed or so qualified as to eliminate the positive aspect, or they are homosexuals and should be exposed to the world. This morning someone on his talk space politely suggested some help for him if he needed it on the matter of proper citing. DaveyJones1968 replied "Fuck you." Doesn't seem resolved to me.

I've blocked DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) for now. From the looks of it he has devolved from just adding unsourced additions into articles and now is engaged in trolling. I don't see much reason to unblock unless he commits to following WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP.--Isotope23 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) responded to his being blocked by taking on a new identity and immediately reinstating -- verbatim -- the POV material I had reverted from the John Wayne article yesterday. His new name is InLikeErrol (talk · contribs).

I endorse the block of DJ and have blocked the new account. This guy is clearly trolling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson awards and achievements

I recently added a section to the La Toya Jackson article outlining her awards and achievements. The section was unjustifiably removed by User:Metros. I reverted the section back and Metros again removed it, this time claiming that the entire thing must be removed because none of the awards were sourced.

I would like to point out that administrators are suppoed to follow the "good faith" rule, which Metros did not, and that other similar articles such as List of Michael Jackson's awards do not offer citations for every single award. Many of the awards and achievements are common knowledge, and the more obscure awards were found through images of the actual awards themselves, which were recently sold on eBay through a large Jackson family auction. I request that administration look into this issue and restore the awards and achievements section that Metros removed. This would certainly not be the first time that Metros has abused his admin powers and used his own opinions on La Toya Jackson against the article.

71.100.160.189 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the section was justifiably removed by User:Metros. We're not supposed to follow the "good faith" rule when the "good faith" rule goes against majority Misplaced Pages policies like verifiability and, more importantly, biographies of living people which states: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

So, until that's source, it will be removed. Metros 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that User:Metros is so intent on having this section removed but has no opinion on List of Michael Jackson's awards, which is the same thing, only more conentious. 71.100.160.189 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

since he em.. deleted List of Michael Jackson's awards then I think his views on that article are pretty clear.--Fredrick day 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• See distraction fallacy or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the Michael Jackson award page. Something that large should not go unreferenced since at least May of 2006. Metros 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I read this thread. The "fact" in the pre-revert version that she is/was a spokesperson for "Star Ice" made me smile and I really needed a smile. --Dweller 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja-vu from this incident - the behaviour (and the IP address) suggests this is User:Rhythmnation2004, who has had similar problem with Latoya based articles (and admin conduct around such articles) in the past. --Fredrick day 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Rhythmnation2004. See the IPs contributions, especially the edits to the IFD debate (where the IP signed a comment as Rhythmnation). Metros 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can outside editors double-check my actions at La Toya Jackson regarding the readditions of the awards by Rhythmnation2004? He added them here and then I basically removed all of them; some of them didn't have sources and he felt were "common knowledge" and then the ones with "sources" were links to images in Imageshack which I feel really violates our reliable sourcing standards. Thoughts? Metros 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros AGAIN abused admin powers by removing awards that were CLEARLY SOURCED. See edit , where Metros removed tons of awards and achievements, despite the fact that ACTUAL IMAGES OF THE AWARDS THEMSELVES WERE PROVIDED. This is, once again, Metros using his own personal hatred towards La Toya Jackson to destroy a legitimate article. Furthertmore, no where in Misplaced Pages does it say that images are not allowed as sources, particularly ones hosted on Imageshack. If this continues to happen, I would be happy to put these images onto a web page and upload it to my web server, and source all the awards to that page. Can we speed up this response process?. Rhythmnation2004 13:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the actual merits of your or his edits: reverting, removing material from an article, is definitely not "abusing admin powers", since every user can do so. And please don't shout, it won't help. Fram 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It has now been over 24 hours without a proper response. This is absolutely pathetic. Can someone please address this issue? 71.100.160.189 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to summarize: this is not something for the administrator's noticeboard, but a content dispute. No admin powers have been used or abused, even though one of the involved editors is an admin. Discuss it one the talk page, try Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes, or even better, find good sources for the deleted section (or at least the important entries in it, those "certificates" are hardly notable) and only readd it after those are found (and a userpage page at telenet.be is not a good source). No administrative action is required here. Fram 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hello, recently user Metros deleted an article called List of Michael Jackson awards. There is an ongoing discussion about this move at the user's talk page. The user cited lack of citations for a lengthy period of time and the article's lack of compliance with the biographies of living persons for the deletion. I'm arguing, to put it briefly, that the article should be reinstated because legitimate articles have a right to be on Misplaced Pages, despite any problems they may have. There are many other articles like the one that was deleted with the same problems, yet no major push exists to extirpate all of them from our encyclopedia. I feel like the user's move was too rash and inappropriate and am requesting that the article be brought back. Thank you for listening.UberCryxic 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Too rash? It's been tagged for sources since May 2006. It is subject to the policies of biographies of living persons as it is an extension of his biography which is subject to removal when sources do not exist, no matter how true or how positive or negative the comments are. Metros 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for how long it's been uncited. This is not a biography. It's a list of awards. The standards are not that harsh, and certainly virtually never harsh enough to delete the entire article (unless, among other reasons, original consensus decided that such articles shouldn't exist, which isn't the case here).UberCryxic 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I did on Metros talk page, I'm going to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, whether UberCryxic thinks that argument "stinks" or not. Bmg916 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros, I have a proposal, which I also explained in your talk page. I will thoroughly cite as much as I can from that article if you reinstate it. If I haven't done so within, let's say two weeks, then you can delete it again. It was not explained in the talk page of that article that legitimate articles met such harsh fates if they went uncited for long periods of time.UberCryxic 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you create it in your User space, then when you're ready to display it, have a discussion with Metros? To recreate it right now when it was correctly deleted, would be rather WP:POINTy. Corvus cornix 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can do that as well, but since I don't have the original page, I would have to compeltely re-create it. It's a very long article. I'd much rather have the original copy and cite what I can out of it, deleting the rest if necessary. Reinstating the page would actually solve all of our problems under my conditions: the article stays, satisfying me, and it will be cited, satisfying Metros. If not, it can be deleted again. I don't feel like this is an unreasonable request.UberCryxic 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to Corvus, WP:POINT doesn't apply here at all. It is so far removed from this situation that to bring it up is ludicrous.UberCryxic 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most recent version of the deleted page has been usefied at User:UberCryxic/List of Michael Jackson's awards to allow for UberCryxic to work on getting a sourced version created. - TexasAndroid 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get on this and contact Metros when ready.UberCryxic 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's give Metros a chance to object to my actions, but unless he does object, I think we can consider this discussion closed for now. - TexasAndroid 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that removal without sourcing only applied to contentious material. A list of awards hardly qualifies unless it included negative awards like "Most overrated singer" or something. exolon 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BLP specifically says it applies to material "whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable". - TexasAndroid 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The full sentence reads "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable" - this part of WP:BLP only applies to contentious material, so it's application depends on our definition and judgement of what contentious actually means in this context. exolon 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that it's contentious, based on this discussion. Corvus cornix 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Michael Jackson has won awards is not contentious. What the article contains is not a problem; I suppose it's "how" it contains that material that's controversial (ie. uncited stuff). That still doesn't warrant blank deletion though. Another thing that irritates me is that no one dealing with Michael Jackson-related articles was contacted over this; the article was authoritatively deleted like it was just another administrative matter, seemingly with little regard that other people would get angry.UberCryxic 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it doesn't apply. This material isn't "highly questionable" or contentious at all. It's a generic list of awards, one among dozens and hundreds that can be found in Misplaced Pages.UberCryxic 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that argument and have addressed it before. See above.UberCryxic 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, the article did stand for over a year with a Citations Needed tag and no progress on the citations. IMHO, Unsourced article < no article < sourced article. Metros's deletion has finally spurred action. That's part of why I userfied it for you, to facilitate the progress towards a good, sourced, article in the end. That it should take such an extreme act as deleting the page to get things moving toward the proper end result is unfortunate, but after a year tagged I have to wonder what else might have worked. - TexasAndroid 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting something on the talk page would have worked very nicely. That's traditionally what we do in Misplaced Pages (ie. before a GAR or FAR): warn people prior to the impending doom.UberCryxic 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, this is the version I have. It contains citations for at least 90% of the claims. I will try and find the rest, but that will take some more searching. However, I think this version is good enough to exist as an independent article on Misplaced Pages and will check with Metros on whether there is agreement or not.UberCryxic 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now back up in mainspace. Take a look at it here. Those who have problems with the article should take their complaints to the talk page first.UberCryxic 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The new article's sources

I have concerns that the sources given in this article don't mean our standards as reliable sources. 90% of them come from a fan forum. I don't think that these are appropriate according to our standards. Can more editors take a look at the article's sources and weigh in on this? Metros 04:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are still sources, Metros. What's wrong if they come from a fan forum? Do they need to come from media outlets, most of which are biased AGAINST Michael? Also, this is an extremely notable page (after all this is listing the awards achieved by the King of Pop), but its deletion purely on the basis of citations is questionable at best. I strongly believe, regardless of the issue of citations, that this article should be brought back onto wikipedia.--Paaerduag 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted on the basis of biographies of living persons policy concerns. Metros 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources most dedicated to information like this are things like fan sites. I say "unfortunately" because of the reliability concerns raised above. The fan sites themselves get this information (mainly) from album booklets and other sources closely related to Michael Jackson. So the basic options are: go with the fan sites, the album booklets (redundant), or get rid of articles like these. Unless you can establish some wide-ranging consensus that these articles don't belong in Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid we are going to have to learn to live with the fan sites for now.UberCryxic 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. If you can't find sources outside fan sites ,then the article is basically unsourced per WP:RS and none of the problems it had previously are now solved. If an award is not covered in the mainstream press (and that includes mainstream music magazines of course), then it should not be included. On the other hand, things like the 2006 Legend Award can be successfully sourced with only a few minutes of Googling, but that one is currently unsourced... Create an article with those awards you can reliably source, and remove the rest. It will take more work, but it will make an acceptable article. Fram 09:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources? what sources? 200 of it's sources are the same page! --Fredrick day 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I encourage you to go to the talk page of the article and express that Fredrick day, it'd be much appreciated so we can get the ball rolling on a conversation about these sources. Thanks, Metros 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To Fram: I basically explained the same thing in the article's talk page so I'll be brief here. There are plenty of reliable sources that mention many if not most of these awards; the trouble is finding them. There are things here that have to do with magazine articles from two decades ago. I'm not sure if those are online; I've searched before for stuff like this and either haven't found anything or have had great difficulty finding something. For some of this stuff, you literally have to have a copy of the original magazine article (or find some source that reported on it and that's put it's stuff up online).UberCryxic 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's too bad, but it is better to miss information than to have badly sourced info (and sourcing from a fansite is bad sourcing). It has taken me awhile to accept this as well (many of my earlier edits would probably be unacceptable to me now), but it is the way we have to act, and even more so when it concerns (aspects of the career of) a living person. Don't any of the MJ biographies list his awards? It would seem to me a normal part of a book about an artist... And if some awards are not listed in that list, then they may well be unnoteworthy. Fram 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A few awards are listed in the main article, yes. I believe those come from good sources, but I'd have to check again. I think Guinness says that Jackson is the most awarded entertainer in history, so there's that added difficulty of going out and finding everything the man ever won (or much of it anyway). Some of his album booklets also list things like accomplishments and awards. The fan sites probably got their information from there, but I don't know if you would consider album booklets "reliable sources" either.UberCryxic 04:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, album booklets can be considered more or less as self-published sources by the subject: those are acceptable, though they aren't the best of sources (not really independent, but at least agreed upon by the subject). If some fact sourced from such a booklet is challenged, there is still time to either find a better source or remove it (if the "challenge" seems reasonable, i.e. has a source with counterevidence or so). Fram 07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would've made the argument that it's not a reliable source, but the main thing I want is for this waste of time to end. Misplaced Pages has far more pressing concerns than lists, like....I don't know, actual articles.UberCryxic 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple libel

I just blocked 172.201.238.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism of Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, mostly the insertion of claims that he was anti-American, involved with the Taliban, etc. It seems like those edits should probably be removed from the page history as libel, but I thought I'd double-check. --Masamage ♫ 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

...Can I get a reply one way or the other? --Masamage ♫ 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable block. I've deleted the vandalized revisions. ˉˉ╦╩ 12:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: Checkuser result unrelated, user still indef blocked by User:Irishguy

Checkuser came back  Unrelated for User:El redactor and User:Tecmobowl.

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
El redactor (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy indef blocked User:El redactor, not filing a checkuser, stating that the sockpuppetry was obvious. I thought that he had a clear COI which was blinding him, and came here to ask that this be dealt with. I received only responses from involved editors. Now that this result, which was filed by another editor after Irishguy blocked El redactor and extended Tecmo's block has come back, can someone at least unblock the poor guy and apologize to him? Miss Mondegreen talk  06:36, June 14 2007 (UTC)

See prior report . Miss Mondegreen talk  06:45, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Note that getting no checkuser result doesn't necessarily mean no sockpuppeting was going on - it could also mean that someone was good at it and knows how to not get detected. I don't know about the rest of this case, but it's worth keeping that in mind. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware. But if you see the earlier report, Irishguy had prior disputes with Tecmo, or visa versa. And Irishguy filed the report and within 12 hours blocked gave El redactor and indef block (without bothering to file a checkuser) and extended Tecmo's block. He believes that it was such an obvious case that there was no need for discussion or a checkuser--something I disagree with. I also thought that as he'd been involved in the situation and filed the report, someone else should have made the block. Generally someone files a sockpuppet report and an uninvolved editor looks at the report and decides if a checkuser is necessary, if the users should be blocked right away or whatnot. Blocking and then conducting the investigation is not ok and it's especially not ok to persist in it once a checkuser has returned a negative result. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:40, June 14 2007 (UTC)

I find Matthew Brown (Morven)'s comment to be persuasive. In addition, glancing at the history on his talk page, Tecmo (whom you refer to as the "poor guy") has a history of blocks by other admins just this month. --Epeefleche 07:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The checkuser result doesn't necessarily mean that the sockpuppet case should be closed. But we don't ban users upon accusation and then wait for the case to proceed, or for evidence to surface to clear them. What are we doing, waiting for proof that he's not Tecmo? The sockpuppet case was not handled the way it should have been--the only people involved in this entire process have been a few other editors, including you who also have a COI regarding Tecmo and myself. That's it. I shouldn't have to be coming here and arguing for processes and procedures to be followed, for basic policies and guidelines to be followed. This is ridiculous. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:15, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche--I referred to El redactor as "poor guy", because if he's innocent which is looking more and more likely and I like to AGF, he really is. As bad as a 48 hr block for sockpuppeteering charges that aren't true etc. is, it expires in 2 days and Tecmo knows what's going on. El redactor is being hung out to dry and most likely doesn't. That's what I meant by that. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:15, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Lots of this case seems troubling to me. You say that there's a newer editor being Bitten a lot, and that other editors are ganging up. You seem to accept that there's some bad behaviour from Tecmobowl. Has anyone offered some kind of "mentorship" or dispute resolution for all involved? It seems odd that a group of editors cannot agree about a set of links. Dan Beale 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well one key page in question Shoeless Joe Jackson is under full page protection and discussion is theoretically ongoing. Additional editors have commented, but the editors who originally have had problems with the link have yet to make content related contributions to the discussion. If I can't get content discussion there in a day, I'm going to ask for dispute resolution in addition to the page protection. I've been avoiding it up until now because there's I was hoping to have actualy content related comments by the time I dragged in dispute resolution.

In terms of the other issue, which has been the EL cleaning done by Tecmo, I'm going to ask for that too, but the same issue exists. Editors have an issue with one link that's being taken out and have discussed the merits of the link, but haven't dealt with why it was taken out. I've gotten no reply from Epeefleche about why he did complete reverts instead of partial reverts as he has made no complaints about the rest of what was removed (just reverted it) and even reverted places where Tecmo deleted duplicate links. Yes, this needs dispute resolution too.

This was put on the back burner though when Irishguy filed a suspected sock puppets report and then decided that his own opinion was good enough, and without filing a request for checkuser or waiting for the report to go anywhere, indef blocked El redactor and extended Tecmo's block. I've been trying to get those actions undone since, especially now that a checkuser (filed by a different user after the blocking) has come up negative. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:56, June 14 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser was filed BEFORE the block, as I told you already, and I remain unconvinced that External Links Red Actor is not one of his sockpuppets. All the checkuser result means is that they're not on the same IP subnet. Meanwhile Tecmo's yelping about "content" is a diversionary tactic when he doesn't get his way. He'll talk to anybody... as long as they agree with him. And once he comes off block later today or whenever, his behavior will get worse, guaranteed. He will assume ownership of all baseball biography pages. As for me, it further restricts what pages I can work on, because I have had quite enough of that guy and hope to never have to see his user ID again on any page I'm working on. Baseball Bugs 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"External Links Red Actor"???? I imagine you do not realize "editor" translated to spanish is "el redactor". This why it is important to assume good faith when people have not been explicit, rather than guessing what bad faith meaning of their username could be.--BirgitteSB 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know sockpuppet behavior when I see it, and it fits the bill. Baseball Bugs 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Miss M's above suggestion that Tecmo engaged in "EL cleaning" is a misrepresentation. The history of what he has done is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Deletions_by_Tecmobowl_of_hundreds_of_baseball_urls_w.2Funique_information.3B_failure_to_discuss.3B_edit_warring

Tecmo deleted 100s of baseball url links. He charged that they were not unique. He was wrong. Many editors, including at the very outset 2 admins, asked him to stop deleting the links. They pointed to uniqueness of the links. He indicated that he had to be convinced, and was not, and would therefore be bold and continue to delete links. He did. He now agrees, after extensive discussion by other editors, that at least 3 of the urls belong. He has failed to restore them, however, where he deleted them.

This points to the problem with massive EL deletions being engaged in, prior to consensus that they should be deleted, by one editor based only on that one editor's opinion. Once proven incorrect, who will repair his damage by restoring the links? It is easier to find links that exist, if consensus is reached to delete them in the future, than it is to find the bios that had links which were previoiusly deleted, and then restore them. In any event, Tecmo has failed to restore links that he deleted, such as Baseball Cube, that he now agrees are unique. And in addition he fails to abide by the consensus that Fangraphs is an appropriate link, and restore all those that he deleted. Instead, he is filibustering. Any admin help here would be most appreciated.

Contrary to Miss M's assertion, I indicated that my view is that discussion should be had before these links are deleted. The discussion at the above Baseball Wikiproject page is extensive. To focus converstation, we started with 4 of the urls in dispute. There seems to me to be consensus as to all 4, though Tecmo is filibustering as to 1 (Fangraphs). Even though he conceded that its format was unique, and 7 other editors found its data and/or format unique to be useful. I've indicated that once we resolve the first group of urls, it would appear appropriate to further discuss the other urls in similar fashion. I have no problem with the deletion of urls that are wholly duplicative in both data and format. Any admin help here would be appreciated. Tx.--Epeefleche 17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If Fangraphs had Tecmo's personal baseball card sales website in it, he'd probably be OK with it. To be fair, though, he can't fix anything right now since he's still blocked. Let's Assume Good Faith, and assume he'll start fixing those problems as soon as he's unblocked. Yah, shoor, yoo betcha. Baseball Bugs 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this can be framed as an honest debate simply about the merits of removing certain links. Using multiple sock puppets, the guy repeatedly removed multiple legitimate, informative links while inserting totally random, non-informative product links. He didn't even bother to remove the Latin filler text from his cookie-cutter webpage templates . This has everything to do with link visibility. Regarding the issue of sockpuppetry, I just added a lengthy edit at ; this is blatant sockpuppetry. I'm amazed that User:IrishGuy actually has to justify his actions against a highly disruptive user. Caeculus 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The next logical step is an RFC, which I expect will come eventually. Although the red actor had all of Tecmobowl's attitude, he had nothing at all to say once he was blocked; and now that Tecmobowl's block has expired, red actor has no reason to say anything. Tecmobowl escaped this time, but he will go too far eventually, and then he'll be properly dealt with. Baseball Bugs 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl closed

I just closed Tecmobowl's SSP case. I don't think any action needs to be taken at this time, since User:El redactor has already been indef blocked and User:Tecmobowl served out a block for using sockpuppets. It is, however, clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively, and any further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Miss Mondegreen, your own link #misuse of admin tools by Irishguy seems to be quite conclusive that Irishguy was in the right. In the words of Caeculus above "I'm amazed that User:IrishGuy actually has to justify his actions against a highly disruptive user". Why are you bringing this up a second time? More importantly why are you defending him against all evidence to the contrary, everywhere? I could understand devils advocate, but that's not the case here. ⇒ SWATJester 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly, everyone seems to have missed the fact that I wasn't defending Tecmo. I, like other users saw things that pointed to sockpuppetry. I would not have said anything had the blacksoxfan case been closed quickly, though I saw no need for swift (or any action there), but that seemed solid to me. I had nothing to add.

The El redactor evidence did not seem obvious to me. There is a distinct difference between something looking suspect and needing to be looked into and something being obvious.

My concern was how things were done. A sockpuppetry case was filed, and none of the accounts were notified--Irishguy didn't let Tecmo know until he decided to block him. A checkuser case was opened by a different editor (Irishguy has maintained that he saw no point in it), and neither editor was notified.

Within the day that the sockpuppetry case was filed (a little more than half a day after the checkuser was, yes, I was wrong about that), Tecmo and El redactor were both blocked. The specific reason that Irishguy found that they'd been "caught" was one of the things I found least suspicious and the things that I thought argued toward El redactor being his own editor as I commented on the sockpuppet case. The things that I brought up as pointing against the outcome of sockpuppet were not replied to.

My general opinion was that if El redactor was a sockpuppter, Tecmo did a pretty good job, making sure that even while editing from the two accounts within the same hour, he didn't get back a checkuser result that implicated him, and anytime El redactor showed up anywhere where people would take note, there was an explanation that made sense. That does not equate with obvious, especially when the other sockpuppet listed was blatant behavior--if they weren't the same person, they were closely related.

It looks to me like everyone has taken the attitude that because Tecmo has been labeled as a problem, they don't have to do things properly, and that was my main concern. It was obvious enough sockpuppetry that the points I raised didn't have to be responded to, the accounts didn't have to be notified, etc, etc. I was worried that the case was being handled by editors who's past conflicts with Tecmo had given them a COI, that affected their decisions. I assume that Irishguy generally notifies people, generally responds to comments, etc. I am still bothered that no one thought it important to respond to the issues I raised, but now that other editors have looked at the reports, I'll let it go. All I was doing was trying to get someone else to take over the case, and someone did. In response to why I raised this issue so many times. Perhaps the sockpuppetry was obvious and I didn't see it. But I didn't, and I had seen conflict between the various involved parties before, no matter who's fault it was, and I saw an admin who wasn't following basic procedures which would have raised my eyebrows anyway. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:47, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl watches all my edits...that is one of the many reasons I knew El redactor was one of his socks. Tecmo commented about the sock case six minutes after I wrote up the report as you can see here. It isn't as though he remained unaware. IrishGuy 13:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that this small group of editors watches each others edits. I have gotten updates from all of you as to what the others are doing. It's like a Special:Contributions button that comes to me and sings, instead of my having to go and see what someone is actually doing.

In re Tecmo's edit summary, he could have been referring to the ANI discussion that was going on then. Even if he was referring to that, El redactor and blacksoxfan did not get notifications--neither did the IPs.

While I am aware that Tecmo watches your edits, I have no idea how that leads to the conclusion that El redactor was one of his socks. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:15, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tecmobowl watches a few of us. How that leads to El redactor is that El redactor had knowledge that he had no logical basis for having. Knowlege that Tecmobowl did have. IrishGuy 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have had precisely the same questions as to Miss M's shameless defenses of Tecmo no matter what the facts are that ⇒ SWATJester raises above throughout the course of the month.--Epeefleche 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And this is precisely what I mean. Btw, Irishguy--did it ever occur to you that El redactor found that discussion through the Shoeless Joe Jackson page? It both AGF and is logical and follows the pattern of his edits. I still don't understand why you think he shouldn't have known about the discussion. He wouldn't have clicked on your name from the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page, and commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson section on your talk page, and then noticing his name, commented on that section also. Or more logically, considering her thought Baseball Bugs was following him around he went to Baseball Bugs contributions. Baseball Bugs had recently commented on your page in a section called "Shoeless Joe Jackson" He went there, commented there, saw the section with his name and commented there was well. Why are neither of those possibilities logical. It's instead more logical to assume that Tecmo screwed up the name of his own sockpuppet when leaving him a warning, and then when he logged in and noticed that he didn't have new messages and that he'd screwed that up, he still managed it, by laying breadcrumbs to get himself there? Really? Btw, I wasn't still defending him--look above, I said: "I am still bothered that no one thought it important to respond to the issues I raised, but now that other editors have looked at the reports, I'll let it go." I did, and yet it's still not being let go. Issues much? Miss Mondegreen talk  16:54, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Replying here is not exactly "letting it go". El redactor knew about my removing Blacksoxfan.com from numerous articles. He would have to have gone 100 edits deep into my contributions to find that and/or magically go to those five articles and look at the history. Neither is probable. His first edit was to add that link back to Shoeless Joe with the edit summary: my first edit!!!!! I read discussion on the talk page. This looks like a good site to me.. Most new editors don't go straight to a talk page and read it before making any edits. Nor do most brand new editors even bother to leave edit summaries. This "new" editor not only did, but he did in complete sentences just like Tecmobowl. He also just happened to really want the same link in that article. Frankly, you are the only editor who seems to not see how patently obvious this sockpuppetry is. If you truly want to let this go...then do so. IrishGuy 17:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said I thought he went into YOUR contributions. Basically--you find that he appeared at the article suspect--as do I. I found more than one thing he did suspect. A good candidate for a suspected sock puppet. I didn't find anything he did obvious. I found that in many situations his being a new users made more sense then him being Tecmo, and in some situations it was the other way around. That's not obvious. If I truely want to let this go...I should, what? I responded to questions/accusations as to why I'd raised this issue--I didn't defend El redactor or Tecmo or reraise that issue, I said I was satisified. You decided to rehash parts of the sockpuppetry case, and Epeefleche decided to grandstand. Is the last word that important to you? Here then--have it. List everything you want to about El redactor and Tecmo and beat however many dead horses you would like and stamp on some graves while you're at it. Just please don't misquote me or anything. I'd hate to have to correct you and ruin the dramatics of the moment. I'm sure that you can find something terrible enough sounding on it's own merits. Miss Mondegreen talk  18:02, June 15 2007 (UTC)

First, please take a moment to read WP:CIV. Seriously. After that, please look up. After this was pronounced close you wrote a very long paragraph about how you still don't believe he was using socks and how I acted wildly against guidelines. Those clearly require me to respond. IrishGuy 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish rant

User:Alex mond, who appeared in Misplaced Pages on June 5, seems to be an essentially one-purpose account pushing extremely nationalist fringe views on Armenia and Armenian language. User:Dbachmann is the only editor who had the stamina to argue with him, to revert his most impertinent edits, and to help him with kind advices. After he understood that the case is hopeless and desisted from time-consuming arguments, User:Alex mond started pestering Dbachmann on his talk page:

• We think you are a Jew (and no its not Just Misplaced Pages that you think im referring to Jews propaganda), dont waste our time here
• By the way you are disguised as German. You're obviously the worse of the Jewish type.
• You are probably the worse of that type with your race, I dont know your race, but does it matter if I do??
• Dbachmann, I guess I was right, you're not serious about this, you are full of it.
• And yes, the Jewish were involved in a hidden way of the Armenian Genocide

How long will this last? I request someone to investigate the situation. Why should Misplaced Pages tolerate such editors? I believe anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks only drive serious wikipedians away from the project. --Ghirla 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He was warned by Alison at 17:14 on the 11th, and all of those diffs are from before then - unless there's been more comments since then, the warning may have done its job. Neil ╦ 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is disappointing. Could you refer me to a useful edit from this account? How much time you suppose people should spend arguing with him on talk pages and reverting his eyebrow-raising edits in mainspace? Thanks, Ghirla 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Has he made any incivil comments or personal attacks since being warned? If not, then there is no administrative action required at present. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. If he has stopped, then there is nothing to prevent. Neil ╦ 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be great if you and Nick added Armenia and Armenian language to your watchlist and, next time Alex mond attempts to edit them, discussed with him the harmfulness of fringecruft, especially that motivated by nationalist mythology. Thanks, Ghirla 13:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Neil. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas, I don't give a hoot whether the account is blocked or not. I'm well aware that some people, especially those who don't have to deal with extremist editors on a day-to-day basis, are willing to assume good faith ad infinitum and keep the project full of "potentially reformable bad guys", as long as they don't have to reason with them themselves. My request was to investigate whether the guy has really been helpful. I have yet to see a non-disruptive edit from this one-purpose account. --Ghirla 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps start a Sockpuppetry case and back it up with evidence? Or contact a checkuser? :) — Nearly Headless Nick 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's User:Artaxiad again? It does not appear to be plausible. --Ghirla 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can investigate this on your own - contribution logs are public. At this time no Admin will do the investigation for you because it isn't an interesting question. If someone's been warned and then continues to be disruptive, blocks may be in order to get their attention, or force them to knock it off. If they've stopped being disruptive, then there's nothing left to see.

I'm afraid we have different ideas of "disruption". --Ghirla 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ghirla here. I've been watching this user's contributions on Armenian topics over the past few days and he is clearly an extremist crank (and an anti-Semite to boot) with no scholarly knowledge of the subject at hand who is causing disruption with his editing. He contributes nothing to this project. I'm amazed there is no mechanism for the speedy removal of editors like this who cause far more disruption than drive-by vandals and who waste large amounts of bona fide users' time. This is exactly the kind of POV pusher who is wrecking large areas of Misplaced Pages and ruining its reputation in the wider world. --Folantin 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've only taken a cursory look at this, but what I've seen makes me agree with Ghirla and Folantin. This guy is an obvious crank, and unlikely to contribute anything valuable to the encyclopedia. It's really a shame we can't show such users the door immediately, because even when they are civil and limit themselves to the talk pages, they still chew up an enormous amount of time and patience. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think an indef-block for serious WP:NPA violations and bigotry is in order.Bakaman 23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bakasuprman. We can't have racism destroy Wikipeida.--Epeefleche 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. However, Neil brings up a valid restraining point, in that the warning from Alison was after the racism. If it happens again, I will block the user.⇒ SWATJester 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, blocking for 24 hours for this personal attack here and this one here, after the warning from Alison. ⇒ SWATJester 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

from my nigh three-year experience with this sort of situation, it is very, very unlikely that we'll ever get anything useful out of this editor that would even remotely make the bother of putting up with him worthwhile. But I am really agnostic about permabanning him, since, well, he'll just be back under another account anyway. Btw, I am neither Jewish nor German, but I do not consider it a "personal attack" to be called either. If you're going to permaban this account, let it be in some way on grounds that this user seems to consider 'Jewish type' a withering insult, not on grounds of him actually attacking me (I have been known to take much worse trolling without any rise in blood pressure). dab (𒁳) 08:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Twenty four hours? That's it? El_C 08:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to observe who here seems to be tolerating the hate speech with disgraceful word lawyering. El_C 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Not worth it. El_C 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-four hours really doesn't seem nearly long enough. I'd argue for a perma-ban. This user's anti-Semitic rants are part of a far wider problem than incivility (though we shouldn't be tolerating racial harrassment like this at all). These comments show he is a crackpot and his contributions are cut from the same cloth: he is simply adding lunatic fringe content to Misplaced Pages. This is a major problem for us as an encylopaedia as far as our credibility goes. Plus, I don't see why bona fide editors with knowledge of the subject should have to waste endless time on article talk pages arguing with tendentious ignoramuses. Misplaced Pages should have more robust and swifter methods for dealing with such cranks. We now have the opportunity to get rid of one of them, let's take it.--Folantin 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that instead of being immediately blocked for his anti-Semitic attacks, he was warned, and he seems to have stopped. We can all see he's a crackpot, but for some reason obvious crackpottery isn't grounds for a block, even though it's a more serious threat to the quality of the encyclopedia than personal attacks. Now we have to follow the tedious processes outlined in WP:DE and WP:TE, or argue for a community ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A week ago, I proposed on WP:VPR to set up a project or a noticeboard that would deal with the most glaring cases of fringecruft-pushing. There has been no feedback so far. IRC chatting is much more interesting than actually making some cleanup in mainspace. --Ghirla 12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, this is possibly the biggest problem with Misplaced Pages. We're not talking about good faith editors making honest mistakes by adding bad content and we're not talking about overheated but valid intellectual controversies, we're talking about out-and-out crankery. Yet there seems to be no efficient way of removing such editors and their "contributions". It appears we'd have to go through some long drawn out process involving plenty of Wikilawyering to deal with this problem. In the mean time, this kind of thing drives away plenty of knowledgeable editors who can't be bothered with the hassle. Admonitions to show "Wikilove" to the trolls and extremists really don't cut it. I know several potentially brilliant contributors who wouldn't go near WP because of this kind of thing. Ultimately, we get judged by our mainspace content, not how lovey-dovey we are behind the scenes. --Folantin 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction notice board to suggest a community ban instead of a block? Personally, I'm glad that people with admin bits are slow to give long blocks to people not currently engaged in disruptive behaviour. Dan Beale 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of those blocks should have been indef, but never mind. If he continues pushing his nutcasery, I'll block for out-and-out disruption. We just don't need talkpage warriors like this who do nothing but shove their original research in our direction. When this fellow goes back to his main account, he'd better be on his best behaviour and actually provide some references. C'mon people, we have an encyclopedia to maintain. Moreschi 10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse (talk · contribs) engaging in edit war on Walt Disney World Monorail System

HeadMouse (talk · contribs) has been engaging in an edit war on Walt Disney World Monorail System. When another editor tagged the article as needed {{cleanup-rewrite}}, he immediately removed it . A low-level edit war ensued for the next several days, until yesterday when the article was reverted back and forth about a dozen times. When another editor tried to apply WP:MoS and WP:NOT fixes to the article, HeadMouse continuously reverted it back to his preferred 20,291 bytes version and made comments such as:

• "Getting real tired of having to come in here and fix this article everyday because Misplaced Pages or some joker feels the need to delete something or change stuff around"
• "You are supposedly replacing an article that has already been accepted and meets all Misplaced Pages guidelines and accepted by the TrainsWiki Project. There is no need to rewrite it"
• "There is no need for a 'clean up'. this article received a B-class because it still lacks certain information. NOT because of the style it was written"
• "Just wante dto make sure you seen that template up top that reads 'This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains,' That has been there a while. Back when this article was cleaned up. SO you see, there is no need for you to come in an '"clean up'"
• "Please stop messing up articles that have already been approved by claiming they need to be fixed" .
• "Please do not confuse this article with the imitation page that is out there. This is the original article with accurate information."-I had to develop the article in my sandbox, he found it and put this on the Walt Disney Monorail article.--trey 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to gently remind HeadMouse about WP:OWN, yet he continues to revert the article to his preferred version. However he has been very careful to avoid violating WP:3RR, partially via the assistance of a like-minded editor . When another editor made an off-line copy of the article to test potential fixes, HeadMouse responded by added (in bold) "Please do not confuse this article with the imitation page that is out there. This is the original article with accurate information" to the top of the article in main space.

Looking at User talk:HeadMouse/Archive 1, it appears that during the month of May HeadMouse received at least seven warnings for being disruptive in other articles, ten copyvio warnings, and was blocked by Meegs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for being obstinate.

Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is that-a-way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your 3RR block of this user. Hopefully HeadMouse will be more ameniable to discussion and collaboration once his block expires. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Another update. Metros (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had to protect Walt Disney World Monorail System as HeadMouse resumed his edit war on the article immediately after his 24 hour block expired. Not to be thwarted, HeadMouse then created a POV-fork at Walt Disney monorail System. TexasAndroid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) moved the fork to HeadMouse`s user space, but HeadMouse just recreated the article again in mainspace. Rinse and repeat through three more cycles, and TexasAndroid eventually had to block HeadMouse for another 24 hours for disruption. He now states on his user talk page that once his latest block expires, "I'll be there to fight my side of the battle" . I fear that this will not end well. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

potential WP:BLP issue

Can some uninvolved admins take a look at Eugene Martin Ingram? I've done my best to remove statements not supported by the sources or inaccurate statements, but I still think this article is extremely unbalanced and I don't know where to find the sources to balance it out. I had nominated the article for deletion, but it got overwhelmed with keep votes and closed early. In my view, this article is very much like Crystal Gail Mangum, only in this case, it can't even explain what the person is notable for (and even after all this research, I still can't figure it out). This certainly seems to me like a case of a borderline-notable person being given an article on Misplaced Pages of questionable neutrality, and I'm not sure it can be fixed. Mangojuice 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuck. I would have no problem if someone wants to write a well-sourced article on how the church of Scientology misuses private investigators to intimidate critics (assuming such an article could be written NPOV with reliable sources etc). This seems like a smear job on one particular PI. Even though it is well-sourced, all the sources are negative, and there is no way to write an article that respects NPOV and Undue Weight. This does indeed seem like part of a campaign to write as many negative articles about Scientology as possible (and I am no fan, in fact, I am an early denizen of alt.religion.scientology and used to have the SCAMIZDAT documents on my hard drive). However this article has survived one AfD already, so I'm fucked if I delete it. Good luck to whoever tries. Thatcher131 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the AfD was so legitimate. It was only open for four hours, and the issues I brought up in my nomination were not addressed at all in the comments. Mangojuice 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not a fan of the Church's methods of dealing with criticism, but the current approach seems to be, as Thatcher said, the creation of as many coatrack articles as possible. Timothy Bowles is an example, which underwent 4 (give or take) AfD's plus a couple of DRV's. This seems to me to conflict with some very basic tenets of WP:BLP. However, this is an issue much bigger than me, so I'm not sure what the solution is. MastCell 18:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, Tim Bowles is a less worrisome case. I think there were some significant issues with vote-counting in those debates and they weren't decided on the merit of arguments, and could probably be reevaluated. But that article is not a complete smear-job, unlike the Ingram one. Mangojuice 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If a person has made a name for themselves in a particular field or subject matter, then it seems reasonable that the article on that person would deal heavily with that field or subject matter ... especially if other parts of that person's life are not particularly notable.

The notion of "coatrack articles" seems to lean in the direction of eliminating articles about people whose notability is significant but narrow, and that doesn't seem like a good idea for the encyclopedia. --FOo 04:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, what Misplaced Pages is not talks specifically about the difficulty of writing a proper biographical article about a subject whose notability is narrow. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper or a crime blotter. As I noted above, it would be acceptable to discuss Scientology's use of private investigators somewhere (either in the main CoS article or a fork), and such a discussion could of course name names (provided they are properly sourced). But as the topic for a biography, this article is unacceptable because we know nothing positive about the man, and this is not because he has only done negative things in his life, but because the only people who care enough to write about him are only interested in the negative things. Thatcher131 11:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK! What a useful concept. Thanks!! Now I know what I have been looking at. The essay explains a lot for me. --Justanother 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am no fan of CoS, either, and I concur with Thatcher131 here. These type of hatchet jobs do not do justice to Misplaced Pages, and the good editorial judgment of editors should be subverted by claims that "it is sourced". WP:V is just one of our core content policies and should be looked at in the context of WP:NPOV and the specific elements of WP:BLP. The article's contents should be summarized and merged into one of the many CoS articles that deal with the CoS alleged use of intimidation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Yug, again

User:Yug is being disruptive surrounding the article Stroke order.

He was blocked for 24 hours the other day for persistently inserting [this template or image on the Talk:Stroke order page.

The blocking admin, User:Luna Santin, removed the template with a warning, then removed it again when he blocked Yug.

The first thing Yug did when he was unblocked was restore the image, just without the stop hand image included. I removed it, asking him again to stop inserting it. Yug restored it.

Luna Stantin asked Yug to stop inserting this image yesterday.

I've repeatedly asked Yug to stop being disruptive, and to stop inserting this offensive and inflammatory item on the talk page. Yug is not a native speaker of English, and it can be very difficult to understand him. I've therefore also asked him repeatedly to please discuss his proposed changes on the article's talk page before making them, as it can be exceedingly difficult to figure out what he's trying to write. Recently, for example, he's begun rewriting perfectly good sentences with nearly the same content, but just in poor English.

In this div, which was after the discussion with Luna in which Yug was asked to discuss his edits first, I remove Yug's recent changes and ask him to discuss before editing. As soon as he returned, Yug reverted, twice.

Yug is bombarding me with messages on my talk page, on Luna's talk page, and on the talk:Stroke order page; I just can't keep up, besides being unwilling to discuss anything with him until he stops being disruptive.

Since Yug is clearly being disruptive here, since he's been blocked once already for this behaviour, since I'm an admin but I'm involved in this dispute, and since Luna Stantin (the admin who originally blocked him) isn't here currently, I'm asking someone to block Yug with a warning to stop this behaviour.

Please also see:

• User talk:Exploding Boy
• User talk:Yug
• User talk:Luna Santin#Yug, yet again
• There's also an archived original message on this page, but I can't find the div.

Exploding Boy 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - this guy needs to get a clue - this is a situation where he's being disruptive via editing because his english is so poor. If he wants to make additions to articles, he needs to get english language editors to assist him on talkpages because while he might have useful knowledge to add to the project, the outcome is that he's degrading the quality of articles. It's not really acceptable to say "I'll add it and then the rest of you follow me around and clean it up" - which is his current stance. --Fredrick day 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to know his English is a problem, but he both underestimates the difficulty of grasping his intended meaning, and seems to believe that the biggest issue is spelling, which is emphatically is not. Exploding Boy 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I submit that my reply at User talk:Luna Santin#Yug, yet again is relevant. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant. It indicates that Luna Stantin would prefer to end his involvement in this issue. Exploding Boy 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Luna Santin find us childish -which is the case- and don't want block me on the reason "add a 1px blue frame on his post", as you request him to do. Yug (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Luna apparently no longer wishes to be involved. Another admin needs to look into this, please. Exploding Boy 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If other user(s) want to get involved, and think they'll do some good, go for it. At this point, however, I'm only asking that these two try to work together -- not sure how that got translated to "no longer wishes to be involved." – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You blocked him once for disruptive behaviour. He refused to stop the behaviour when you asked him to, and indeed challenged you to block him, which you did. Clearly the block wasn't long enough, as the same behaviour continues--the first thing he did when his block expired was restore the template (except for one small part); he's done it twice since he's been unblocked. He very clearly needs blocking again. I've expressed time and time again my willingness to work with him, when the disruptive behaviour ends. Note also that this user is himself an admin (on the French Misplaced Pages), so he knows better. And really, Luna, if you weren't willing to follow through (you wrote, in your edit summary when you reverted Yug's change the first time, "if you restore this div, I'm going to block you from editing") then you shouldn't have got involved in the first place. Let's be clear on the subject: he has restored the div, repeatedly, and I fully expect him to do so again when he returns.

In short, two users spoke to him about his behaviour. He was requested several times to stop it. He was warned several times, by two users. He was then blocked for 24 hours. The behaviour, however, still continues. We've followed standard blocking procedure. Clearly what is required now is a longer block. Exploding Boy 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between putting a box around one's comments and putting the stop sign up. He has dropped the stop sign and while the box is unorthodox & unnecessary, it is not disruptive. The stop sign was. I see no reason to block an editor simply because he wants to put a box around his comments. I have to agree with Luna Santin's comment, "I fail to see, however, why this has become the primary point of contention -- it has zero effect on the dispute as a whole.". --JLaTondre 00:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference, exactly? It is disruptive precisely because it is unorthodox and unnecessary. It's inflammatory. It's drawing undue and unnecessary attention to his comments. But perhaps more importantly, he was warned not to restore the div. He was blocked when he ignored the warning. As soon as the block expired, he restored the div again (just without that one small part). It's pretty clear cut. Exploding Boy 04:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The stop sign was inflammatory as it was authoritative & implied a command that people must stop based upon him comments. The box is merely decorative. While it may add attention to his comments, it is far less annoying then all bold, all caps, etc. We don't block for the latter so there's no reason to block for the former. I am also surprised why you would argue with the blocking admin over why he was blocked. Luna Santin is the one who blocked him and is the one who knows best why he blocked him. As he told you on his talk page that he doesn't find the box alone disruptive, it's odd that you would categorize that as him no longer wanting to be involved vs. it being exactly what he said. -- JLaTondre 10:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a biases. Which may lead other admins to block me O.ô. Is this acceptable from administrators on Wiki-en ? --Yug (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yug quick answer

I need the help of an administrator speaking French and English, please notice me if you know one.

I thanks to noticed about this talk, but while I previously encouraged several time for WP:RfC, EB came by two time on the Administrators:_noticeboard/Incidents , which can finish only by an agreement of both parts, or by a blockage (for me).

I agree with Luna Santin's comment, "I fail to see, however, why this has become the primary point of contention -- it has zero effect on the dispute as a whole.".

Luna Santin also noticed : Yug appears to have made a working sandbox at User:Yug/Stroke order -- by all appearances, you haven't edited it, despite his invitation. diff.

The div I repeatedly restore is a frame for a summary of Exploding boys mistakes on the Stroke order article, since January 2007. The div also explain that being put into an impasse (by EB reverts) since several months, I now have to start to mirror his revert strategy. Mirror means I make nothing more than him.

The talk page was widely open to him:

• Talk:Stroke_order#2 more section to add - issue open on December 9, no answer.
• Talk:Stroke_order#Clean up Improvement (start on january 2007) - issue open on January 28, no answer.
• Talk:Stroke_order#Soon rewriting - issue open on May 30, no answer.

When I put into effect the last, on June 2nd, I commented : "(Huge re-writing-merging, according to User:Yug/Stroke order. Informations deleted have been merge into the new version, or move toward new articles.)", as a skilled user, EB was perfectly able to take a look on the talk page Talk:Stroke_order#Soon rewriting, where I said the CJK strokes section was move to => CJK strokes.

But on june 5, EB reverted (all), and commented : "(Restore large amount of mysteriously removed information.)"

"Mysteriously" !? So EB didn't seen the talk page, and didn't see my comment, but reverted... O.ô. Woohh.... English administrators are really powerful : they are allow to revert without understand the change made !

Now, look again the summary made by EB User:Yug.2C_again, it's easy and convenient to say that I'm a bad user, but wide area of the story are hide. Delete my div will help him to hide a little more his previous mistakes.

In one word : EB have now to face with what he did hastily, when nobody was watching.

He is a skilled user, but his behavior was not acceptable from an administrator. That's why, I, Yug, administrator in Wiki fr and Commons, started this Mirror strategy, and putted this "div + Stop image", highlight EB previous abuses or mistakes.

--Yug (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (I still look for french + english speaker)

My only concern is that this stop hand plus div tag looks like a warning. If you are in opposition to someone's edits, or just have a basic concern, surely it is easiest simply to use normal text without formatting? As demonstrated here, some users are taking this offensively to be "warned" over a revert. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

<own post deleted to be more friendly with EB> Yug (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this endless story seem to be in a neutral point :

• I, Yug, stopped to had the "disruptive" Stop hand image ;
• several users seem to agree than a 1px border is not disruptive ;
• the main mediator, Administrator Luna Santin, declined the request (by EB) of a new blockage (of Yug) ;

I propose this, if we do so, all this will be end :

• an/several new admin(s) replace EB in watching the pages Stroke order, and Talk:Stroke order, please volunteers ;

These administrators should block :

Me, Yug, if I add bad "Pigeon's English" into Stroke order ;

EB, if he continue to revert the 1px line on Talk:Stroke order ;

Me, if I restore the disruptive image "Stop hand.svg" ;

• I, Yug, work on the page Stroke order/Temp, with my "Pigeon's English"...
• ... and some users help me to correct it, please volunteers for this too.

Yug (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please volunteers, add you names below (Name/Status/Task):

• Yug, user, working on Stroke order/Temp

Yug has removed the background, making the box far less noticeable, and seems to have removed some of the more offensive content. I'm willing to go forward with this. Exploding Boy 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Redpanda REX using his userpage as an advertisement?

I just participated in an AfD discussion on the article Panda Paradise, basically a fan-made expansion pack for Zoo Tycoon II. After noticing two people in the discussion voting with "panda" in their name, I checked out this users contributions to see if there was sockpuppetry involved. It seems they are using their as an advertisement for this XP, which has no notability and doesn't come out until August. The AfD seems to be going in the direction of delete. Suggestions?

--Ispy1981 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the result of WP:AFDs or even speedy deleted articles as userfyed, which means that the material in the article is placed on the original creators user page. Usually, I have only seen this occur with non-notable personal biographies. Is this case, I don’t see a problem with this userpage. However, if there is a scream on the page to buy the product or some such plea, then I could see a problem. -- moe.RON 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And see, not to take away from the original topic, while looking at Special:Log/Newusers, the user Bluedragon13123 (talk · contribs) has a first edit that is pretty much a borderline advert on their userpage. -- moe.RON 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see the difference there. It's subtle. The user in question is just saying "join my forum, here's what it's called". Bluedragon is giving out a web address to theirs.--Ispy1981

As Bluedragon has zero contribs outside that page, I zapped it for being spam. -- Merope 13:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Panache at Quantity theory of money

Panache (as Panache and from IP number 82.232.235.239) keeps inserting “original research” in the article “Quantity theory of money”. His reach exceeds his grasp in English (he is a Francophone), in economics, and in Misplaced Pages mark-up; perhaps as a consequence of this, his edits to the article and arguments on the article discussion page are at best difficult to distinguish from trolling, and he has twice fouled up the format on the article discussion page in a way that would require significant clean-up to proceed intelligibly. (After the first time, I did clean things up, and he promptly fouled things even worse.)

He has been warned (on the talk page for Panache and on that for 82.232.235.239) that he can be blocked for persistent insertion of “original research” and for trolling, but his behavior seems unabated. —SlamDiego_←T 00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now Panache is coming to my User talk page for the simple purpose of personal attack. —SlamDiego_←T 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

After earlier making a mess of the discussion by blindly trashing the mark-up, Panache has made a series of edits that counterfeit the discussion. I believe that he was trying to clean-up the mess that he made, but he did so with a sense of entitlement to dramatically restructure my presentation of my own comments. —SlamDiego_←T 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Panache has also edited from IP number 132.203.44.207. He is thus acting both from a site in France and from one in Quebec. —SlamDiego_←T 01:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Panache has now made edits from IP number 69.156.24.240. He asserts that he is going to continue edits of the previous manner. Since no admin has stepped-in, I have simply told him that I will revert his future inappropriate edits to the technical section, as I have reverted those of the past. (I have not attempted to defend the “Critics” section, which has been a mess for as long as I've been aware of the article.) —SlamDiego_←T 02:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock sighting

MobyDicker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created his account at 4:27 pm Eastern, and immediately went to my talk page to take issue with the listing of community-banned Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect this is a Panairjdde sock ... bears all the earmarks. Blueboy96 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Requiescat in pace, dude. Obviously not here to build the encyclopedia. Moreschi 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Got another one, VisitWeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Blueboy96 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright you primitive screwheads, this is my boomstick! Blocked. -- Merope 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I vonH removing sockpuppet proof, etc

I vonH (talk · contribs), along with a number of IP addresses, is proven to be a sockpuppet of Tfoxworth (talk · contribs) and is blanking all of the pages and removing the links proving it to be so. He is also claiming that he is his own wife, that is, I vonH is saying that Tfoxworth is "her" husband. If that is true, they are engaging in disrupting Misplaced Pages.

The above statement is offensive.I vonH

Here are the IP addresses and user names that are populating Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Tfoxworth unless I vonH has gone and blanked the IP pages again:

• 12.146.101.146 (talk · contribs)
• 12.146.102.46 (talk · contribs)
• 68.3.32.53 (talk · contribs)
• 68.3.34.152 (talk · contribs)
• I vonH (talk · contribs)

Please note the category page and note that the above five users are supposed to be listed in it. I vonH has blanked a number of the pages and I and at least one other person so far have reverted them. Therefore I have provided a version link to the category page, which itself contains version links to examples of vandalism, versions of the IP pages to preserve them, etc. I vonH/Tfoxworth has also engaged in starting frivolous mediation requests, etc.

Hardly frivolous all things considered. One needs only to look at the page history to see why it was requested.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can probably post more if needed. Charles 23:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said Charles- Tfoxworth is my husband. You are just angry I reported you for 3RR. I vonH 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You have? That's news to me. I am not angry about any 3RR write-up, I am concerned about the integrity of Misplaced Pages when we have sockpuppets removing warranted notifications on the pages of IP addresses where the connections have been established. If I was touchy, I would consider you calling me angry for something I didn't know about a personal attack, but I will blame it on the established pattern of behaviour. Charles 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny that- all this came about after I reported you. You should be worried about the lack of integrity you have shown thus far.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're his wife, then you're a meatpuppet, and shouldn't be removing notices in such a manner. Misplaced Pages is not a popularity contest. --Haemo 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the IP addresses there are entries that are not ours. We have two computers, not five. However, since you are not in the least way involved in this issue your interest is...? Perhaps you are a meatpuppet for Charles.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that his interest is in maintaining Misplaced Pages. Any responsible editor can see the evidence and has the right to comment on the matter at hand. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets are not members of the Misplaced Pages community. If you are accusing me of having a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet, I invite you to prove it. It is not true. It is, however, true for "you and your husband" and it is in Misplaced Pages's best interest that a consistent vandal who engages in harassment be dealt with. Charles 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a meatpuppet. Anyone can see that. --Haemo 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of this public noticeboard is to solicit the advice or help of uninvolved administrators, and the advice and help of other editors who also post here. That you would accuse someone providing that exact thing of being a meatpuppet is preposterous. Natalie 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins, is there anything that can be done about this person to prevent the constant disruption, harassment, etc? Charles 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X v10.5 image copyvio issue

Hello, we seem to be having a bit of a problem on this article with a couple of users who are intent on uploading several images directly from Apple's web site, and trying to claim fair-use. User:Neil G12'd these earlier today, but they were promptly re-uploaded by one User:Kris33, who also took it upon themselves to attempt to get some Windows-related images deleted., , , etc. These were all turned down by various admins. (Note that practically all screenshots of Windows and OS X have been created by Misplaced Pages editors using their own tools, not copied from Apple's, Microsoft's or other web sites without permission) A second speedy deletion on the OS X copyvio'd images was turned down by User:Akradecki, so it appears we now have some disagreement about whether these images can exist on the encyclopedia under fair-use or not. I'm pretty sure that we aren't supposed to be uploading images found and copied from web sites, but I'm bringing it here for further insight and discussion. Thanks for any input you may have. -/- Warren 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I declined to speedy as there was a detailed fair use rationale that appeared to me to fulfill our requirements. Rather than just say "copyvio", it would really help us admins if, when you nom'ed something like this for speedy, you told us specifically which of the Fair Use criteria the subject image or article fails at. AKRadecki 02:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not use these images? Getting permission is not relevant to a claim of fair use. Since these images were released for information and promotional puroses I think limited use of them can be considered fair use. Besides, this is unreleased software so we can't get screenshots ourselves. the wub "?!" 10:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is also at WP:AN#Quick_Image_question. -- lucasbfr 10:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am having a big problem with how things are being handled. The screenshot of OS X has been deleted twice now, and not under normal speedy delete policy, but directly by an admin replying about this subject. I'm not saying that's wrong, but not usual. Anyhow, my question is, why is the image Image:Windows_Neptune_Desktop.jpg valid for fair-use while the Leopard images were not? It's the same deal really, a screenshot from a website of unreleased software and no other alternative exists. I've read all 10 points regarding images in WP:FU and there's not an blatant issue with the Leopard images from those ten points. The only reason I see this being an issue is the policy of no images from websites, however again, the Windows image I'm using as an example was procured in the same exact manner, the difference being Microsoft likely did not give permission to screen-capture their unreleased alpha software, while Apple themselves have provided these images of their site. I am looking for some clarification from someone not directly involved in this already (Warren, Neil) on why one image (the Windows one referenced above) is still on Misplaced Pages and the others are of Leopard are not. Further, I have contacted Apple about releasing one or more of the images under GFDL or CC, but who knows, and even if we got their permission; would that really change anything (unless of course released under one of the latter two licenses)? Heck, what if I took a screenshot of the open image from my web browser, lol (jk). Thank you for your time. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference to one's own books

User JohnLauritsen (talk) (contribs) has been inserting references to his own books and website http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/. Is this a conflict of interest? Examples

— DavidMack 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup...some serious COI and spamming going on here...I'll look into this further. AKRadecki 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam removed, editor warned. AKRadecki 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• see this search. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins need for pagemove cleanup

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Sev_Snape

What the hell is this guy doing? HalfShadow 03:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism. That's what. And due to the page moves many of the real pages were accidentally deleted by admins. So this is a problem. --MichaelLinnear 03:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Any chance this is related to Sal Slytherin (talk · contribs), Hel Hufflepuff (talk · contribs), and Row Ravenclaw (talk · contribs)? (see this archived ANI thread) Naming is the same (based on characters from Harry Potter), although the contribs are different. RFCU? -- Flyguy649_contribs 04:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are definitely sockpuppets, same tactics of vandalism using WP:IAR as an edit summary. A check user could be useful as they showed a great deal of familiarity with Misplaced Pages, using page move and db-user tags to trick admins into deleting the actual article. --MichaelLinnear 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How about Pom Sprout (talk · contribs · account creation), into whose namespace Sev Snape moved a couple of these pages before he moved them into his own? Od Mishehu 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, also blocked for page move vandalism using WP:IAR as an edit summary. --MichaelLinnear 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU-IP check filed . -- Flyguy649_contribs 05:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For now, the following things should probably be done:

1. Undelete User:Sev Snape/temp6 and it's talk page, to revert the move from Palm Harbor University High School.
2. Delete the user namespace pages created by the move reverts of the vandal. (I marked these with {{db-pagemove}} tags)
3. Move-protect the pages - I see clear evidence that each account will re-move the pages moved by the previous. I placed requests at WP:RFPP.

Od Mishehu 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I realized that this vandal seems to be going at semi-protected pages. No idea how he finds them (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets had been semi-protected for about half an hour before being moved, and wasn't marked as semi-protected). I don't know why this is, but it's an other thing which seems to be a running thread here. Od Mishehu 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection log possibly? I have restored that page you mentioned to its proper position, deleted the redirs and move protected it for 2 weeks. Viridae 07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How did THIS slip by the vandal reverters?

this was never an admin issue anyway as any user could have reverted this. Metros 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Parents Music Resource Center----La Parka Your Car 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, but I think a better question is "why didn't you just revert it yourself?" -- JLaTondre 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there was so much vandalism and I didn't even know which version to revert to! Plus I think it should be brought to somebody's attention that somehow this was able to get past the Recent Changes Patrollers.----La Parka Your Car 03:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that hard to click through the history to find the last good version. The recent change patrolling cannot be perfect as there are some many edits. If you want to improve recent change patrolling, then add yourself to those patrolling. Only more people can help in the end. -- JLaTondre 03:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think it's a big deal, why are you criticizing La Parka Your Car? It's true that unreverted vandalism is common, but I still think it is interesting in this case. Thank you for posting, La Parka Your Car. As this is an open forum on a wiki, and as a post about vandalism, I appreciate it, even if he was making conversation.--Gnfgb2 04:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member.----La Parka Your Car 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a point, when someone says "add yourself to those recent changes patrolling", that means, e.g. take a look at the Recent changes page, or get a program (like CDVF) that helps you watch and analyse changes. You don't have to join CVU or bung up a silly picture of a policeman on your user page to clean up vandalism. Some people like to, and if that's what you want, that's fine. But nobody expects you to. Cheers, 203.122.238.225 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm always on the Recent changes page; take a look at my edits.----La Parka Your Car 03:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

== Disruptive editing at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment by

Ferrylodge ==

Brief History: (well its briefer than the archived history)

For those who are not aware, Ferrylodge recently harassed KillerChihuahua on her talkpage, was warned by Bishonen to cease posting on KC's page, and that any further posting there would be considered harassment. Three posts (on KC's page) later (including one which politely instructed KC to not delete it), Bishonen had enough and blocked Ferrylodge for 24 hours.

Ferrylodge objected to the claim that he had been harassing, and immediately set about laying the groundwork for an RfC or mediation (he was unclear about what he wanted).

In the interim, he opened a very lengthy discussion on AN/I here. Not only did he find no support for his 'cause', but it was pointed out that his tendentious edits have extended back for the past 6 months.

Failing to get 'satisfaction' from AN/I, Ferrylodge then opened an RfC against Bishonen here. The outcome of the RfC was unanamous disapproval of the entire RfC as frivolous and unanamous support for Bishonen and the block.

Ferrylodge said that the only thing he learned was "that you can get away with murder at Misplaced Pages, as long as you have a pack of people to back you up. here.

Then, when it came time to close, and archive, the RfC, Ferrylodge falsely worded the closing statement as "No conclusion. Closed per agreement. No agreement reached about harassment charge". Note: The concensus was unanamously against Ferrylodge and in support of the block, the block wording and Bishonen. Ferrylodge then had a bit of a spat on the talkpage of the RfC and contested a correct summary of "Unanimous rejection of assertions made, with solitary exception of person bringing Rfc."

Which brings us up to date...

Now Ferrylodge has taken his 'case' to the talk page of WP:RFC and is soap boxing there about the closing summary. Three editors have told him that his comments are inappropriate on that talk page. I attempted to archive the discussion. Swatjester attempted to delete some of the more offending material, and Fredrick day moved the entire section to Ferrylodge's talk page.

Each time, Ferrylodge has tenaciously reverted the text back onto the talk page.

He is not asking for help. He is not asking a question. He is just disruptively making a point that in his view, he was served injustice.

Has this gone on long enough to warrant a block for disruption? Lsi john 05:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has agreed to stop posting on the Rfc discussion page. I adjusted the closing comment on the Rfc to accomodate his desire to reflect that LCP did not actually comment against him on the specific Rfc article mainpage. I have archived the conversation here.

Hopefully this issue is resolved and will remain closed. Lsi john 12:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As he has been told multiple times now by admins and non admins since the end of the Rfc to move on and drop it, yet continued his abuse of the deceased equine, I am not convinced this is over. However, he has deleted everything about it from his talk page, and archived the rest, so I hope he's finally done. KillerChihuahua 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to block latest JBIP.

After doing some investigating, I discovered that User:JB196 was using a psuedo-open proxy service called "Conceal My IP" to edit wikipedia. Since he's been discovered, he has taken to vandalizing in retribution. Can someone please block the IP? I'll have to write something up to get the DNS for this proxy service blocked. Here's the DNS for that IP. . Thanks. SirFozzie 06:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

216.17.109.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Already blocked.--Chaser - T 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Might want to indef block that, that's a proxy hosting service.. it was already blocked once. SirFozzie 06:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:UP vio

I'm having trouble to understand how the main contributor of the featured Macedonia (terminology) could be described as a "suspected vandal against Macedonia" with a "specific view against Macedonia" in a userpage (among others). Please see User:Brest's. NikoSilver 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section from the userpage , describing good faith users as vandals is not the way we operate. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I respect the work of User:NikoSilver, grandiose, but still I think that he has POV against Macedonia, not good faith user.--Brest 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is no reason to label him a vandal or make attacks on your userpage about him. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He was labelled as suspected vandal (not proven), and it was my personal opinion.--Brest 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a vandal is not just a personal opinion. It is a factual claim, like calling them a thief. If you call someone a thief, you aren't just saying that you feel that they're thieflike, or that they remind you of thieves; you're saying that they actually did steal something. That's what being a thief means. Likewise with calling someone a vandal here. --FOo 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Aronblank

See - this is not an active Wikipedian, but the above (from his talk page) is so disgusting and repugnant the whole page needs to be removed from Misplaced Pages ASAP. Kirkbynative 11:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've deleted it. – Steel 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In the future, you can make these kinds of requests using the usual speedy deletion tags. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

April redling

This nasty attack page has been up for over 20 minutes. We're supposed to be faster than this for this kind of abuse - can someone TWEP this now please. exolon 11:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. exolon 11:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem finding an article I posted

Dear Administrator

I posted an article on my organisation, the South African Qualifications Authority, on 14 June 2007. When I do a search using the above mentioned name, I do not get the article. However, when I look under my contributions I can see it. Is there something that I did not do right when I posted the article?

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

N Gumbe

The article, South african qualifications authority, was deleted as being a copyright violation. I am sorry you weren't informed of this on your talk page. I'll leave the message you should have received so you will know a little bit more about Misplaced Pages's rules concerning contributions. -- Merope 13:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm afraid I had to delete it under WP:CSD#G11 due to blatant advertising and lack of reliable sources rather than as a copyright violation. Please keep in mind you should avoid creating an article on your own personal pet project (e.g. your friend, your organization, etc). We strive towards creating a neutral encyclopedia, and it's difficult not to express a certain point of view for a subject you're so personally involved with. Also, because Misplaced Pages is licensed under the GFDL, you may not assign a personal copyright to any submitted content. Michaelas 13:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has articles on organisations such as the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Scottish Qualifications Authority, National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, and many others and the South African Qualifications Authority is the South African version of these organisations and I therefore wanted information on it to be available on Misplaced Pages as well. Copyright of the contents belongs to the organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngumbe (talk • contribs)

Responded on user's talk page. Moving along. -- Merope 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gaetano Bedini

I would like to draw community’s attention to the situation with Gaetano Bedini article. User:Attilios held hostage this article and RB all new edit. This is hystory and this are diff . He say my edit are "unrelevant" :°( - He removed 2 photo too. Photo are unrelevant? He removed "Preceded by" and "succeded by".. why in Friedrich Wetter, Julius Döpfner, Joseph Wendel and more are nt removed? Tnx -- 87.1.223.176 15:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use the dispute resolution procedure, linked above, to resolve content disputes such as this. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not linked above. It's at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked in over there, and cautioned Attilios about Civility (He mocks a good fatih editor's grasp of english, GFeditor is probably italian), and about OWNership, as he's certainly getting there. ThuranX 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already heard back from Attilios, and he seems both glad to be notified about the problem, nd willing to work on it. Perhaps an Admin can review and tag this with a 'resolved'?(Or else step in and fix somethign i've broken?) ThuranX 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Harry Potter character" vandals needing block

Further to WP:ANI#Admins need for pagemove cleanup, I have found the following accounts registered around the same time as the other ones with the same name type:

• Min McGonagall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fil Flitwick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please block? Flyguy649_contribs 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts indef-blocked by another admin. MastCell 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's strangely appropriate that it was Nearly Headless Nick that blocked them! Flyguy649_contribs 17:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It (film)

I'm not sure where to request this, but I am requesting semi-protection on It (film) as I've had to revert multiple IP edits where they consistantly remove valid information from the page. I've made sure not o violate WP:3RR but if they keep it up, I will constantly be on the verge of breaking 3RR, and will have to sit there and wait for my time to "expire", which I'd rather not do. I'd rather make contributions elsewhere than to have to keep constantly looking over the article. --sumnjim 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for requests for page protection. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --sumnjim 15:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Range block needed

User: Diluvien has been severely eluding his ban on the recent range of 87.122.x.x. Please see the histories , , and . He's used IP's: 87.122.38.6, 87.122.58.60, 87.122.44.84, 87.122.54.178, 87.122.56.113, 87.122.28.40, and 87.122.21.58 (still unblocked and edit warring at AN/3RR) over the past few days. The Evil Spartan 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The addresses you quote span a 15 bit space, so the rangeblock you suggest would cover 32768 addresses. That's a pretty big chunk - it would be one thing to briefly block that if we were being attacked by a vandalbot or a determined tubgirl-type vandal, but neither the rate nor the severity of this guy's vandalism seems to call for such an extensive block, particularly for a multi-day duration. As Misplaced Pages:Blocking IP addresses#Range blocks notes, rangeblocks "should be reserved as an absolute last resort." -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I've seen range blocks per into place for much smaller occurrences. I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. Have you ever used a range block before? It doesn't appear much else is coming from that address, and we can always do AO or let someone appeal the block. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And now, after repeatedly undoing other administrator's edits, he managed to get Isotope23 blocked for 24 hours. Thanks a lot, guys, way to be on the eight ball. The Evil Spartan 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick, please. HalfShadow 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits again

Further to Vintagekits (talk · contribs · logs)' recent block and to this recent discussion, I wish to invite further input into how this editor's behaviour can be improved.

Vintagekits has from his very first edits here consistently pushed the POV that Celtic F.C. are not British. I warned him about it back in August 2006. Being from an Irish background in Scotland myself, I'm readily able to understand the nuances of language by which sectarianism is promoted. I have always tried very hard to interact civilly with Vintagekits, but he often tends to react to criticism with an almost Ali G-like "is it cos I is Irish" response, focusing on the perceived ethnicity or biases of editors he is in dispute with rather than the encyclopedic merits of their edits, policy, or consensus.

He was recently blocked for 24 hours by User:Picaroon for incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring after warning, after edits such as this, this and this.

I said yesterday here that "I really hope he can learn to live with other people here and work better with them. I cherish his zeal and commitment to ridding Misplaced Pages of pro-British PoV (to be honest, as a Scot I often feel the same way), but some of the recent nastiness has crossed a line. If he can't accept that people are people, Wikipedians are Wikipedians, without bringing ethnicity and allegations of bias into every single argument, he needs a much longer break. I genuinely hope this won't go in that direction."

Unfortunately today he has returned from his block and seems to have gone straight back into ethnic warrior mode. When I removed a fair-use image from an article where it was being used in breach of policy (after discussing why I was doing it in talk), Vintagekits reverted twice without any obvious justification in policy or consensus, and followed this up with another couple of uncivil comments. While these are far from being the worst things he has said or the worst things I have been called, coming so soon after his last block, where edit-warring and incivility were issues, and while he is also currently under investigation for sockpuppetry, it prompted me to seek further input as I think personally I have exhausted my patience with him.

Any thoughts? --John 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• All very interesting - however the diffs you have provided do not back up your narrative. The issue here is the picture of the "Bhoys from Seville" DVD on The Bhoys from Seville article. You took it upon yourself to remove the picture without discussion - I asked you to engage in discussion rather than getting drawn into your edit war. The upshot of this is 1. one editor agreed with you about the fair use (and that was Astrotrain!!!!!) and two editors including me disagreed. 2. the DVD is discussed in the article - thereby satisfying fair use. 3. You have never pointed out why it didn’t satisfy fair use and I believe that you are just try to orchestrate me getting a block. I hope editors will see this for what it is.--Vintagekits 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I could put "fact" tags beside your comments because the picture you are painting is purely nonsense. You encourage editors to wind me up and you also treat different people in different ways despite the same actions being carried out and it is my opinion that you are, along with me, the root cause of most trouble of the past five days on here.--Vintagekits 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I started a similar thread at WP:AN, but figured we may as well centralise the discussion, so i'm merging my original post there, and the two comments immediately below (Tyrenius' and John's), to here:

Many of you will be familiar with Vintagekits (talk · contribs) an Irish editor who has been embroiled in a long-running and wide-ranging conflict with a number of English editors. Quite frankly, the behaviour of editors on both sides of this dispute have been poor, resulting in blocks being issued for edit-warring, personal attacks and incivility, e.g. . A case in point can be seen within the number of AfD's that have served as battlegrounds (see, for example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet). There has been allegations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry from editors on both sides, and a glance at the AfD will reveal plenty of SPA's. A recent AfD inspired the re-appearance of a few SPA friends, resulting in a report being filed on suspected sockpuppets of Vintagkits. Consequent to this an editor provided me with compelling evidence of Vintagekits soliciting support off wiki to help, in his own words, with a bit of voterigging. The evidence is detailed at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. As someone who has been involved in collecting this evidence, I don't believe I'm the right person to judge how to use it in determining what, if any, action should be taken. I'm asking for the opinion of others, especially those familiar with Vintagekit's history. Thanks. Rockpocket 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence on the page is circumstantial. Is there concrete evidence of solicitation, e.g. a post on a message board? Tyrenius 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Just spotted new material that answers the question. Tyrenius 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know both "sides" have behaved badly here, but I don't think one wrong excuses another. In the absence of any commitment to improve from Vintagekits, and in the light of this new evidence of Vintagekits' failure to respect policy, I think we have to be looking at a longish block. --John 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1. I can prove 100% that they sock/meatpuppets of mine but I will let checkuser runs its course first. 2. I think that John is purely biased and unfair when dealing with me, he has been like this for quite some time and its getting stupid now. This whole latest episode has been caused, yes by myself, but also by John's handling of me, my actions and the actions of others against me. I more than happy to be polite and co-operate with editors and admin but when there is a lack of balance then I find it difficult to keep the head.--Vintagekits 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point requesting a checkuser now. With the probable exception of Sligobhoy67 (talk · contribs) who has not been involved in the votestacking, its pretty clear that they are meatpuppets, not sockpuppets, so a checkuser wouldn't tell us much. Rockpocket 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In others were wrong about your wide assumptions on socks but are now going to make wide assumption about meatpuppets instead - this is becoming a farce.--Vintagekits 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence this there for all to see. If you dispute the legitimacy of that then say so, and say why it is incorrect. If that is an accurate representation for what happened, but you think it was justified, then say so. However, just ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away, and attacking those that provide it is not going to help your case. How do you explain the fact that someone who twice claimed to be Vintagekits on another forum asked for help with a bit of voterigging, then an editor with the same name of the person who replied to that request appeared to vote, almost exclusively, in a number of your AfDs? I should note that on further investiagtion there is a lot more evidence, for example that Coeur-sang replied done and done in response to the voterigging request, and if you compare the dates and times of that post with his first edit on the AfD, they fit perfectly. Rockpocket 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would love to address the evidence but there is none! I am not Sligobhoy67 and he is not me - on this or any other website! I dont think I can be more clear than that - and that is my last post on the issue until, until the checkuser is done and you come up with something that isnt you just leaping from one assumption to another.--Vintagekits 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying there is no evidence is not an answers to charges that are so well-researched. The evidence is convincing that Vintagekits has posted to another forum as Sligobhoy67, and has canvassed for vote rigging. Vintagekits offers no explanation for the comments there that refer to his editing. The evidence of meat puppets or possibly sock puppets is also convincing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying there is no evidence because there is none - what more can I say. As I have said I am not Sligobhoy67 - can I make it any clearer.--Vintagekits 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket has presented forum postings by someone with a username of Sligobhoy67 claiming edits that you made. Are you saying that that person was lying? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258#User:EliasAlucard
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258#User:EliasAlucard 2

User is still engaging in WP:NPA violations despite being warned and blocked (for 24hrs). -- Cat 16:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He was given a "last warning" for that particualar comment by User:Neil, an admin who seems to be monitoring the situation. If he's transgressed again, since that warning, then you could come back here with a diff or (maybe more effective) just let User:Neil know, since he seems to be on the case. MastCell 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted this to WP:ANB/I and User:Neil's talk page practically the same time. I ponder how many warnings does someone need to cease name-calling people as "racist"... EliasAlucard is no new user. -- Cat 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking over this editor's contribution history, he/she seems to have a couple of POV axes to grind. His/her accusations are a clear violation of WP:NPA, and I think a general civility reminder would not go amiss. Probably should come from someone other than me, though, since I just nominated one of his/her pages for deletions. -- Merope 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh he has been repetitively warned and even blocked at which he should have at the very least glanced at the WP:NPA page... Continuing the personal attacks with the 3rd edit right after block expiration isn't exactly promising. He is currently blocked for a WP:3rr vio. -- Cat 22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User kinda is making another false accusation of sockpuppetry

User ] is accusing me of being a sockpuppet. He has not basis for this and no proof. See diff: ]

I would like him sanctioned for these repeated personal attacks. SamDavidson 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that I am the second person he has done this too. The following is a previous filing here regarding another editor. It was titled, "kinda knowling making false accusations of sockpuppetry Personal attacks"

SamDavidson 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just too much. Kinda really has to be stopped. DPeterson 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you see people's IPs? I thought it was secret? How does user:kinda get access? Cornea 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the quotation of the previous incident report - it's still on this page and even if it weren't a link would be sufficient. Kinda0 has been warned about making personal attacks, and also about making inappropriate personal comments on article talk pages. However this latest comment by him, on a user talk page, regarding possible sock puppets, does not appear to violate our WP:NPA policy. Regarding Cornea's comment, some trusted users have access to IP addresses (using the "checkuser" tool) in order to settle issues like this. Kinda0 hs no such access, but was merely commenting on a previous Checkuser report. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see my report listed anymore...maybe a link to it would be useful for other admins to see. DPeterson 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous filing is at: ] DPeterson 01:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

kinda is a pro pedophile activist who has no hesitation in attacking his opponents. I look forward to some serious admin intervention, SqueakBox 01:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Isotope23

This usr has been blocked because of a report at WP:AN/3RR - however, the report had been denied several times, but the banned user kept on reinstating it. Now, Jossi has blocked Isotope23, of course, improperly, as he was reverting a banned user. I had just asked for this range block to be done (see above), let alone a block on this one IP, but apparently no one gives a shit about protecting Misplaced Pages, so this vandal runs wild. The Evil Spartan 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the specifics of this incident, but it seems like a fairly large violation of assuming good faith to say that "apparently no one gives a shit about protecting Misplaced Pages". alphachimp 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dosen't look the blocking was actually implemented. I amended the AN3 report to reflect the fact it was a banned user (as per tariqabjotu). El_C 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi appears to have blocked 87.122.36.68 in response to . ˉˉ╦╩ 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Evil Spartan, you might want to come up with a more civil way to present your cases. One that, you know, includes good faith. ⇒ SWATJester 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anybody was doing any discussing other than just reverting each other. Corvus cornix 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• The report was by Diluvien (talk · contribs) who is indef blocked, editing from a dynamic IP, and whom I have been reverting per WP:3RR exception for block enforcement. I briefly rangeblocked but I'm hesitant to do a more lengthy block at this time until it can be assured that no collateral damage is done. Looking back, I probably shouldn't have used rollback and should have left some clear edit summaries so it was clear exactly why I was continuing to revert. I was in a bit of a hurry. I'll be clearer when I revert him because until a rangeblock is done I suspect he is going to be a problem. Nobody blocked me and I realize this is resolved, but I just thought I'd chime in with an explanation.--Isotope23 00:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)‎

Possible role account

Mideca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be operating a role account shared by several members of the same office. See this diff where someone basically admitted to such. The account has been used to put their state's website within the main DECA (organization) article and to add "Michigan DECA" as a "source" to the article. Apparently I had a discussion with one user about the link at Talk:DECA (organization) where we reached a compromise about the link (I added the national directory link in place of individual state links). Later the link was added again. I warned the user about this at their talk page and then got the response above (labeled as "this diff"). So it appears I was communicating with one user about the link earlier in the day and then another user was operating it later in the day to add the link back. What should happen from here? Metros 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Role account, most likely. Contains the name of an organization and is thus a violation of username policy, yep. Blocked the account with instructions on NPOV, COI, and creating a personal account. -- Merope 19:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up on that one. I probably could have taken those actions myself but since I was involved in a bit of an edit war with it, I decided to ask someone else. Plus, for awhile I just assumed it was some kid who happened to be an over-enthusiastic member of the organization for awhile. Metros 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastside High School (Gainesville, FL)

The following is from the Mediation Cabal case page of Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida): —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.16.179 (talk • contribs).

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida)

Who are the involved parties?

Thereisaplace, Catbag, TheRaven, Fram, DaDrought3 (writer of "Fram" section on discussion page).

What is the involved article(s)?

Vandalism, false accusation of 'meatpuppetry' by administrator (Fram), unnecessary locking by administrator (Fram).

What's going on?

People such as the administrator who have no knowledge of the article topic are attempting subversion to destroy the integrity of the article. These actions include locking the page from editing, editing the content itself to display incorrect information or to remove factual information, and general vandalism. This behavior was also present in the editing of the Gotem article, in which Fram attempted (and failed) to subvert another article by direct deletion and manipulation instead of going through the appropriate dispute channels. When the article's creators (as is the case with this article) went through the proper channels, overwhelming evidence and[REDACTED] public opinion supported the creators and NOT Fram.

Upon researching the history of these characters and related articles, it is evident that Fram has engaged in a personal vendetta against certain users associated with this article, after having intervened in the past (these administrative interventions were overruled by other administrators as well as a large contingent of other Wikipedians... for a rather silly but factual history of these events, see this page.

What would you like to change about that?

The main issue here is the abuse of power, and it has been suggested that Fram be subject to discipline such as removal of his administrative powers.

Of course, unlocking the page for proper editing is also needed.

Mediator response

I'm not the mediator, but I'm still making a comment here. I highly suggest that this issue be forwarded to WP:ANI this doesn't seem like the appropriate place. Also, have you tried talking to Fram? No discussion, no MedCab. I also think that you're over-reacting, there's not going to be any administrative dismissal here. Cool Blue 21:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this situation hard to sort out. All I can say regarding the article is that the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. One cannot win an argument for inclusion here using their own experiences alone. That's WP:OR and unacceptable.

While I'm here, I'd like to quote an earlier statement of yours:

"If you continue with your Belgian crusade of ruining the articles of other countries I will do whatever is in my means to have you permenantly banned from this site. Consider this a warning."

Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. You will be indefinitely blocked long before Fram if you attempt to do so. Consider that a warning. :) –Gunslinger47 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fram has disrupted Misplaced Pages by stalking users and locking down their activity. While some of these attacks might not necessarily be baseless, the attacks against this article, including regressive and destructive reverts as well as locking to prevent any legitimate activity, only serve to demonstrate Fram's totalitarian and counter-productive attitude. By the way, when have I ever suggested "disrupting Misplaced Pages"? As I have said before I will go through the proper channels and protocol for resolving this issue - get your facts straight son. --DaDrought3 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of facts, you've yet to present evidence of any significant misconduct by Fram. At face value, the protection seems to have been put in place to prevent repeated addition of unsourced and dubious information. If you want the protection lifted, you'll need to resolve the ongoing dispute first. See Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes for some assistance with that. When you've reached a consensus on the article's talk page, request unprotection at WP:RPP. –Gunslinger47 05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

An admin locks a page that is subject to incessant, if not persistent, vandalism, and little else, and there's a complaint? No surprise, but also, nothing to see here. Go play more four-square. ThuranX 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that I don't play four square, and as soon as the lock expires Fram will lock it again preventing the article from ever advancing. Go bother someone else. --DaDrought3 04:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's simple. The kis at that school are vandalizing the page. Fram is stopping it. What's the PROBLEM? ThuranX 06:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosalindfranklin

I have blocked Rosalindfranklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while we clean up the mess of WP:COI edits she has made. I would appreciate a debate on whether this shoud remain indefinite or whether it should be lifted after the cleanup is done. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism report : Main Misplaced Pages Entry : Aristocratic

I am not proficient enough at Misplaced Pages to revert this vandalism myself, but I would like to report it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Aristocratic

In particular see the "Comparison with other government terms" section. Also, there appear to be some random vandalizations throughout the article.

--205.158.232.66 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out Help:Reverting to learn how to revert. It's really easy once you get it. Evilclown93_(talk) 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Killer Poet indef block

I have to take issue with JzG's recent indefinite block of Killer Poet for having "single-purpose disruptive account." Poet had registered back in last December and made a few minor tweaks, then returned this July, when he restored spoiler warnings to a couple of dozen articles. He was promptly blocked. I believe that there are several factors that, if they do not justify his behavior, at least go toward explaining it. This is proof of edit warring, not of inability to act constructively.

There's been a continuous debate about the use of spoiler warnings on Misplaced Pages for nigh on a month now, and the topic is the poster child of inciting edit wars. A total of maybe half a dozen anti-spoiler editors have declared the matter closed and removed all 45'000 spoiler warnings on the encyclopedia, most using semi-automated editing tools that would be impossible to match even if efforts to the contrary weren't promptly also removed. There's no small amount of resentment about this in an already inflamed topic, especially since this started before the now rewritten relevant guideline (currently locked down in m:The Wrong Version) sanctioned it and used tools that are forbidden to be used for "controversial edits." He was not the first, second or third editor that this goaded into trying to fix things the way removers do, and those who were, myself included, were punished lightly.

Moreover, Tony Sidaway, anti-spoiler hardliner and the most visible member of that position has stated repeatedly that he considers the lack of reversions proof of the removals' validity; that anything less than a large-scale revolt constitutes the implicit agreement of the quiet majority. A member of this majority could feel that he'd have to act in order to show his dissent.

Poet had no warning from an admin, only one from his opposing number in that edit war. We don't ban vandals for long periods that easily, or if we do, please tell me so that I can join in.

Also note that this was done during a time when the guideline used as the reason for the tags' removal was under heavy dispute.

In the name of full disclosure I'm very definitely an involved party. I've been arguing against denying our users an option which polls definitely say they use ever since this whole mess started. I do not know Killer Poet, and have had no contact with him beyond leaving a message where I offered a new userbox and asked for constructive suggestions.

The block wasn't exactly by an uninvolved party, either. Killer Poet's user page, along with perhaps eight other ones, displays said recently created (by me, yes) userbox:

This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

This inspired JzG to create his own:

This user believes that spoiler tags are a waste of space, a waste of the community's time and the foundation's server resources, and that their use generally varies between the redundant and the absurd.

("Server resources", minimalistic blocks of at most eight words, presently five? Never mind.)

In the circumstances, I believe that an indefinite block is much too harsh and should be changed to one of a few days, at most, with credit for time already served. He should be clearly cautioned on unblocking to avoid future undoing sprees. If he ignores that, then consider longer-term measures. --Kizor 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This whole Spoiler mess is boiling faster and faster. The whole 'no one reverts so we must be right' gets enforced by blocking those who revert, so that the 'no one reverts' meme can expand? Come on. That's like 1984 logic. Intimidation moves like these have been implied in this mess since the anti-spoiler side started their mass removals, and it's part of why there are so few reversions. If you revert, you will be punished, because there's consensus and the policies we edited to say so now say so, so no reverts. A bad block. ThuranX 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• A dormant account which reactivates solely to participate in a battle which had pretty much ended? And we need that in what way, precisely? I woudl say that we need spoiler tag warriors about as much as we need spoiler tags in A Clockwork Orange - i.e. not at all. The point is not the sppoiler tags, it's what looks like a sleeper account reactivated solely to restart the war. And I only creatd the humorous userbox after the block and seeing the foolish "we lost the debate but we still think we are right" userbox on the user's page. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on guy, a little bit of good faith and some proof of your assertions would be good before you indefblocked someone for something as menial as disagreeing with you. This is hardly an indef blockable offence without checkuser evidence that this account is a sockpuppet being used by someone involved in the debate. Just because someone doesn't edit for a few months doesn't mean they haven't noticed the changes and disagree with them, compelling them to revert a few. (nothing near the scale of potential disruption that the mass removal caused). Unless your provide good evidence that this is actually a sock account and not just conjecture, I am inclined to shorten the block to 24 hours from time imposed (if that hasn't already been reached). In doing so I am waiting for the Misplaced Pages version of Godwin's Law to be called upon, with the winner being the first person to accuse me of wheel warring. Viridae 11:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block them for disagreeing, I blocked them for pitching in and restarting a battle which was over, something which was clearly disruptive. I don't care if they are unblocked as long as they don't resume the disruption, the block was to stop the disruption. I storngly suspect that this is someone's alternate account anyway. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. Viridae 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were to start restoring spoiler tags, would I get blocked as well? If so, why is the 'there's a consensus because hardly anyone is restoring them' argument being used?--Nydas 11:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

White Dragon move page vandal/sock etc.

There's a bit of a mess going on with White Dragon (England) that could use someone with some admin tools to sort out. It looks like earlier that it got locked with the statement "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it." I see a User:White43 and User:White46 in the history objecting to content and being removed by other editors. Earlier today User:White46 moved the page to White43 (yes, a new article under the name of a previous editor) and then tried to create a whole new fork article at the old location. As I was trying to file a move request back, it looks like someone undid that (perhaps flipped the two articles? Because the page history that used to be on White Dragon (England) had been on White43 but is now back and the White43 article looks totally new), but now User:White46 is trying to modify the contents of the real page and is removing the speedy delete notice off the new Fork page. I suspect he's the guy the page lock was supposed to prevent from making changes, and his page move shows he was up to no good. Between not knowing how to sort it out and not having admin tools to deal with it once it is sorted out, I am handing it off to someone here. DreamGuy 23:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I sorted it out. White46 created an article called White Dragon (England), with some sort of invisible character at the end, moved that to White43, recreated the article with the invisible character at the end and vandalized the main article with an aged account to get around the semi-protection. The main article is move protected and wasn't moved. Grandmasterka 00:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good god, and he moved my speedy delete notice off the fork article to the main article... glad to see you sorted that part out. DreamGuy 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out how he created that duplicate article; copying and pasting it here points to the original article. See my deletion log. Grandmasterka 00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the same editor created some sort of script thing at User:White46/monobook.js that has a warning up top that says (automatically added by software once it detected it?) it could be used to try to steal accounts... This looks like some sort of hardcore nogoodnik, and any IPs he's getting in through should probably be salted. DreamGuy 00:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that monobook. Also, this is an attempt to get the wrong account blocked. Grandmasterka 00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

...And that magical fork article was recreated again just now. I blocked the sockpuppet and deleted the page. Any other, more technically-savvy admins than me wanna tell us what's different in the title of that article? (Again, look at my deletion log, and copying-and-pasting it doesn't work.) I can't list it at protected titles in this state. Grandmasterka 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting vandalism. Looks like the editor inserted a unicode nonbreaking space  :

%C2%A0

at the end of the article title. I was able to reproduce it by editing the main article, then inserting the unicode before the edit. Put

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=White_Dragon_%28England%29%C2%A0

into your browser and you should get the deleted page. Don't know what to do with this info though. — ERcheck (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the protected titles page. — ERcheck (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's probably related that User:80.43.6.87 showed up after the above user was blocked to try to redirect pages that used to go to White Dragon (England) to the same name but with an extra space at the end. There have been link changes to the space version on various pages in the past... in fact it was seeing one on the Dragon (disambiguation) that got me curious about that the article in question even was and saw the shenanigans. DreamGuy 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarismn and a Rogue Editor

For some time myself and others have been trying to deal with User: Entre-Nos and his/her unconstructive edits and repeated vandalism. He (let's assume he is a male to reduce the use of pronouns) has been extremely uncooperative with others who manage the article List of Puerto Ricans. By adding many non-notable names, changing the names of articles (for example, changing the article name for David Zayas to Dean Zayas (an unknown) and also adding the name of a West Virginian actress called Dagmar who has nothing to do with Puerto Rico, he has not stopped vandalizing the list and taking the time of many contributors who have to delete his entries or revert the article. He has broken the 3RR several times and he has been extremely angry with me since I caught him plagiarizing articles from the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture website . I literally compared his original articles on unknowns Awilda Carbia and Marta Romero and noticed that word by word, they were the exact same biographies found on the website, only translated in Spanish.

Please take a look at the discussion page of the article for more details .

Here is a list of his unconstructive edits to illustrate my case:

,

Furthermore, he has created multiple sock puppet accounts User:Aquipr, User:66.82.9.92, User:69.89.38.116 to make numerous unconstructive edits and change the names of articles.

Examples include:

Change the article name for Millie Corretjer (singer; wife of boxer Oscar de la Hoya) to Millie Corretjer de la Hoya which is incorrect as she has always used her maiden name as her stage name. Other editors found this sexist (please see section titled "Unconstructive Edits" on article discussion page). Many editors including ad admin tried in vain to tell him to stop and cooperate to no success. He has worn my patience thin and me and the others are going this route per the suggestion of the admin. This person has made baseless claims that I am racist and rants babble on the discussion page which is getting so long other editors are complaining. I really need help here. Again the case against User:Entre-Nos is simple:

(1) Violation of 3RR (User:Jbmurray blocked him for 48 hours)
(2) Plagiarism of articles found on other websites (please see discussion page)
(3) Creation of multiple sock puppet accounts (User:Entre-Nos, User:Aquipr, User:66.82.9.92, User:69.89.38.116.
(4) Refusal to cooperate with others in determining notability of his weak articles (Many of them are tagged for deletion).
(5) E-mailing me harassing emails that attack me. (I can forward these to you).

Thank you for your assistance with this important request. --XLR8TION 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, and though I agree with much of the gist of what XLR8TION states in that it has indeed been tough to get Entre-Nos to cooperate and he has often tried my patience, I reported Entre-Nos for 3RR, rather than blocking him, plus in fact the outcome of that report was a warning rather than a block. I'm therefore striking that aspect of XLR8TION's account, above. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

There is a little bit of what appears to be disruption over at WP:CN regarding a preferred style of indention versus bullets. Regards, Navou 02:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your comment, did you have a question? Navou 03:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:!Darkfire!6'28'14 Block

These are the messages, the offensive messages were made by !Darkfire!6'28'14

He3- 0e

He3- 0e 5 c35c2ed 6n the Ha36 3 web c605c and 0y C60-4ter's ty-5ng 5s 0essed he3-Marioman12 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What exctly are you trying to tell us here?

that the Ha]0 3 web s5te's c0n/c has 0essed 4- ny c0n-4ter /'n s0rry ab04t the s-e335ng /'n d05ng the best / can Marioman12 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the 1337 sh17 s0 w c4n t311 wh47 ur fµ**¡ng saying you /d/07.= Stop with leet s**t so we can tell what ur fu**ing saying you idiot.

Hey don't yell at me and thats a personal attack by the way, I was asking for help because when I clicked on the Halo 3 Webcomic half of spelling turned into numbers that was messed up and you can be a little civil from now on and Cite your name. Marioman12 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman12 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the offending comment.

Note, incivility is not necessarily a personal attack. This is an isolated incident, and I don't see any need for action against Dark. You might want to talk to him about it on his talk page, however.

On a related note, I've removed the entire thread from the talk page. Please refer to WP:TALK. Besides your completely illegible text (even for people familiar with Leet), I see no way that this will help improve the Halo 3 article. Uninteresting trivia on an auxiliary product. –Gunslinger47 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon resorting to death threats

64.40.46.96 (talk · contribs) left this message on the user page of an editor who opposes his/her view on a matter. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems the IP changes often for this editor, so I doubt a block would do much good. Although all threats must be taken seriously, have we really reached the point where not worshipping a particular pokemon is grounds for homicide? What about hating ALL pokemon, and the merch, and the zoombifying effect it has on people (as evidenced by the murderous inclinations of mudkip fans?) ThuranX 04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Atassi

- way beyond 3RR between these two. Corvus cornix 04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Any block would be punitive, as the "meat" of the edit war is already stale. I have protected the page and will be giving stern warnings to all 3 IPs to stop edit warring, or they will be blocked. Sean William @ 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin Savage

Please see . User:Vintagekits, currently under investigation for sockpuppetry, and User:One Night In Hackney have inserted/maintained (respectively) massive POV and vanity on this page relating to a member of the Irish Republican Army. Violation of IRA member vs. IRA volunteer compromise. User:One Night In Hackney engaged in vigilantism and revert warring. Remember WP:IAR.216.194.3.81 10:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay Jay the Jet Plane: two pornographic vandalisms

Jay Jay the Jet Plane has until recently been thankfully clear of vandalism.

• At 21:29, 15 June 2007 User:Oscarchrist vandalized it by inserting a self-drawn image showing two of the story's characters in a pornographic pose.
• At 02:31, 16 June 2007 User:66.151.22.168 vandalized it by adding a sexual remark to a description of one of the characters.

Are these two users the same IP address? Are they sockpuppets of anyone?

Their contribution list addresses are:-

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Oscarchrist
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/66.151.22.168

Anthony Appleyard 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't determine the IP, you want WP:RFCU. Viridae 11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems IRC Admins still rule Misplaced Pages after all

It appears that ordinary editors are not allowed to add true facts to Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins - is there a reason for this. I merely improved and de POVd it a little and have been threatened with a block. Seems IRC Admins still rule Misplaced Pages after all. Giano 11:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no Giano, you did nothing but add mega assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, insults hurled at everyone you dislike, and such gems as "As a result the channel is regarded by some editors as the Lubyanka of Misplaced Pages" and "However, on occasions the presence of certain admins is felt to be undesirable, on these occasions generally David Gerard will make this clear to them by terse comments or telling them directly to leave. This has happened on a number of occasions when an admin has argues a counter point to that of David Gerard or one of his friends in the channel. David Gerard controls the Arbcom mailing list, and is accordingly in close contact with members of the Arbcom. He also has checkuser access on[REDACTED] and is thus able to wield considerable power. Many new and inexperience admins find it useful to be friendly to him as he is a source of wise advice" in addition to the equally priceless "Interestingly, Kelly Martin is not an admin, having given up her adminship voluntarily "under a cloud", when she wished to resume it, her request was denied by the Arbcom. Her continuing presence on the Admin channel has been a source of much speculation and comment" and "The IRC fairies spends most of their time chatting on IRC making infrequent appearances on Misplaced Pages only when rallied by other IRC admins to add their voices to a chorus of support".

Knock it off. Moreschi 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think if people take the time to read those phrases within the context in which they were written they will see there is a certain truth and wisdom to them. I'm also concerned that some of those editing that page are not observing Misplaced Pages's Conflict of interest code.

*sigh* I tried. If you guys all want to insist on another giant clusterfuck wheel war extravaganza, go for it. Personally, I think this is, and has been, the longest-lasting, most unproductive series of fights I've yet seen on this project. There are so many people, all of whom I consider valuable members of this outstanding community, and all of whom have better, far more important things to be doing, getting incredibly angry at each other. And what's been accomplished? Anything? Has anything changed? Is anything going to? How many people have to leave over this before we realize this fight is causing far more problems than it's solving? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The way to deal with trolling is not to revert-war. Simply ignore the troll and the thread he started.

I'll go first. --Ideogram 12:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot