Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:01, 5 December 2007

• 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)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Linking to external harassment

Sfacets (talk · contribs) has added a link to his user page that goes to a webpage dedicated to harassing an individual who is also a WP editor. When he added it he made it clear that he knew the target of the harassment would dislike the link. I brought the issue up on Misplaced Pages talk:Linking to external harassment#Case study as a test of how that proposal would work in practice. As a result, JzG removed the link from the user page and initiated a discussion on the user's talk page. Sfacets repeatedly restored the link, insisting he needs it for "reference", but without giving any encyclopedic reason. As suggested by Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment, I'm bringing this issue here to seek a consensus to remove the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the user can provide a compelling reason why they need this link on Misplaced Pages, it strikes me as being rather problematic. I notice they refused to provide such a reason, earlier. Is there some reason this needs to be on the top revision, in particular? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A refusal to provide a reason is good enough grounds to take action against that editor and the link. We try to do everything here collaboratively, and a refusal to collaborate makes NPOV editing impossible and thus the editor excludes themselves from our fellowship. Such a wish should be respected, IOW block the sucker. -- Fyslee / talk 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty clearly to fall under WP:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F as "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors". That policy notes that latitude is given regular participants, but I think latitude stops when an explanation is requested and refused, per Luna Santin's link. There are many alternative ways the editor might keep this material for reference. (All the browsers I know offer bookmarking, for instance.) I'd support removing the link, unless there is clear & compelling reason for it to remain. --Moonriddengirl 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that is also an attack page (a superset of the other) and can be found elsewhere on the 'pedia with a linksearch. I'm going a-hunting now. — Coren  15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

... and indeed, there seems to be way to many links to the "guru"'s site. POV warrior, anyone? — Coren  15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he not only links to the ugly attacks on me (and others) by his co-religionists, but he adds links to words from the attack and adds a link to my place of work. --Simon D M 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Simon, if you have a diff for that then we may be looking at harassment, in which case he is in deep trouble. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff: --Simon D M 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, he;s really helping his case here , especially with the added spice of threats . I wonder if our friend might need a short break from the stress of dealing with those who do not subscribe to his minority POV? Guy (Help!) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he was just blocked for the game-playing on his userpage. I'd say the matter is closed, unless and until he starts trying to reinsert the link after his block expires. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block, given his apparent unwillingness to follow our behavioral guidelines. He still readded the link even when we addressed it as being disruptive, and he wouldn't give us his rationale as to why the link should be kept. Maser 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what else we could have done, here. Tried the easy way. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I confidently expect further problems when the block expires, staring with reverting the removal of links to his guru's website. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Guy is right when he predicts that the problems won't end when the block does. To clarify matter I should give some more background on this website and dispute. "Adishakti.org" actually belongs to a schismatic group who believe that the main organization does not proclaim the divinity of the guru loudly enough. Both the schismatic group and the main group share a dislike for the subject of the harassment, who is a one-time follower and now-critic of the guru. Sfacets is associated with the main group, and has repeatedly removed links to the Adishakti.org site. Unaware of the harassment pages (there are no links to them from the main pages) I restored those links since the deletions appeared to be motivated by POV. However now that Sfacets has become aware of the harassment pages he is in favor of linking to the site and has restored links, in one case even to the same page he previously deleted it from.

Regarding the additions of the link to Sfacet's user page: In addition to adding and repeatedly restoring the link after it was removed by admins, he added internal links that touch on personal details of the person mentioned on the harassment page, including the person's place of work,, the programming language in which the person is expert, along with links to terms that appear on the harassment pages, such as "exocism", "tarot", "vishnu", etc. There are also terms that, in this context, appear to be comemnts about the other person, such as "nutter",, "insanity",, "infantile", and "abnormal psychology". Given that context it appears undeniable that the only intent was to harass. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The case is compelling. If the content reappears, escalate through dispute resolution. GRBerry 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I was blocked was not because I added back the link (of which I made no connection to any editor btw) but it was because I placed a link to a diff on my userpage. If users are blocked because they place links on their user page, then Misplaced Pages is a complete sham - it isn't a Democracy, sure but it isn't supposed to be a Despotism either. I asked the editors who were removing the link why they were doing so, but neither one of them gave me a valid reason - I was not harassing anyone, and it is apparent that there is no Wiki policy that states that I can not link to a "harassing website" even if I was. Meanwhile Guy thought it a good idea to remove every single link from the domain in question from Misplaced Pages, including from a protected article. Sfacets 12:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From the victim's point of view, the harrassment is as nothing compared to the daily misery of having to engage with Sfacets' sham discussions on talk pages which he uses as an excuse to block any edit he doesn't like and proceed with any edit he wants to make. --Simon D M 10:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to create a neutral article. You are trying to push your POV. But this isn't the place for this argument. Sfacets 12:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are a neutral editor and I'm the Shah of Iran. --Simon D M 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not exactly helping, but I do get the sense that Sfacets is having difficulty distinguishing MPOV from NPOV. He also seems particularly combative. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets has been blocked again for a civility issue (personal attack in edit summary) and 3RR gaming on Meditation. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not a surprise. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

During the same period Sfacets also violated 3RR on Nirmala Srivastava: . And he made multiple reverts on User talk:Try-the-vibe: , and on Sahaja Yoga meditation: , just short of 3RR violations. Those are all in a 24-hour period, and in the same period he made more reverts on other articles too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of Hesperian

Physchim62 (talk · contribs) has blocked an admin Hesperian (talk · contribs) with which he has a disagreement over the nomination of a number of templates. This needs to be reviewed because to me Physchim62 has misused his admin tools in blocking another editor. Physchim62 closed this tfd attacking the nominator Hesperian responded and was block with the explanation that Hesperian was uncivil.

I'll leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins to decide whether this action was/is justifiable. Gnangarra 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(moving comment from Hesperian's talk page) This block is completely unjustified. If anything, User:Physchim62 should be blocked for his comments in closing the TfD in question. He was the first person to comment on the other user (Hesperian), and in commenting on User:Hesperian, i feel that Physchim62 personally attacked him, violating WP:NPA. Although, Hesperians comments did comment on User:Physchim61, and at times avoided the topic at hand, he did not violate WP:NPA. Twenty Years 14:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Hesperian. The diff cited for the block does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion. I think both Psychim and Hesperian could have handled the situation more calmly, but I cannot see any basis for a block. WjBscribe 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is the third contested and then reversed block for this admin in the past few weeks. There was deeceevoice's year-long block, There is this complaint about "Misuse of administrative powers: Physchim62" and now this. I'm tangentially involved in all of this so can a user or admin with a more neutral perspective than I respond to what I'm just starting to see as a pattern? I'm sorry to get up in Physchim62's business, but I thought I should say something in case others hadn't noticed that this keeps happening over and over. Maybe, it is just a coiencidence? futurebird 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the block log of Deeceevoice, you wont see Physchim62 there at all. It seems he just brought the matter to ANI for discussion. Just saying. Jeffpw 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that he did not block but wrong about what he was doing there. He attempted to close. It was overturned by User:Matt Crypto: "Apologies to Physchim62, but I'm unarchiving this for a little while, because I believe this could do with more time for scrutiny. (Closing the discussion less than 24 hours after it began is not really good for those of us who do not have the ability to live and breathe Misplaced Pages 24/7...)"

The user in the incident was not blocked at all. Had Physchim62's close stood, the user would have been blocked for a year. 86.42.83.73 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I don't really know how to look at those sorts of things. So it's not that much of a "pattern" nevermind. futurebird 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Two instances of this sort within the last few days seems enough to warrant some further action. He's apparently editing, but has not responded, at least on-wiki. . DGG (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a pattern of blocking, but a pattern of using admin powers when there is conflict of interest., . --the Dúnadan 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what Physchim62 says. futurebird 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a block of one week would be acceptable. His actions cannot go unpunished, not only has he blocked a quality admin, in a situation where he has COI, he has messed up with a few other blocks. Its simply poor form. Needs some sort of official sanction. Twenty Years 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Um, if I remember correctly, aren't admins allowed to unblock themselves? Thanks. ~AH1 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

They have the capability to do so, which is somewhat different. BLACKKITE 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at Hesperian's actions a little bit here:

1. He nominates over two hundred templates for deletion, citing accessibility problems which he has never bothered to discuss with anyone else. He does not bother to discuss with, or even notify, the appropriate WikiProjects or project pages.
2. In placing the TfD notice, he breaks over five thousand mainspace pages.
3. When two admins vote "speedy keep", his reply is to ask them if they have actually read Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep, nothing more.
4. When the discussion was closed as a speedy keep on the basis of it's disruptive nature, he then goes onto suggest that I had not read Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep myself, and that I was abusing my admin powers.
5. He has yet to engage in the slightest discussion as to what the accessibilty problems might be, and how they could be resolved on other areas of Misplaced Pages which also use <span class="abbr">.

He's lucky that he is such an experienced user: a newby might have been indefinitely blocked for that sort of trolling, as users of this page know full well. I am upset that this block has been lifted, as the reversion doesn't get us any closer to determining whether there are actually problems with the use of the abbr class. Neither did any of Hesperian's actions to date. Admins and experienced users are not immune from blocks when they act disruptively. Physchim62 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Gnagarra above: I'm at a loss to see how my TFD close statement was "attacking" Hesperian, while his message on my talk page didn't attack me. Perhaps you are getting your disputes mixed up, and you are still thinking about the discussion we had this summer over Template:PD-Australia. Physchim62 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim nope I didnt get anything mixed up you blocked Hesperian for responding to your statement of accusation about Hesperians bad faith, incivility, ignorance and point making. I brought it here because when you block without warning a trusted editor(admin) with 30,000 plus edits it's normal to notify ANI of your actions and get the situation reviewed by independent admins, even if you dont have a conflict of interest. Gnangarra 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at his actions:

OK, he is free to nominate stuff (yes, including templates) for deletion if he so chooses. Did he mean to "break" over 5000 mainspace pages? i doubt that very much, an experienced user like yourself should AGF and realise he probably didnt. Asking if someone has read speedy keep is not a personal attack. When User:Physchim62 (thats you, right?) closed the discussion? he asked you if you had read speedy keep? thats not a personal attack. So in 100% of his actions, he has not done a single thing wrong.

Now, lets look at your actions:

This comment when you closed the TfD appears to be a blaitant personal attack on a quality admin. After discussions with Hesperian, where he again made no personal attack (as said by WjB) you completely avoid that you have a Conflict of interest and block him for 24 hours because he was alledged to have made a personal attack on you, which WjB (the unblocking admin) could not find. Twenty Years 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, this is not the sort of obviously inappropriate action that would justify you blocking someone you're in conflict with. Was it so necessary to block immediately that you couldn't have brought the issue to a wider audience before acting, or at the very least immediately after acting? Natalie 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What Twenty years and Natalie said. The initial block was out of line and against blocking policy viz. you don't block someone you're in dispute with. And to suggest you'd apply an indefinite block if it was a newbie makes me think Physchim62 is heavy handed and misusing his admin powers. —Moondyne 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Hesperian

Physchim62 has told a series of falsehoods here. I may have nominated a great many templates, but I actually only tagged one for deletion. That it was transcluded in a great many pages is not my fault. It is also not true that I notified nobody. The TfD tag for which I am being criticised serves a notification function. Also, I notified the creator of the templates, Bryan Derksen, immediately upon nominating the article. We had a constructive and civil discussion on his talk page. If you have a look at Bryan's talk page, you'll see that after the TfD was closed not in my favour, I followed up with a compromise that he described as "an excellent solution". Surely it is clear from that discussion that I was acting in good faith throughout.

Physchim62 was involved in the rollout of the nominated templates. Clearly he had a stake in these templates, and their nomination for deletion pissed him off. Instead of adding his opinion to the TfD discussion, he elected to prematurely close the discussion as "speedy keep", even though he was an involved party, and an angry one at that, and even though the discussion clearly didn't meet any of the criteria listed in Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep. Furthermore his closure notice was insulting, and contained the same falsehoods he's claiming here.

He should never have misused his administrative authority in prematurely closing that TfD. Such behaviour must be challenged, and challenge it I did. In response to that I was blocked for 24 hours. In the opinion of WjBscribe, who unblocked me, "this was an absurd block and I have unblocked. The diff cited for the block does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion."

Physchim62 has perpetrated some serious policy violations and injustices here: a biased and insulting TfD closure; followed by a block on someone with whom he is in dispute, without any basis in policy; followed by the indefensible assertion above that I am "trolling". It galls me to be the victim of such injustices, and to have no recourse that actually serves the encyclopaedia.

Hesperian 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I copy from PhysChem's talkpage, as I am sure he would have wanted it here also: " For technical reasons, I'm unlikely to comment again before 12:00 (UTC) tomorrow. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)" DGG (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a very serious policy violation, from the discussions above, this appears not to be the first time that there has beeen issues with his use of his admin tools. There must be some sort of sanction against this user, to let him get away with this would be to support his actions. Twenty Years 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I find particularly disturbing is the fact that regardless of whether Hesperian may have broken the template, it seems he was never warned or told about it, at least not by Physchim62. I mean, if there was some history of template AFDs, maybe, but I find that defense for the block terrible. It is not obvious how the template code works. That could easily be fixed or at least a warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't break the template. I merely added the {{tfd}} template to it. It is standard operating procedure to do so. In doing so, I apparently made the layout of about 5000 ChemBoxes unattractive. Physchim62's accusation of "disruption" rests solely upon this.

I might add that User:Beetstra removed the tfd template with edit summary "Removing TfD-notice, this is disrupting a huge number of pages about chemicals, I will leave the discussion open" 17 hours before Physchim62 prematurely closed the debate, so the assertion that he closed it because I was disrupting chemistry pages is yet another falsehood.

Hesperian 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. That makes me feel much better<sarcasm>. Ok, if the tfd broke it (and I can understand how it might) all that would mean is that someone should move it into the noinclude section (which would then be a notification fight). That's still not a reason to block. Physchim62, you are not exactly encouraging me personally here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian was editing disruptively. He has still shown no signs of actually wishing to enlighten users about the "accessibility problems" in a more appropriate forum. Instead he simply attacks the admin who is trying to avoid future disruption. This merits a short block whoever he is—we have blocked sitting arbitrators before now, after all. I would not indefinitely block a newby user in such cases, in fact I probably wouldn't WP:BITE at all in the case of a newby, but this is a user who has delighted in telling me how much experience of[REDACTED] he has. On the other hand, I seen newbies indef blocked for less, without any of the self-appointed guardians on this page so much as batting an eyelid. I was not "in a dispute" with Hesperian, any more than I am "in a dispute" with any other editor who is acting disruptively. The block has been undone, fine, I shaln't reimpose it. Now can we get back to wring an encyclopedia? Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has now lasted longer than the block would have done :P Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But your block of Hesperian cites "personal attacks" and a diff showing a conversation with you on your talk page. If the personal attack and dispute did not involve you, then who did it involve? Are you saying your block summary is incorrect? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have in this discussion completely avoided the point that you failed to communicate with the parties concerned and used blocking as a first rather than last resort on an experienced contributor who was acting in good faith. Communication and good faith are vital and non-optional pillars of Misplaced Pages and far more important than the attractiveness or otherwise of a particular template. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Hesperian "edited disruptively". I also see nothing in this diff (as cited in the block log) that warranted blocking as an instant and immediate response, and I agree with WjBscribe's handling of the matter. As a matter of incident I have in fact done more than bat an eyelid at what I believe to be unfair or ill-conceived blocks against well-meaning newbies, and it is extremely insulting of you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow hypocritical. After seeing your heavy-handed participation in a copyright dispute (over the content of a template) a number of months ago and your threats to block people for merely disagreeing with you at that time, I see a similar pattern here and it concerns me. Orderinchaos 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to give my statement here about the situation. I noticed the TfD when I was looking at one of the chemicals, and it was disrupting the page quite a lot (warping the chembox). When I read the TfD reason, the main feeling that I got was "I don't like them" (nomination by Hesperian: "As far as I can tell this is simply a case of someone wanting to make R- and S-phrases look really cool."). There is no discussion that suggests misuse, unhelpful, or whatever, only its apparent lack of function. Also, there was no notification of the projects or contributors (As far as I found, and although it is not a requirement, see WP:TFD#How_to_use_this_page; see also below).

Now, WP:TFD#How_to_use_this_page suggests "If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead." .. this templates are in heavy use, and when some transclusions would have been checked, it would have shown where and what effect the transcusions have. That also suggest to use the <noinclude> tags, when necessary, though that is suggested for substing. That is not hiding (as suggested by Hesperian), that is why (as I mentioned above) it is suggested to "consider adding {{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. — ~~~~}} on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion".

When speedy keep is suggested (I was the first to suggest that), the response is "Did you ever actually read Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep?". I must concur, before this TfD, and before suggesting speedy keep, I did not, but the tone that is notifying me that I actually should have is not assuming good faith.

As such, I would call this TfD disrupive, and I do fully back up the somewhat hostile tone in the closure of the TfD by Physchim62; the TfD was disruptive and based merely on "I don't like it", which is in no way a reason for deletion. So if I now re-read Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep, it DOES apply: "The nomination was unquestionably ... disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". Moreover, the remark "It is pretty obvious from the hostile tone of your response, together with the fact that you're deeply involved in chemistry articles, that you didn't like the nomination, and decided to speedy close the discussion instead of just saying your piece and waiting for an unbiased closure. That is a misuse of your administrative privileges." is then a personal attack, an accusation of 'misuse of administrative privileges' (there are 7 keeps (one with option 'rework' and not counting Physchim62's closure) and only the nominator's delete, also a reason for speedy keep, so I do not see any misuse of administrative privileges here). --Dirk Beetstra 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad block, for the reasons set forth by WJBScribe. It's generally a very bad idea to block an established good-faith editor with the justification that they've attacked you. Especially without warning and on the basis of some very borderline "attacks". If I blocked everyone who commented toward me with the level of brusqueness that Hesperian used, I'd get carpal tunnel.

If you're the target of personal attacks, bring it here. If the attacks are egregious enough, another admin will take care of it. In this case, it could have been better handled with a simple statement to Hesperian and disengagement. Blocking an established good-faith account without warning for personal attacks directed against the blocking admin, without even submitting the block here for review, is a really bad idea. Anyhow, the unblock was swift and appropriate, so we probably ought to just move on. If there is really a pattern here (which I'm not seeing just yet), then WP:RfC is probably the way to go. MastCell 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This TfD started with a disruption (as was pointed out by a couple of editors) on a reason which assumes bad faith on the creators and users of the template ("... really cool."), followed by a couple of bad faith remarks ("Did you actually read speedy keep") and ended in a personal attack of one administrator to another on misuse of administrative privileges ("That is a misuse of your administrative privileges.". But I did, in the above statement, not discuss the block, or how the block was applied. My statement here states my thoughts about the nomination and the following remarks by Hesperian, as I feel that this whole situation was out of line, not only the (discussable) block, as this discussion now suggests! --Dirk Beetstra 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well that explains why we're not on the same wavelength. Saying "That is a misuse of your administrative privileges" is not a personal attack - certainly not one warranting a block from the admin who was accused of misuing said privileges. MastCell 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't KNOW about the accessibility problems until halfway through the deletion debate. He thought it was just a useless template, and wasn't aware of this purpose - it was only when this was pointed out that he pointed out that it causes inaccessibility (q.e.d., he himself was not able to easily access the information contained within). —Random832 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep often causes drama, and I would even say it should probably never be used when the nomination is made in good faith (good faith = the user really thinks it should be deleted, even if his reasoning is misguided). What harm would waiting five days have done, as compared to the insult of having your nomination "speedy kept", the block, and all the other drama this has caused (e.g. this thread)?—Random832 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Performing a speedy keep is not a misuse of administrative privilages, nor an insult (thats why we have that guideline), and if you are then accused of misuse of your administrative priviliges .. that is at the least not nice (and it is a comment on the contributor, not on the content). I can understand that Hesperian did not know how the templates were used, and did not see the use of them. Still, I think it should be common practice to at least see where the template was used (Special:Whatlinkshere), and there it could be seen it was used quite a lot (though it is after the latest changes difficult to check). And then also one could check how it got used in the pages and what the effect of deleting all the templates would be (and maybe even after the TfD having a look what happened to the pages the TfD'd templates were transcluded upon, though WP:TFD does not suggest that, it only suggests some alternatives for some cases). Not being aware of the purpose is not a reason to delete, and as I read the nomination, the main reason was "Don't see the use, don't like it"; that could have been a good reason to contact the creator first (I now see that the creator was notified after the TfD, did not see that when I wrote the above statement).

When pointed out that the TfD was disruptive (and I believe that that disruption was unintentionally), Hesperian reacted with a remark where my (and that of Rifleman_82) speedy keep was questioned in a way which did not exactly assume good faith. Although I indeed did not read the document beforehand (I don't know about Rifleman_82), closer examination shows that the speedy keep (in my opinion) was actually appropriate, since the TfD did disrupt (I removed the notice from the template, though I might better have moved it to the talkpage, mea culpa), and when it was speedy closed, there were 7 votes against the nominator; for the latter, if not a speedy keep, then at least WP:SNOW. --Dirk Beetstra 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but when do you get to the part where a block becomes warranted? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Beetstra, you've missed a crucial fact. If tagging a template with {{tfd}} is disruptive (which I dispute) then that disruption ceased when you removed the TfD notice. Physchim62 speedy closed the discussion 17 hours later. Physchim62's assertion that he closed it as disruptive is therefore a bald-faced lie, as you should well know, yet you've been sucked in by it. Hesperian 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing statement by Hesperian

Physchim62 and Beetstra have successfully turned this into a discussion on the merits and implementation of my TfD nomination, thereby avoiding any scrutiny of Physchim62 behaviour:

1. Physchim62 speedily closed a TfD discussion on a template that he was involved in rolling out - a clear conflict of interest;
2. Physchim62 closed a TfD discussion as "speedy keep", not for any reason laid out in Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep, but because he didn't like the nomination.
3. Physchim62 left an insulting closure notice, accusing me of acting in bad faith, but you won't find anything in my contributions that suggests I was acting in bad faith;
4. Physchim62 blocked me for 24 hours for a personal attack, but you won't find a personal attack in my contributions.
5. Physchim62 blocked me while involved in a dispute with me, a clear violation of the blocking policy.
6. Physchim62 accused me of disruption and trolling, but you won't find anything in my contributions that looks like disruption or trolling. That's assuming "disruption" is defined as laid out in Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors, rather than simply "unintentionally made some pages look yucky for a while".

Obviously there is nothing I can do to obtain redress. I'm not going to take this all way to ArbCom for "Physchim62 is admonished not to be a naughty boy in future". But to the rest of you: be afraid. Physchim62 has not admitted any fault, and that means he'll do this again. You all have to work alongside someone who'll block you in a moment if you dare to challenge his bad behaviour. How do you feel about that?

I'm taking this discussion off my watchlist now, and I'd prefer this discussion ended. I realise I can't deny others the right of reply, but I certainly won't be reading any more of this.

Hesperian 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't the the rest of us have missed the point. Physchim62 would be well advised to show that he respects the limits on how far he can be involved as an administrator in an article or discussion in which he is personally concerned. The two instances discussed in the last few days here would seem to indicate that a repetition would be cause for further action, and I am not the least sure it would be an admonishment only. DGG (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, If Hesperian wants this closed then so do I, at least on this forum. He has continued to edit the templates that he doesn't like here, without any further discussion. It will take some time to recover from this series of edits, and WP:CHEM would surely rather have some wider community input on the accessibility issues than this thread has provided.

I still believe that the 24-hour block was perfectly justified, given Hesperian's conduct on this issue. The admin involved still has, as he has always had, plenty of other channels to discuss the problems which he finds with these templates. That he has still not chosen to use them can only reflect badly on him. Physchim62 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hesperian's edits on these template have quite a range of policy violations in it, not least on Misplaced Pages:Protection policy. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Shall we stop this thread now, to avoid wasting any more time, and get onto discussion on other fora as I suggested when I closed the TfD? Physchim62 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad blocks used as a first port of call rather than a last resort are more harmful to the encyclopaedia than almost anything else, as they drive valued contributors away (not even necessarily the ones who get blocked, either). ArbCom have addressed this clearly in a number of recent cases. Orderinchaos 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but assuming bad faith on two long-term editors and administrators, who strongly oppose a deletion (voting a speedy keep, in my case because I felt that not only the nomination caused disruption (which I repaired), but also the possible deletion would have caused much disruption), is also a way of driving them away. That TfD, though filed in good faith, should not have been filed. As is accusing another long term editor and administrator who actually performs that speedy keep (IMHO according to the rules of speedy keep) of abuse of administrative privileges. We all make mistakes, and sometimes we should just take a step back, rollback our edits, and first discuss. Not persue the issue, and when one gets overruled by numerous long-term editors go on and then edit to make a point. --Dirk Beetstra 10:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have come back here to check out why WjBscribe has the wrong end of the stick in a message he left me on my talk page. Folks, I'm so sick of all these lies, lies, lies. Look at the template history for Christ's sake. You'll see the following;

1. Hesperian makes extensive edits to an unprotected template, before any of this shit hit the fan.
2. WjBscribe protects Hesperian's version.
3. Hesperian makes one last, utterly benign, utterly unobjectionable, edit, after extensive discussion with Bryan Derksen and Random832;
4. Physchim62 reverts all my changes. Let me put it his way: Physchim62 reverts a protected template to his preferred version.

I can see a policy violation here, can you?

Once again Physchim62 has fed you guys lies - this time that I have violated the protected pages policy. And once again it is actually him who is in violation. And once again you've all been sucked in by it. When are you guys going to actually start questioning the tripe this guy is feeding you?

Hesperian 12:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tjalling Beetstra, Criminologist1963 and COI

I think we've got a clear case of conflict of interest at Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, and I'd appreciate some administrative attention/advice.

A few months ago at Satanic Ritual Abuse, an editor called Criminologist1963 posted a large amount of material, much of which was rambling, speculative and unsourced. The material was taken from a similar article at the Netherlands Misplaced Pages that had been translated and pasted into the English SRA article. Some of the material was factually incorrect, but the editor repeated blocked any changes to the material.

Much of the material was sourced to a Dutch PhD candidate called Tjalling Beetstra, who runs a website where he offers his commercial services as an "expert" on SRA. Criminologist1963 cited Beetstra as an authoritative source no less then three times, then mentions Beetstra as an expert in the article itself, and provides a link to Beetstra's commercial website.

A number of similarities emerged between Criminologist1963 and Tjalling Beetstra (they are both Dutch, they both study "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from a skeptical POV, they both claim to be criminologists, and they were both born in 1963) such that it was reasonable to believe that Crim1963 and Beetstra were the same person.

After reviewing his material, editors deleted it, since (a) the material breached a number of Misplaced Pages guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Misplaced Pages to promote himself, and to promote a commercial service.

When his COI was uncovered, Criminologist1963 promptly created the article Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, which reproduced the deleted material from the SRA article. It seems that Crim1963 has a financial interest in maintaining this material on Misplaced Pages, and he is willing to conceal his identity, and ignore the concerns of other WP editors, in order to do so.

I think this is a clear-cut case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. What do administrators think? --Biaothanatoi 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into the background of this case sufficiently to comment on the nature of Crim1963's contributions, but the article Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands sure comes across as original research and synthesis. We could AFD the article, but that wouldn't address the COI concerns. Aecis 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• This whole situation seems to be related to Biaothanatoi's POV-pushing on Satanic ritual abuse and related articles. The overwhelming majority of criminologists and sociologists believe that "SRA" was almost entirely a myth, a moral panic in which numerous innocent people were swept up. A handful of psychiatrists disagree, and still believe that SRA is real. It is this minority POV that Biaothanatoi wants to dominate the article. An official FBI investigation in 1992 found that there was no reliable evidence of SRA; see . The most definitive book on the subject, Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend, also rejects SRA. All that is left is a handful of fringe therapists. With the help of Abuse truth, an apparent single-purpose account, Biaothanatoi is trying to skew these articles towards his own perspective. He has, on occasion, engaged in ad hominem attacks both on sources and on other editors while so doing. Yes, this issue should definitely be investigated more thoroughly. *** Crotalus *** 04:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus, if you have concerns about "POV-pushing" at SRA, then please address them there. There are a number of editors engaged in developing and improving that article, and we represent a range of viewpoints on the subject. The concerns that you raise here have been addressed there by several editors, including myself, at length, in good faith, and to the satisfaction of other editors.

In contrast, to support of your own POV, you've misquoted the 1992 report, referred to a website whose authors misrepresent themselves as "consultants", pointed us to a fifteen-year-old book written by a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and engaged in a fruitless ad hominem attack of your own. You might find a more up-to-date resource online at this research paper on child sexual exploitation, including ritual abuse, by Professor Liz Kelly for the European Commission in 2000. The debate on ritual abuse has moved on since your sources were written in the early 1990s.

Beetstra has a clear financial and professional interest in posting material on Misplaced Pages in which he declares himself an "expert" and provides links to a website advertising his services. I'd appreciate it if administratives could look into this and take some action. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I do intend to address the POV-pushing on that article when I have more free time after final exams. As for your statements above:

Please explain how I have "misquoted" Lanning. Furthermore, if you argue that Lanning's work is outdated, then please cite a case after 1992 where the FBI took a case of "satanic ritual abuse" seriously.

Why should I care if Satanic Panic was written by "a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation"? Furthermore, why is a 15-year-old book an inherently unreliable source on this subject?

Liz Kelly's paper, which you cited, does not contain the phrase "satanic ritual abuse." It does contain several discussions of sexual abuse in institutional settings, but these cases had corroborating evidence (unlike the American SRA craze) and they did not include allegations of satanic activity. If any ritual at all was involved in the abuse (which is not clear), it was probably Christian in nature (since much of it took place in Catholic group homes). If you want to make a separate page for "Institutional sexual abuse" or "Sexual abuse in Irish orphanages and group homes," go ahead. The page in question is titled "Satanic ritual abuse," and the professional consensus on that specific subject is that it is largely an urban myth.

If Beetstra's papers were published in reputable journals, and represent a mainstream view, then they may very well be reliable sources, regardless of who is adding them.

*** Crotalus *** 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus, this is not the place to have a debate about SRA. Needless to say, my own opinions on SRA are a little more complex then you appear to presume - I am not simply a "believer" in the subject matter, as a perusal of my userpage makes clear.

Kelly's report contians multiople references to "ritual abuse" and I suggest you read them and consider that the evidence base on ritualistic forms of child sexual assault may have developed somewhat in the fifteen years since your sources were published.

Please head over to Satanic Ritual Abuse and I'd be happy to discuss this further. As for Beestra/Crim1963's changes, he cites himself as an "expert" and links to a commercial website in which he offers his services. That looks COI to me. --Biaothanatoi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Satanic ritual abuse" is poor English. They're abusing satanic rituals? Neil ☎ 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree that the assemblage of words is problematic, and that is discussed in the article at the moment. --Biaothanatoi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a dumb phrase, but it is the phrase that was used very prominently to describe an alleged organized network of child rapists and child murderers possibly spanning the globe. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have articles on "Ritualistic child abuse" or "Organized child abuse rings", but we also need an article on the SRA moral panic. Part of this mess may be due to conflation of the two issues. <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I placed a NPOV tag on the page to indicate that the article was in dispute, and I also indicated on the talk page that I was looking for administrative advice on the article.

Criminologist1963 simply deleted the tag, and deleted my comments from the talk page. Not exactly a display of good faith or consensus building. Are administrators looking into this at all? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Satanic ritual abuse as a clear POV fork. Administrators are unlikely to intervene in what is clearly a content dispute, regardless of possibilities of COI. There is a COI noticeboard, not to mention normal dispute resolution processes. <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across this board first, but I then found the COI board and posted there. Navigating Wiki policy is not the easiest thing in the world.

This is not a "content dispute". The fact of the matter is that Beetstra appears to be using Misplaced Pages to advertise his services as an "expert witness" and this involves controlling certain blocks of text in which he describes himself as an "expert" and links to a website where he offers commercial services.

Please engage with issues raised by other editors in a manner which presumes good faith. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John

While looking at MfDs I noticed this very odd one: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination). (For starters, it appears to be the first nomination, not the second). User:Prester John has been getting in hot water again over his userpage. I'm guessing the users involved weren't sure on how to handle the situation, so they listed the offending userpage for deletion. I closed the MfD (for being under the wrong venue to resolve the dispute) and blanked his userpage with a message saying he should only restore the non-offending content. He's already reverted me and given me a little vandalism warning to boot, so I'm noting the situation here. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I very respectfully disagree with you Ned Scott. With all do respect I reverted your edit. I think it is a little optimistic to think Prester John will voluntarily remove offensive material. But, I do implore admins to look over the MfD , and his block log and edit history. Make specific note of how many times he has been warned.--Agha Nader 07:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that he can be blocked if he puts it back.. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to his userpage seemed entirely appropriate, and his reversion as vandalism was not. It's probably best to let the MFD run, but whether the content can stay isn't necessarily dependent on its outcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If they really want to use MfD.. ok.. but I'm not sure why anyone would want to wait five days for something we can handle now. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any obligation to wait, in the sense that just removing the material was perfectly fine. But if he is intent on edit warring over the removal, which he may be, MFD permits a more decisive resolution of the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I did go through and remove the offending material; I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds in doing so. I left a note on his talk page explaining what I'd done. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question: should editors remove offensive material from user pages; and who determines whether it is offensive? Some people have strident political positions on their pages, or have preserved the substance of deleted articles which they found politically to their liking in user space. We give wide latitude to users, a user even had pentagrams and swastikas on his user page and that wasn't deemed offensive to the community sufficient to remove them against the user's will. While I have great respect for FisherQueen, I think it overstepped bounds. Carlossuarez46 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing when it's an occasional userbox and quite another when it's pretty much a full page dedicated to it. --WebHamster 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester John has subsequently started editing other people's user pages. see contribs. ITAQALLAH 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He's not even being accurate. He removed a userbox from my page describing it as "racist". It was a box stating I didn't like rap music! --WebHamster 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you know that only racists dislike Rap music? ;-) llywrch (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just glad I didn't mention that I dislike opera too, I dread to link what his chain of logic would make of that. :) --WebHamster 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG! You racist-communist-satanist! (Must... resist... urge... to... make... userbox... about... this...) ;) CharonX/talk 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, not liking opera would mean you hated Italians. HalfShadow (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. And during WW2 Italy had a fascist regime. Who were at war against Russia. Who were communist. Ergo he must be a Communist. But worse, he seems to hate music of all kind. And we all know(tm) all music has been created by God. So in opposing music, he opposes god, which must make him a satanist. It's perfectly clear! CharonX/talk 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget, the Taliban forbade music, so he's obviously one of them, too. (What's the CIA's phone number again?) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, how long are we going to put up with John's antics? So far he has been edited other people's userpage, did a bad-faith MfD nomination, and was pretty incivil to quite a lot of people (including an admin) CharonX/talk 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well it looks like PJ went one bad faith MfD nomination too far and Metros has blocked him for 72 hours. The next question is whether PJ will wait the 72 hours before venting his ire on us or will he use an IP/Sockpuppet to do it earlier? --WebHamster 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester causes trouble everywhere, doesn't he? Timeshift (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pulling at strings here, trying to assume good faith; maybe if we ask him to patiently discuss the offensive material with the owner of said material in question instead of just snatching it off of their userpage, things will go more smoothly. That's certainly a better alternative than all the bad faith MfDs. Master of Puppets 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Prester is a long-time edit warrior and POV-pusher who has managed to stay just within the bounds of non-blockable conduct. It's time we said "enough." Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

212.162.164.144

• 212.162.164.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistent antisemitic vandalism - diffs: Here is where he blanked his user page removing numerous warnings. He doesn't edit every day or even every week, so I don't think a 24 or 48 hour block will have any significant effect.

I reported this at WP:AIV and they told me to bring it here because he hasn't edited in a while. --Steven J. Anderson 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A procedure note first: Current consensus is that users are free to remove warnings from their user talk page, that serves as an acknowledgment that they read them. That being said, and due to the nature of the edits and that there is little doubt this is a single user, I'd support a long term hardblock on the IP (1 month?) to drive the point home. This is a customer IP that does not appear to be shared. Any objections? -- lucasbfr 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as he has been warned a block is warranted. The only thing I am unsure of giving it now, almost two weeks after the last edit. - JodyB _talk 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news everyone, He edited today ;). I let a second pair of eyes handle it. -- lucasbfr 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that anon IP addresses have the right to remove warnings from a Talk page, since it is not "their" page. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One month block. Carlossuarez46 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have suggested a long, if not indefinite, block, or deletion - he recieved FIVE LAST & ONLY WARNINGS and a please stop notice. That is more than enough notice. Luckily it seems to have already happened. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:70.173.50.153

Take a look at this page and tell me what you think. Looks like the user removed some templates back on the 10 november and received vandalism warnings for it. It doesn't look like vandalism to me, certainly not simple vandalism that requires a template. Possible test edits, possibly good faith but clueless, but no matter. That isn't what is bothering me.

The user then tries to remove the vandalism warnings from his page and receives further vandalism templates and a block for doing it. This looks like major newbie biting to me. When an IP is clearly static, and when the IP is clearly not a vandal, why do we not allow them to remove the templates. Is it plain stubborness? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question. It may be that we need further discussion about this but there seem to be many who think removing warnings from one's talk page is vandalism. It is not. WP:UP#CMT makes plain that a user may remove such warnings. Of course, they still exist in the history of the page. Some users are embarrassed by the admonitions and wish to remove them. Such is not prohibited. I think there may be some confusion because that has not always been the practice. I believe we allow them to remove the warnings. We have much bigger issues to spend our time on. - JodyB _talk 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I have an issue with removing warnings while vandalism is in progress, as happened here. The same policy page makes clear that removing a warning implies that you read it ... to me, removing warnings and then continuing the same edit pattern is a way to try to avoid the consequences of your actions by preventing other users from seeing how many you've already gotten.

Flip edit summaries and ownership assertions like this did not help this user's case with me. Perhaps it was edit war rather than pure vandalism, but the net effect is the same, as is the remedy. Daniel Case 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, seriously? If you take a look at the time line of the entire escapade, it should be clear what has happened here. I made an edit, specifically, removing a template which User:Fogeltje felt should be there. That's fine. He then proceeds to watch my user page. I blanked the page... I get it, I read the warnings... and it stayed that way for hours. It seems more like stalking my page with an attempt to humiliate than any kind of actionable page blanking on my part.

All of my supposed vandalism and edit warring at this point comes from doing exactly what everyone says I should be able to do.. removing content from my talk page when I've read it. Does anyone really believe that this is an important part of the encyclopedia which needs protection?

Did I behave like a petulant child on occasion? Sure. Most of it came from my pure incredulity that "protecting" a page intended for talking to me was such a priority... nevertheless, I accept that I am responsibility for my poorly thought out response. 70.173.50.153 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. I don't believe anons have the right to remove warnings from Talk pages, as they are not "their" pages. Corvus cornix_talk 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Once a vandal, always a vandal, eh? Yeah, forget reform. Forget shared IPs. Forget giving anybody a chance. We need to block this guy, he's a major threat to the encyclopedia, removing all those critical {{test1}} messages from a page no one is ever going to read. I must admit I'm at a complete loss to understand why the contents of this talk page are important. Once the page was protected, did they really need to be blocked? Seems a bit much hurry. Don't we all have better things to do than play police with things that aren't even remotely a problem for the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Luna, Theresa, JodyB, and for the most part 70.173.50.153. No edits had been made in the previous week, the previous edits were all still (top) - there was no vandalism in progress. I can sometimes see the need for full protection at times like this to stop the RC patrollers edit warring on the user's talk page, but never the need for a block. 'Anons' are editors like you and me. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. They can't create articles and can't move them. This was by design after those capabilities were stripped away from unregistered users. For good reasons, too.

Given that many anons are used by different users and are frequent bases for vandalism and sockpuppetry, we have every right and obligation to be less forgiving when they are used to edit in violation of policy and consensus, whatever misunderstandings are claimed later. That's why I keep the templates up ... other users who might leave messages have to be able to know what kind of user they're dealing with. And there is really no such thing as a truly static IP ... this was mine for a while but now it's not anymore. Nor do we have the reasonable certainty that the same person is behind every edit that we do with a registered user (how many times have you gotten an unblock request along the lines of "My brother started editing while I was out of the room!"?).

The blocking came first, then the protection. I was more than a bit annoyed when the page was blanked immediately after the block. That just flushes every good faith assumption I could have. Daniel Case 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So you blocked him before you protected the page.For what?! He was a productive editor. You obviously didn't check his contributions because if you did you'd know that a) his only "vandalism" was to remove some templates back in November b) He isn't claiming that he didn't do it only that it wasn't vandalism. Or do we define removing of a vandalism warning itself as vandalism? If the IP changes and is no longer his why do we need the warnings? Your argument makes no sense to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So you blocked him before you protected the page.For what?! He was a productive editor.In real life, having no prior record when I beat someone up in a bar fight (not that I would) isn't going to get me off the hook entirely for it. I believe the same principle applies here.

He isn't claiming that he didn't do it only that it wasn't vandalism. While I agree this case may have been different from most that make this claim, the fact is we hear this one a lot. (BTW, he is also admitting that his actions were hotheaded).

Or do we define removing of a vandalism warning itself as vandalism? As I said, I very much do if it's removed when the alleged vandalism is in progress, and then the same edits that gave rise to the warning are repeated. It matters not whether the warning was for a good-faith edit or not. Just like it doesn't matter whether the police have real grounds to arrest you if you start running around and clamming up to make it harder to put the cuffs on — you are still resisting arrest under the law. Strict liability applies in that situation as long as the officers can demonstrate that they had every reason to believe they were effecting a lawful arrest. I consider this situation analogous.

The proper way to respond to a vandalism warning you believe you have received errantly is to immediately initiate talks with the other editor so that you both gain an understanding of each other and what your motivations were. It is not to begin edit warring on your talk page. And then, if the two editors have come to an understanding as people often do, then the vandalism warnings can be removed by mutual consent. That's the Misplaced Pages way ... this is a collaborative project, after all. In fact, I just did exactly that last weekend when I realized I'd warned the wrong IP on something.

Perhaps this wasn't vandalism, but it was definitely incivility. Daniel Case 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And here we see the inherent beauty of having a complex web of guidelines and rules which are largely known only to the enforcement community. If one charge can not be made to stick, another is right at hand. I have no doubt that I committed at least a dozen other infractions in my edits. For most of November, I largely refused to use edit summaries!

For the record, I don't claim I'm being singled out for persecution. I suspect that all so-called anonymous editors are treated with the same lack of respect with which I was. And, before anyone even starts quoting more procedure at me, I wasn't editing to make a point. Oddly enough, I was editing to make an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia which has enough respect for its readers (anybody remember these people?) to offer them a comprehensible and polished article. Yes, even if that means removing some mark-up which does nothing but encourage said readers to become editors.

I've largely given up on that quixotic quest. Instead, I've taken to hitting the random article page and cleaning up whatever I find there. Nowadays, I mostly leave the templates in place, so as not to incur the wrath of the people who somehow have time to place and "watch" templates, but not actually improve the articles.

I've learned a lot about Misplaced Pages in my short month of trying to contribute. I even created a user after an admin spoke to me like an actual human being. Since I had to out that user as part of this discussion, I have started yet another user. I really thought I was going to try to contribute. But my anti-authoritarian nature has kicked up.

The ploy has succeeded. You've sucked me into the morass of Misplaced Pages politics. I am now spending the majority of the time I've allotted for this project reading policies and writing these manifestos.

Is it clear, yet, that I've read the warnings on my page? I tried once again to clean up the page, only to have it reverted as vandalism. Imagine my shock when I discovered that it was Fogeltje's first edit of the day! He is right on the ball with keeping me in my place!

I don't want an apology. And I certainly don't want new justifications. I want the warnings off the page. In fact, I want everything off the page. 70.173.50.153 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

a complex web of guidelines and rules which are largely known only to the enforcement community. And which anyone can learn if they're patient enough.

If one charge can not be made to stick, another is right at hand. As is often the case in real life.

For most of November, I largely refused to use edit summaries! Well, why?

I suspect that all so-called anonymous editors are treated with the same lack of respect with which I was. I wouldn't call it quite a "lack of respect", but if you mean that some of us are more suspicious of anonymous edits, particularly those that come without edit summaries, you'd be right. We feel we have good reason.

But my anti-authoritarian nature has kicked up. Some people would call that an attitude problem. Yes, this project is open to all ... all who abide by the rules and policies that have been worked out and evolved from community discussion and consensus. And that inherently requires giving some people some authority to enforce those rules and policies. So if even that authority is one you're going to chafe at, you might want to reconsider how this will go for you if you don't want to accept that you are subject to that authority.

I am now spending the majority of the time I've allotted for this project reading policies and writing these manifestos. In the former case, you are hardly alone. Everyone had to learn these things, everyone who decided that they wanted to be a member of this community. As for the latter, that's entirely your choice. You could also have seen this as a learning experience, the sort of learning experience we all had at one point, and moved on and done the editing you wanted to, but for whatever reason you decided to make an issue of this. I do not judge here; I merely note that others might do differently.

I would also note that learning how things are done here is no different from what you must do anywhere you move, anytime you choose to start to become part of another community, virtually or really.

Concerning your issues with User:Fogeltje, I would note that I didn't find a single post from you to his talk page in its recent revision history. Do you honestly think you can expect him to be reasonable about this if you make no overtures to him? (And I do think he ought to be in this discussion).

I don't want an apology. And I certainly don't want new justifications. I want the warnings off the page. In fact, I want everything off the page. If you're going to use an actual account from now on, as you said on my talk page, as you said here, why would that matter? You could scarcely plead offense if someone looking this over began to think you were more interested in confrontation and settling a perceived grudge than actually contributing productively. And speaking personally, lay off the self-pity, it never does anyone any good. Daniel Case 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was the one making an issue of it. I approached him and asked if I could help as it was apparent that he was upset. Anyway enough of this. I will blank the IP talk page myself so that the matter is settled, but do ask that other users be less quick to label newbies as vandals, and more understanding when such newbies get annoyed abour being labelled as such, and start trying to deeascalate a situation rather than escalate it by adding yet more vandalism templates. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction I see that user:Luna Santin has already done it. Hopefully that is the end of the matter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern for my adoptee

This edit, and the one after it on my page, lead me to think (no, believe) that my adoptee has been using sock puppets to disrupt the Misplaced Pages. I am now going to A) talk to him about the policy; and B)label the other accounts that I know of as sockpuppets. I just don't know if any other action needs to be taken. I am deeply concerned that User:Iamandrewrice is never going to learn how to be a positive contributer and am at my wits end. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the behavior of Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) since the initial thread on ANI. In his 3 weeks on Misplaced Pages, this user has managed to violate most of the core policies, including making legal threats, using sockpuppets and gross incivility to numerous editors. Jeffpw has had remarkable patience with Iamandrewrice, mentoring him and attempting to mold him into a productive user. However, this experiement has failed as the user is eithe

I've been following this carefully and yes, Jeff deserves a very large chocolate barnstar. I'd agree that an indefblock appears to be warranted. I've asked Iamandrewrice for an explanation of the edits Jeff has concerns about, so far with no response to be told that I am not the person on the account (despite the edits Jeff brought up) Tonywalton  | Talk 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I too have followed this from the sideline since being in dispute with him. That episode resulted in Jeffpw's adoption of Iamandrewrice. He has since shown significant progress as an editor and has worked hard on several articles. However, the amount of incivility towards his mentor has been astounding as has Jeffpw's patience and goodwill for which I awarded him a barnstar and some encouraging words. If this is the path that Iamandrewrice has now chosen, as it would appear, then I guess an indef block is the only solution to this. That said, it really all boils down to how much Jeffpw can continue to mentor someone who at times seem more eager to prove himself right regardless of Jeffpw's firm warnings to stop acting out. I don't think anyone would blame Jeffpw for simply deciding to back out of this arrangement. EconomicsGuy 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a fairly unambiguous statement that Jeff's done just that (and no blame to him) Tonywalton  | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

thats not true! i have not purposefully vandalised as you will see! My edits were all with good faith! and I was learning very much from jeff... Iamandrewrice 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are constantly incivil to Jeff, as in these edits . This is how you're treating someone you're "...learning very much from"". Sorry, you've been informed that this type of behavior is not acceptable, but the inappropriate behavior has continued and possibly even worsened. Chaz 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am basically crying now! I put my trust in you as an adoptee... and was hoping you felt the same level of care... I was, and still am trying so hard... if you look at my edits, none of them are vandalistic ... EVEN that Monkton one, as that with good faith! Iamandrewrice 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have an inability to see past yourself. Jeff took on the responsibility of adopting you when others thought you were a lost cause. He has attempted to put you on the right path. Instead of being grateful you demonstrate a selfishness that is totally out of line with the way Misplaced Pages works. Then when you are challenged on your behaviour you attempt to put the blame back on the one person who had faith in you. "Crying"? My ass! You are one of those kids, for whatever reason, thinks it's always someone else's fault. Your behaviour is your fault, no-one else's. --WebHamster 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick observation. Is it not more likely that User:SpidermanHero is a sock of User:Joeseth1992 - especially given User:SpidermanHero claims his name is Jose? Yes, the first message left on User:SpidermanHero was from User:iamandrewrice but that is arguably to be expected given User:iamandrewrice has claimed to know User:Joeseth1992 in real life. And User:Joeseth1992 did have his recent block extended for using socks to get around it. Also (and I haven't the diffs at the moment as I'm in a rush) User:iamandrewrice did claim User:Joeseth1992 wanted to improve the grammar on Wiki and User:SpidermanHero did make such an edit (albeit an incorrect one, capitalising a direction). I am convinced User:Joeseth1992 and User:iamandrewrice are separate people in real life (and they have left enough personal information about themselves on their user pages to make it apparent they are friends on MySpace and Bebo, for instance. My only main concern is that User:iamandrewrice has created the account to disparage the person his username suggests he is. That person does exist, and is connected to the person behind User:iamandrewrice on Bebo if nowhere else. Given all that can be obtained from the details both left (mainly email details in userboxes) is this not more likely to be a group of school friends that have got out of control, rather than socks? Whitstable 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

this diff would support that assertion. Someone came complaining that Iamandrerice had taken their name to use here. I expressed concern at that time, but it was decided Iamandrewrice could keep the name. Jeffpw 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppets are actually a very minor (and recent) part of the problem. Let's assume they're not sockpuppets, but a group of friends. Now we have a situation where Iamandrewrice is playing his usual game of creating drama and then playing the "I didn't know any better" card. This card made its first appearance when he made legal threats then, when blocked for this behavior, claimed to not know the definition of "legal action" (despite claiming on his user page that English is his native language and that he's studying English language and literature). So he's either lying about using sockpuppets or he's using sockpuppets, neither one is acceptable behavior. Chaz 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with that - and would also point to to suggest that even if the two accounts are no the same person, they have been known to work together in such a way that is disruptive. I nearly filed a CU yesterday because of the amount of blocked users user:iamandrewrice had been contacting, but opted not to. But socks or not, I think the way user:Jeffpw has been treated by someone he has gone beyond the call of duty to help is so unfair that I am fuming about it, and I'm only looking at this from the outside! Whitstable 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just had a thought regarding checkuser - since the socks (or !socks) seem to admit to being pupils at the same school, isn't a checkuser likely to prove very little? The IP will be either the school's proxy or at least should be expected to be in the same IP block in any case. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He posts at times when one would normally expect a UK school to be closed, therefore it may be he logs in here from school and home. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, well made. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts: This | section here also makes me suspicious. And User:Christine118500 has been chasing around for adoption in a similar manner to how User:Joeseth1992 did. Whitstable 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, Whitstable. And SpidermanHero is doing the same thing now, as well. It does seem as if they are one user with split-personality disorder, or a group of school friends who have decided to make Misplaced Pages their target for fun and games. It will be interesting to see what the checkuser report says (I filed it a while ago). Jeffpw 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Whitstable, and this edit might be seen as ill-advised at best, under the circumstances. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) They (User:Iamandrewrice and User:Christine118500) both pass the duck test and are obvious sock/meat puppets of each other. I'm going to indef both and suggest that one of them may be unblocked only on stringent parole. — Coren  15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The other two do not seem quite as obvious to me, however (but very likely). — Coren  15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As per my comments above, User:Joeseth1992 and User:SpidermanHero appear to be the same person. Similar style, and the second account, created after Joeseth is blocked, claims to be named Jose? Whitstable 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For information Iamandrewrice has now posted an unblock request (with a rationale 873 words long!) on his talkpage, in which he admits that SpidermanHero is a meatpuppet. I strongly feel that this editor has been told often enough about policy and had it explained point-by-point where it applies to his edits without success. (Leaving aside questions of possible puppetry) I support the retention of an indefinite block. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with maintaining the indef block. There's a pattern of Iamandrewrice creating drama until blocked, then claiming it was all a misunderstanding, followed by being unblocked and then quickly returning to the inappropriate behavior. There are two possibilities here, either he's playing games seeing how much he can get away with or he's truly unable to understand how people are expected to behave here. Either one should result in an indef block. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Chaz 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would mention that Christine118500 has the same pattern. Tvoz |talk 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As does Joeseth1992 Whitstable 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the indef block. He had plenty of second chances and pretty much blew them all by arguing with Jeffpw rather than pay attention. There is no reason to believe that he will not simply return to his old pattern of disruption and acting out. Fact is he got a second chance that 99% of users who start out like he did never gets and he basically wasted that chance. EconomicsGuy 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary checkuser shows that the account has been socking. I need a second opinion on the Christine one, hence it's not completed, but Iamandrewrice certainly has - Alison 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As Christine118500's former adopter, and having observed Jeffpw's admirable attempts with Iamandrewrice, I endorse both blocks. I would add that Christine118500 admitted prior to being adopted that he had been blocked in the past (Christine118Maureen is clear, and others apparently); I discussed the matter with Isotope23, the admin who blocked the previous account, who said in reply that he was willing to let Christine118500 edit and try to reform. Sadly, he has not, and a block is warranted on that ground at least. I do not know whether Christine118500 and Iamandrewrice are the same individual. CU or a more detailed comparison of edit times and styles may reveal more, but it may matter little. Bencherlite 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the CU Iamandrewrice, SpidermanHero, Joeseth1992 (and, interestingly, Radiation111 and Narnia101) are confirmed. The result on Christine118500 is pending. Tonywalton   17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Following another unblock request (which I declined) and yet more verbose "apologies" and promises, I've blanked and full-protected User talk:Iamandrewrice. Tonywalton   18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A new one just arrived. Blackhouse123 is claiming to be friends with Christine118500. He also made this edit which isn't very helpful. IrishGuy 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another? Just seen this edit by User:Burningandrew within four minutes of account creation. Whitstable 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And another Dom58 the Second. They're kindly signing up at Petition to unblock User: Christine118500 (twice deleted). Bencherlite 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Plenty more socks now identified by checkuser. I blocked a bunch of them already and the checkuser case has now been updated - Alison 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, by now, any illusions of good faith are reasonably ignored. Block-protect-ignore. — Coren  19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God. I was out seeing clients for the last few hours, so missed these latest revelations. I said to Tonywalton yesterday that I thought I had adopted Rosemary's Baby. Now it is clear I really adopted Sybil. Oh well, it was a good learning experience for my next adoptee. Thanks to everyone who gave me support throughout this. Jeffpw 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One Two Three Four,
How many More?
Five Six Seven Eight,
Well you'll just have to wait!

)

Christineandrew 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet more, it seems. User:Andrewsclone just made this edit Oh, and see above post by User:Christineandrew Whitstable 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another just created: User talk:Andrewsbaby to quote user page

you know who i am people

back from the dead? or already dead ;)

laterz yeah? yeah...

Sigh Whitstable 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

confirmed / blocked the underlying IP - Alison 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A static IP, I hope! Tonywalton   22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A look at suspected puppet User talk:Dom56! also suggests the following are puppets: user:Guys09, User:Toast123 and User:Dr. Reeves Thanks Whitstable 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Dom56! for some more possible ones. Bencherlite 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For information Further from Andrewsbaby (on their talkpage, now a protected redir to the userpage):

ok people

theres just one thing i want and then this will all stop... seriously... I want you to unblock my IP address... that is my only request... then I wont bother you with these accounts anymore... but doing that is just unfair...

Tonywalton   22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't unblock the IP address unless the sockpuppeteer reveals which IP address is being used. We also know that more than one address has been used. --Yamla 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, (and I'm not sure about "can't". Would doing so be a good idea?). If they're complaining about collateral damage (for instance, and I'm speculating here) perhaps the reason they seem so keen to have an IP unblocked is that one of the autoblocks is going to hit something like a school proxy, with ensuing awkward explanations from themselves as to how their activities got it blocked. If they're on a dynamic IP then meh? they can easily get another one (as I'd guess they are doing). I'm not sure whether this, followed immediately by this may be of interest. Someone didn't log in. Tonywalton   22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again everyone... remember me now? ;) WiArthurWho 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... the sad thing here is that you don't seem to understand that you weren't banned (yet!) just indef blocked. You could have just started over and no one would have blocked your new account had you stuck to good faith edits. Once again you turned out to be your own worst enemy here. EconomicsGuy 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry continues, I've reopened the checkuser request. I move for a formal ban on this vandal. --Yamla 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pr this our friend Iam... is but one puppet among many and not the puppeteer (I suspected this last night). Try Wiarthurhu, I too would support a ban, of course. Tonywalton  17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Though I know I should outraged, I can't help but feel sorry for the guy. If you can believe anything he has written, his MySpace says this is his birthday. Instead of spending it celebrating with friends, he is waging a one man war against a group of strangers on the internet. That's just plain sad. I don't mean to imply he should not be banned, I just still have an element of compassion for what is obviously a very troubled young. Jeffpw (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And I posted this on Tony's page, but I will post it here, too: This user, whoever he is, has emailed me with a full explanation of what has transpired. He asked me to post it here, but I refused. I did, however, promise I would forward it to any admin or other office people who might wish to read it. Jeffpw (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support the ban. This ban is the very last option - he blew the second last chance in spectacular fashion when Jeff had to give up on him. I really thought that this was the exception to the rule - that he really could be turned into a constructive good faith editor very eager to learn. I even felt really bad about having assumed bad faith about two of his uploads and really wanted the guy to succeed. Now that we know he was just a sock himself I'm really disappointed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fettes

Hi, I've reverted a few actions by the self-admitted sock, on one of their comments they also confess to a few other socks; could someone please check into these and block as appropriate? Benjiboi 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of user Ilkali on numerous pages

This user appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether the change of case is appropriate and regardless of any consensus against him. He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again. He has done this most recently on the Misotheism page, where it became clear that whether or not he had a case, he was going to reapply his edits regardless. (Witness his repeated edits and reapplication of reverted edits on November 29 and 30.) This behavior has apparently been going on for months on numerous pages, with the most egregious incident apparently being his edits to the Derren Brown page back in September, where the page had to be protected to stop his behavior. Despite clear evidence against his position presented by others, he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV. On numerous pages, "other contributors have clearly and patiently tried to talk to him" to no avail, and his content "continues to add content that is disagreeable." When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it." Full disclosure: He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action. Craig zimmerman 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of these accusations have already been addressed elsewhere, but I'll provide a short response to each of them here.

1. "appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Misplaced Pages". Only when it is a common noun, as explained in great detail on the two talk pages.
2. "He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again". I reverted User:Dbachmann's edits when he and I were the only ones involved. At this point, there was no consensus. When User:Craig_zimmerman joined, I ceased. The three of us discussed the issue (to varying degrees), mostly on the MoS talk page. During the process, three of four editors agreed that common nouns should not capitalise, with the fourth not making any clear statements in either direction. With the orthographic conventions largely cleared up, it fell to analyse the actual edits to see if the changes were appropriate. To this end, I presented arguments in support of specific edits (). At this point Dbachmann and Craig_zimmerman both declared unwillingness to discuss the issue. I resumed reverting.
3. "he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV". 'Common nouns don't capitalise' isn't a POV. 'Determiners are almost exclusively used with common nouns' is not a POV. etc.
4. "When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it."". (Why did you paraphrase instead of just quoting me?) The only person to whom I responded like this is Craig_zimmerman himself, and this was because he repeatedly argued against a position that I didn't hold, ignoring what I had said elsewhere in the discussion. I was not the only editor to suggest that he didn't understand my position.
5. "He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action". I'll let the WQA itself address this one: .

Ilkali 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute which got a little hot. I suggest some dispute resolution, since you don't need admins to resolve this issue at this point in time. --Haemo 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like that, but it's difficult to resolve a dispute when one side of the disagreement is unwilling to do anything other than revert changes. Ilkali 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Though this would have been more concise as inline comments...

1. By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that his argument was soundly rebutted and summarily contradicted, but this did not stop him from continuing to cling to his POV on the subject. Those who rebutted and contradicted were deemed "unwilling to discuss."
2. Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's, and this user has strong POV's that contradict both editorial consensus and documented English-language usage conventions as provided in great gory detail.
3. The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general. This talk page section offers explicit examples of his language directed at multiple editors, including his tirade at dab in which he said "If you had any understanding of the distinction at hand, you wouldn't say that my edits were made through indiscriminate search-replacing." (Not that "the only person to whom I responded like this was..." would be any sort of excuse for such behavior in any case.) "I'm not obligated to teach you syntax just so you can talk productively about this topic but I'll explain how you're wrong" (followed by no real explanation of what was wrong with the original statement—perhaps it was he who was failing to understand?) is yet another example. Other similar texts appear in the Derren Brown disruption discussion.

Despite the fact that Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent, and despite the fact that his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed, and despite the fact that consistently he has failed to make the case that he seems to believe he has made, he continued his disruptive reversion behavior in the cases cited above. This behavior has occurred numerous times in the past with perhaps the most notorious and flagrant example being the Derren Brown article, where the issue of his behavior was apparently only resolved by protection of the page from his disruptive edits. I contend that this is a repeated pattern of deliberate disruptive behavior that warrants appropriate action. Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that

"this is entirely a content dispute related to these specific passages now and has nothing to do with general MoS on capitalisation. Misotheism is discussed as a position towards monotheism in particular in these passages, and hence God is capitalised. Ilkali, you are now, by your revert-warring, indulging in WP:POINT. Review WP:DISRUPT for possible sanctions that may be taken against such behaviour.

Craig zimmerman 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that " - What I mean is that both editors declared unwillingness to discuss it. You on the WQA and Dbachmann on his talk page.

"Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's" - If my understanding of these terms is a POV, then presumably yours is as well? And by your own reasoning, your arguing for your favored version of the article means you are pushing your own POV?

It's a ridiculous claim. We're not primarily disagreeing over the information in the article, just the means used to convey it. This isn't a POV issue.

"The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general" - Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?

Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent" - Can you back this up?

"his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed" - Yadda, yadda, yadda. Even if the issue of who was right were directly relevant here, nobody is going to assume I was wrong just because you say so. Let them read the talk pages and decide for themselves. You don't have to fill every comment here with as much bile as possible.

"Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that " - You forgot to mention that said administrator was Dbachmann, and wasn't acting in his capacity as an admin (rightly so, since that would involve a conflict of interest).

I hope that by now people are seeing a pattern in how CZ represents people and events. Ilkali 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that both editors declared unwillingness to discuss it. You on the WQA and Dbachmann on his talk page." There was discussion, authoritative sources were cited showing that Ilkali was wrong, there was only unwillingness to discuss the issue further beyond that point.

"It's a ridiculous claim. We're not primarily disagreeing over the information in the article, just the means used to convey it. This isn't a POV issue." According to this reasoning, all usage standards are really just POVs, I guess. And majority consensus and historical precendent on usage doesn't carry any weight in balancing which POV is right. Isn't that the ridiculous claim?

"Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?" Throughout his series of requests for clarification made to you that went unanswered. But that wasn't what the content of the comment refered to in any case. The direct quotations include remarks made to both dab and myself.

"Can you back this up?" Ilkali attempted to use the notion that the word "David" could be both a proper name for a person and a common noun (e.g., refering to a group of people who are "Davids") in support of his opinions. When it was pointed out that this was a bad analogy to a situation in which the debate was about whether a word should be capitalized (he cited no instance of a lower case "david") he not only did not respond, he deliberately deleted the text containing this point.

"Yadda, yadda, yadda. Even if the issue of who was right were directly relevant here, nobody is going to assume I was wrong just because you say so. Let them read the talk pages and decide for themselves. You don't have to fill every comment here with as much bile as possible." Yadda, yadda, yadda indeed. Does saying that another person's arguments are flawed constitute "bile?" I didn't think that was the case. In any case, let's move on.

"You forgot to mention that said administrator was Dbachmann, and wasn't acting in his capacity as an admin (rightly so, since that would involve a conflict of interest)." Fair enough. He wasn't acting in his capacity as admin at that juncture. He was simply noting that your behavior, in his opinion, was in violation of WP:DISRUPT and that sanctions against you might be appropriate if you continued engaging in it. This is a POV shared apparently by many people about your behavior on Misplaced Pages. Is it just another POV, or is it one that has merit? That's the question we're trying to answer.

"I hope that by now people are seeing a pattern in how CZ represents people and events." I sincerely hope so. Craig zimmerman 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"There was discussion, authoritative sources were cited showing that Ilkali was wrong, there was only unwillingness to discuss the issue further beyond that point." - If you predicate your arguments on the presupposition that you were right, they're going to fall flat. I can do exactly the same thing. We all believed we were right, and we all acted accordingly.

"According to this reasoning, all usage standards are really just POVs, I guess" - My words: "This isn't a POV issue". But if you insist that my analysis of these nouns is a POV then yours is necessarily so as well. Which of our analyses is correct is a matter for another page.

""Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?" Throughout his series of requests for clarification made to you that went unanswered" - I expressed refusal without even answering? I have put more effort into resolving this dispute and building understanding of the viewpoints than anybody else (, , , ).

"Ilkali attempted to use the notion that the word "David" could be both a proper name for a person and a common noun" - No I didn't. I showed that 'David' can function as a common noun, through widely-documented twin syntactic and semantic processes of proper->common conversion (, ), whereby it can take modifiers and a determiner (syntax) and denote a set of entities (semantics). You don't understand what this means (which of course isn't shameful - like the majority of people, you just haven't studied linguistics), but the real problem is that you don't realise you don't understand it.

"not only did not respond, he deliberately deleted the text containing this point" - ...while requesting that you post the same comment below my text rather than inside it. The first time you did it, I spent time extracting your replies manually and asked you not to do it again. I did the same here. I don't accept an obligation to do it every time. Ilkali (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User 83.67.73.117

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

Fairly new editor that fits the description of a WP:SPA, who has been blocked once previously for inserting misinformation. Editor is now contributing almost entirely to Talk:Bosniaks‎, where his comments are consistently in violation of WP:TALK, and often WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE as well. Editor has been warned multiple times but persists.

Previously discussed in Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#user:83.67.73.117, which recommended posting here to ANI. Note though that the editor has responded there and on his talk page .

Despite the warnings, the editor appears uninterested in discussions directed at improving the article, and instead uses the talk page as a forum, where his opinions are often little more than trolling . --Ronz 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. I would also like to voice my opinion that this anon's actions are totally inappropriate. Frvernchanezzz 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope an admin would consider blocking 83.67.73.117 for at least a short period. This situation is rapidly escalating toward yet another Arbcom involving long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. --Ronz 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks and related articles

Promotion of the following fringe theory has been ongoing for quite some time, but in recent weeks, a few users have been shamelessly promoting a completely baseless and racist theory about Bosniaks (The users are User talk:83.67.3.166, User talk:83.67.73.117, and User:NeutralBosnian. All three are most likely the same editor, due to the same edit patters, same writing style, similar IP addresses). The very dispute is laughable, and most level headed Bosniaks would not agree with it. No prominent Bosniak Wiki-editors, (such as Kseferovic), have ever made any such ridiculous claims, and never will, because they accept, and our proud of, the truth, which is, Bosniaks are Slavs. This is 100% factually accurate, and only those who operate on the very fringes of science try to suggest that Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs.

The fringe theory that keep getting inserted suggests ridiculous pseudo-historical "facts" about Bosniaks being "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Blonde-haired blue eyed Scandinavians but we just speak Slavic language". Basically, these editors are trying to "prove" that Bosniaks are not Slav, but are in fact the descendants of the Illyrians. People who support this view make outrageous claims, such as "Bosniaks can't be Slavs, because Serbs look like Gypsies, but Bosniaks look like Scandinavians"; this is not only completely untrue, but extremely racist/xenophobic. After the war in BiH, Bosniaks reasserted themselves as a nation; something which we can all be proud of. But, the bad side of this is, there are some people with extremist views out there who try and differentiate themselves from Serbs so much (because of all the residual hate after the war) that they resort to making such stupid claims as this. The baseless "Illyrian theory" has no support from mainstream academia, and is not even covered by mainstream academia even as a pseudoscience, as it so erroneous.

It's a fact that all peoples of the Balkans have some traces of Illyrian blood in them, but to suggest that Bosniaks are the direct descendants when they have as much Illyrian as Croats, Serbs and other Balkan people is laughable. Furthermore, ethnicity is not all about genetics anyway - it is mainly about culture and language; and Bosniaks share culture, heritage and language with the other South Slavs for the simple fact that they are Slavs.

There are a lot of people who believe many of the lies and half truths presented on Misplaced Pages, but no one in his right mind would ever believe anything so blatantly erroneous. So I am requesting one or more admins step in and stop the promotion of such ridiculous fringe theories. - Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ostensible breach of WP:TALK by User:Perspicacite

Our guideline WP:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages states: "The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes." Perspicacite has now removed the questions (and the comments of other editors) without providing an appropriate response or canvassing the removal of other editor's comments on the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=175534728&oldid=175532620

When I asked him on his talk page to replace the material and discuss matters in future, he removed my question with an edit summary of "No": http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APerspicacite&diff=175541745&oldid=175540365

May I revert this excision and the sourced material that was removed in successive reversion(s)? Alice.S 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has repeatedly spammed the talkpages of articles where I edit. Her spam was moved to her talkpage. She has done this previously on Talk:Rhodesia, Talk:Tokelau, etc. Jose João 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

These two have been at each other like cat and dog for weeks now. Someone else needs to have a look at how best to resolve it as they have both completely ignored my advice which was to avoid interacting with each other. --John 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban her? Jose João 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if both of you leave the other person alone? That seems like a simple solution. --Haemo 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What Perspicacite alias Jose João calls "spam" are requests for editors (including himself) to comment on why he is removing sourced material. In both the cases he mentions there is no support whatever for his position on the relevant article's discussion pages. I wish he would address himself to the edits and not the editor and stop producing smokescreens. In both cases he removed comments by editors other than himself or I without their permission. Alice.S 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S has never added sourced material. The only comments I have ever moved were hers. She knowingly restored an anonymous user's vandalism to ACW earlier today. Why hasnt she been banned? She does not contribute anything. Jose João 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I wish for someone with knowledge of the subject matter to examine the (mainly technical) edits I have made and tell me why they are being reverted (but only by P). I need to learn what it is that Perspicacite objects to. I now assume that it is the editor that he is reverting rather than the edits but I am fully prepared to be educated if there is actually something wrong with my edits. Most other editors are scared of being attacked in an ANI or ArbCom by him and don't dare comment but the only ones that have commented, have consistently failed to support his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARhodesia&diff=174630777&oldid=174630708 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=174402424&oldid=174398606. Alice.S 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

None of that, as usual, is true. Jose João 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have, once again, suggested a way forward at my user talk page. --John 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you by e-mail, yesterday, John. I do hope that we can improve the quality of the article that is the subject of this incident report. This is really a test case for whether content is important to admins and whether article talk pages can be allowed to be subverted and by-passed. Alice.S 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The two of you need to engage in dispute resolution and stop cluttering this noticeboard. Since talking obviously isn't working, you might consider getting a mediator. Shell 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This board is definitely not the appropriate place for this argument, and it appears that a lot of arguing has gotten you no where. I would suggest either completely avoiding each other or getting a mediator, as Shell suggested. Natalie 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to receive an answer to my question rather than platitudes. May I restore the editors' comments from the talk page that were unilaterally removed? Yes or No and then that'll be the end of it from me. Alice.S 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question is something two adults should work out in a mature and capable fashion. We're not going to play teacher, and give either of you a mandate for continued behavior in this vein. Take some advice, and try dispute resolution, or just avoid one another entirely. And, for your information, admins are not content arbiters — they are just regular editors, with a handful of tools, and have no greater or smaller mandate to comment on content issues. Content is important to admins — but it is totally unrelated to their functioning as admins, and any content-related dispute you have should not be addressed to admins solely because they have a sysop bit. --Haemo (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try and ignore the deliberate smokescreens above. This question is not asking you to adjudicate on a content dispute; the editors of the article in question are able to do that - but not if the discussion is removed from the talk page of the article. How can content disputes be settled if the losing party to the discussion just unilaterally removes the whole discussion. Please don't try to characterise my question as asking you to decide on content. I am asking you to rule (or intervene) on the removal (and stymying) of discussion on the article's talk page. Alice.S 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin FeloniousMonk

FM has been violating WP:AGF and making baseless accusations against me. This started when he "discovered" that I had not been logging in to my user account to edit. (The story behind that is a long one, but to be brief, I am no longer regularly editing and have retired my username.) In not logging in, my IP address was used and, like many IP addresses, it is not static - the last three digits change from time to time - something completely out of my control. FM immediately started accusing me of sockpuppeting, ignoring AGF (which is strongly encouraged for admins here and for handling possible sockpuppets here). I have never denied I was still editing and never hid my identity for any reason. I readily admitted that I was Jinxmchue. This information, however, did not stop FM from continuing to make his accusation and claiming I was doing it do disrupt, avoid blocks, and to disassociate my edits with my username. I asked him to provide proof of his accusations, but he simply ignored my request and described it as "trolling." Of course, his sockpuppeting accusations were never officially made on WP:SSP (and it's not in the November archive, either), likely due to him knowing that the accusation lacked merit. Evidence for FM's behavior can be seen in the following links:

• - smearing me (note the Wikilawyering)
• - smearing both me and Crockspot (and ignoring the edit-warring of others)
• - more smearing
• - I've never denied my identity
• - note that the page is protected despite no official report on WP:SSP

Furthermore, when admin Guettarda wrongly re-blocked me for supposedly violating an edit block (see here), I requested a block removal. FM (along with Guettarda) has been intimately involved in the issues involving editing an article which led to my initial block. Despite this gross conflict of interest, FM handled the block removal request (denying it, of course). Admins with the same agendas and POV working together like this to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed is simply astounding and should not be allowed. A neutral admin should have handled the block removal request.

FM's hostile attitude towards me is unacceptable (and I admit my hostile reactions towards his behavior were also unacceptable, but I don't have admin powers to abuse). 67.135.49.177 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're not disruptive, mind telling me why you've been edit warring on Discovery Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Will 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I had typed out a lengthy response to you, but I'm not going to post it. This Incident report is not about me. Please keep it on topic (i.e. about FM). If you want to discuss me, look above or start your own report on me. 67.135.49.177 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By editing Misplaced Pages you agree to have your edits scrutinised. The same is on ANI: if you post a thread, your actions may be investigated. Will 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to drag this off-topic. I will not respond any further to your or anyone else's off-topic comments. There is already a section on this page for the comments about me you want to add. 67.135.49.177 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk says you are disrupting the project. You take issue with that accusation. Sceptre points out a place where you are being disruptive. How is that off-topic? Natalie 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

While I note that this is resolved, I think that FeloniousMonk should be gently reminded that they should not exercise their sysop powers in matters or involving editors that they have had recent dealings in - if only for the sake of appearances. The pool of admins is not that small. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who re-blocked for block evasion. While I did not consider that a controversial actions, because of issues of this sort I posted a request for a review of my action here. I also made the point that I make no objections if someone wanted to alter my block. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the comment was that FM was the reviewer who declined the block appeal - not that I have checked, so I best do that now... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Yup, FM declined; so he was in fact actively un-using his tools in a case in which he had been involved (again, only as commented - I haven't taken the time to review the case). As mentioned, my faint concern is more to do with being seen to be acting according to regs than any complaint that the system was being abused. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, another admin has commented to me privately that FM's protection of Discovery Institute may not seem proper use of tools, as he is a major contributor to that article, apparently according to his own user page (I have not verified that). I made one edit to the article, and was reverted once by an editor that supports FM's preference for the content of that article.I made one edit and one revert, and was reverted by two editors who support FM's preference for the content of that article. I was discussing it on the talk page at the time of protection. There was no edit war at the time. - Crockspot (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Correction: Sorry, I made one edit and one revert, then discussion. The fact remains that FM was heavily involved in creating and maintaining that article, and he should have asked an uninvolved admin to make the call. - Crockspot (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you were edit warring as far as I can tell, picking up right where Jinxmchue left off, and it looks from the history like Felonious had not edited the article in a long time (since August if I read the history correctly) which makes it hard to not see him as an uninvolved editor. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:132.181.160.42

Blocked User:Concerned cynic continues to edit tendentiously via an IP while his main account remains blocked. In the past, he has manifested in groups of three (usually 2 IPs and his main account), though at the moment he is mostly using only the one IP number from his university.

I am not sure how to approach this. Should I file another checkuser for User:Concerned cynic? Should I initiate an RfC so that the mathematics WP community can evaluate his whole body of work over his IDs and his various IPs? There are also other issues such as deceptive edit summaries that have annoyed the community lately. He works on fairly arcane topics, so what is at issue with his edits may not be immediately apparent.

What is the best course of action? Is this the right venue? There is more to this story, but I don't with to ramble on here if I'm not in the right place. --Pleasantville 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Checkuser confirms the sockpuppetry by blocked User:Concerned cynic: see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Concerned cynic. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

www.erotikebooks.com

This is at least the 2nd time http://www.erotikebooks.com/ebooks/load.htm been linked from an article. It advertises a likely malware executable. Can this site be added to the blocklist? / edg ☺ ☭ 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I could only find it once in the article you provided. Maybe the page should be protected? It's not enough for a blacklist. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend protect and blacklist. -Goodshoped 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

blacklist or protect for 2 links??? There's more serious spam than this to be concerned with. Just remove it and warn ~~

What article is it being added to? User:Zscout370 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

History of erotic depictions. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR

- This appears to be resolved. - NeutralHomer 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This user last night wished to have hear from me again. Fine, no problem. Tonight, this user is trying everything (including tagging images I have uploaded for deletion) to pick a fight. I am not going to argue with this person but if an admin could step in and tell this user if he wants me to leave him alone, he needs to do the same. Thanks...NeutralHomer 06:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer has now three times blanked discussions from Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 4, rather than discuss the proposed deletions of images he uploaded which violate the FURG because they are of a excessively high resolution. I am not going to revert as while I don't feel this may cross the WP:3RR rule, I also prefer to steer clear of the line rather than tiptoe around it. JPG-GR 06:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

When the images are that big (and that is the only one available)...there is kinda no way around it. Also, I am not using the FULL version, I am knocking it down to 200px. But that is not the point. The above user stated that he wished not to hear from me, but tonight he makes it almost impossible not to talk to him, since he is the one tagged images (images I have uploaded) in what can only be seen as an attempt to start an arguement or fight. - NeutralHomer 06:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I have tagged all three images with the {{non-free reduce}} tag and hopefully the "size" issue should be taken care of within say 24 to 48 hours (depending on when it is seen). - NeutralHomer 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Only one available" to you perhaps. When they are of that size, they are easily "replaceable" ("easily" as in there is most certainly a replacement, not so much "easily" as in easy to be found). This is a violation of the FURG, unless I am misinterpretting it.

As for me stating that I did not wish to hear from you, that didn't stop you here, hours after my request and hours after my last edit and hours before my next. It's quite clear my talk page is on your watchlist. - JPG-GR

Both you two should stop it. Just use {{non-free reduce}} on the image pages and let someone else put a reduced version on. IFD isn't necessary but NeutralHomer, you shouldn't delete the listings. That doesn't help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of {{non-free reduce}}, but will use it in the future. Thank you, Ricky. JPG-GR 06:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

User:Jai Dixit, formerly User:Lokantha has left a scathing comment on my talkpage titled: "You need to see a psychiatric bro!" This goes against all of Misplaced Pages's policies. His behavior is uncivil and impolite. I am surprised that this user has gone so far as to tell me to see a psychiatrist!

The user has also uploaded images under false licenses , thereby putting Misplaced Pages in legal trouble.

This user has also suspected of engaging in sockpuppetry. His IP sock is User:74.140.120.11. This was proven when he left a comment saying "Sockpuppetry involves different usernames, not IP addresses"

I hope appropriate action will be taken against an impolite, uncivil editor who tells others they need medical help. Please take the appropriate action. Nikkul 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the two of you have a content dispute over some images. While the comment you point out wasn't appropriate, a simply personal attack warning should suffice. You might want to try dispute resolution. Also, in regards to the image, when he realized his error, he put it up for deletion himself and in short order at that. Bringing that up looks like you're just trying to pile on things to make this report look like it has more weight. Shell 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukiari

I might be stepping into something right here, but I found this user's userpage on vandal patrol, simply because the words he was using about a former admin were so inappropriate (it appears his IP was also editing the page). Someone who knows more about this situation might want to handle this. The Evil Spartan 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested to him that he remove it. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment of Durova by anon

I made my views on the Durova affair known but no matter what I think on that issue, the user harassment is a separate one and should not be tolerated.

An IP editor, switching the IP's for the second time edit wars with Durova at her talk page to reinsert the press article on her conduct despite Durova made it clear that she does not want that there. Edit warring with the user over his talk page is unacceptable. One of the anon accounts is already blocked by Alex Bakharev after anon disregarded my warning. Harassment resumed from another IP in the same range. Someone, please keep an eye on the history of Durova talk and block harassing anons from same IP range on sight. It is obviously the same person and no further warnings are necessary. --Irpen 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect the talk. Just be grateful there isn't an article on her :/ Will 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We might want to salt the title, if it isn't already done. Mr.Z-man 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's currently a redirect to Nadezhda Durova. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova incident slashdotted.

Durova incident slashdotted. I've protected the archive page as a precaution. Keep eyes open please. ⇒SWATJester 09:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also semiprotected Durova's user page, the talk page already is. Should at least keep out the random vandals, we can always full-protect later if need be. Seraphimblade 09:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also the topic of the current Help Desk comic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Date warrior

User:Carnun talk continues to date war after repeated warnings and blocks. A look at his edits shows numerous era style changes against consensus all with the edit summary "common usage" --Steven J. Anderson 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's arguable whether they are against consensus, but I've given him a final severe warning to stop messing around. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's much that's arguable about this. He changed every date in the article and deleted the comment documenting that consensus has existed since 2004. --Steven J. Anderson 12:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I discovered this happening at Sudan yesterday & reverted them all. WP:MOS says they can be either format but should not be changed without consensus. Suggest he's blocked for disruptive editing if he doesn't stop, since these edits are unnecessary and load the servers without good cause. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with vandal in dynamic IP range 206.170.103.*

I understand that with the issue of dynamic IP ranges, other people may be using it. However, in this case, a user in this IP range has vandalized persistently, albeit infrequently, three articles on my watchlist. My concern is that this user may have vandalized many more articles in the past. Here is a brief summary of this user's vandalisms:

• Persistent, yet infrequent, vandalism in article Raiden Fighters 2 since October 25, 2007. The vandal added deliberately misleading information to the article. The user performed numerous edits at a time to prevent easy reverts.
• Upon semi-protection of the above article, the vandal attacked two pages in the same series: Raiden Fighters and Raiden Fighters Jet. The vandal added the same misleading information as was added to the Raiden Fighters 2 article.

Judging by this person's actions, it is apparent that this individual's motive is to cause trouble in the relative safety of a dynamic IP address. I suggest that this IP range be monitored. This IP range resolves to AT&T Internet Services in Monterey Park, California, USA. JudgeSpear 11:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is the City of Monterrey Park using ATT per CustName, not AT&T itself. spryde | talk 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Briancutajar (talk · contribs)

This user, while not necessarilly guilty of explicit vandalism, has introduced dozens of inappropriate articles to Misplaced Pages. Most of those articles have been deleted or speedy deleted because of either notability or copyright issues. It seems as though he "writes" a lot of articles by simply copying and pasting from other websites. He has been left several warnings about this and he has created several pages today that have been tagged for deletion. He needs to be stopped. Thanks. SWik78 15:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gave a last warning and keeping an eye on him. — Coren  15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject environment

Hi there, User:Andrew_Nutter has been recently warned in relation to vandalism of previous articles. On the wikiproject environment participants page he recently alerted all interwikis for the names of the participants to the idiot article. This can be found here: . --Alex Marshall 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for vandalism. --Elkman 16:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistent and frustrating vandalism

A user is vandalizing numerous articles (particularly World War II related) by randomly changing numeric values and basic facts. So far he has used IP addresses 75.89.15.34, 71.29.15.155, 75.91.37.192 and 71.28.190.11. I have managed to get him blocked each time but his persistence and the insidious nature of his destructive edits has me dismayed. For example he has gone through a few articles on popular music and randomly changed the chart number for various songs and albums. To me this is the worst kind of vandalism and would be easy to miss if he wasn't changing so many values at one time. I have been working hard to combat vandalism but when I see how much destruction one single person can cause it makes me hopeless about the long term accuracy of Misplaced Pages. How can we possibly stem the tide? I am depressed about this and it makes me feel like not even trying anymore. Rob Banzai 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Both resolve to Little Rock, AR. and are part of a large /14 pool of addresses so a range block is unlikely to help here. Just don't give up! - JodyB _talk 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Birth/death categories

BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) has been removing a number of birth/death year categories (e.g., Category:279 deaths). Was there a centralized CfD that I missed? If so, can someone direct me to that discussion? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular category was deleted 23 September 2006 due to being empty since 30 August. I'd guess that the bot is removing links to non-existant categories generally. I'm not aware of a big CFD, have you asked Betacommand? Given what I guess is going on, I'd recommend recreating the category - it seems better to recreate a category deleted for emptiness when there is a use for it than it does to delete a category for emptiness and then later depopulate articles added naturally to it. GRBerry 17:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Election stuff

Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Dbuckner (talk · contribs) has been attempting to sway the ArbCom elections through a smear campaign against one particular candidate, both on the vote page and on several talk pages of users who support that candidate. I've blocked him for now, I believe such actions are highly inappropriate, and distort the fairness of the election process. >Radiant< 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noted that. His last answer at your talk page deserves a block. Supported. -- FayssalF - 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So here's the question: As an election monitor, do I redact or remove the offending comments? Or do I place them behind a show link? Or, do I leave them? If the user was blocked for mudslinging, do we clean up the mud or leave it alone? I would lean toward removing or redacting them, but I defer to consensus here. ZZ ~ Evidence 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Dbuckner following his agreement to stop the aggressive canvassing that resulted in the block. He is a good editor who has allowed himself to get overly carried away by the issue. I have advised him to done down his complaints on the vote page and to substantiate them with diffs. Probably someone to keep an eye on, but I thought a gesture of good faith towards him appropriate. WjBscribe 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The block has been removed, as I apologised. I leave it up to you as to guidelines on what to do with the page. It mostly consists of links, and some discussion. My point relates only to PUBLIC statements, on WP, made by the user in question. edward (buckner) 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for ANI clerks - discussion on AN talk page

Please contribute at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for ANI clerks. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Private Checkuser

wtf? Please explain the justification for using Checkuser on me? Also, please detail the results which resulted in consluding I am a sockpuppet and blocking me? If you are so sure, why did you need to block 300,000 other Users? Why was a village pump and RFC topic erased by Daniel that many had contributed to? Mentoring07 99.234.94.25 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What are your accounts? this seems to be your only edit--Hu12 18:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#.22Private.22_Checkuser_use is a topic I began and contributed to. Mentoring07 is my user name. 99.234.94.25 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

please note I registered a User name as requested when I was editing with just the ip addess. 99.234.94.25 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is not really the place for this to be discussed. Please see The Ombudsman Committee for privacy related complaints. There is nothing an administrator can do here. Mercury 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS ABOUT CHECKUSER ABUSE AND THE BLOCKING OF 300,000 IPS !!!!!

I was on the block list yesterday myself. Can't you people wake up? 70.48.205.153 18:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems you have been identified as a sockpuppet of Neutralizer. As a banned user you are not permitted to edit Misplaced Pages under any account or IP. WjBscribe 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that the anon is indeed being abusive towards checkusers, and he is right to be concerned as this abuse is indeed unacceptable. Perhaps another checkuser can verify if the address above is an open proxy. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, is here the right place? — Rudget _{contributions} 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Peculiar actions of apparently non-vandalist editor

This editor M1ss1ontomars2k4 has a number of perfectly ordinary edits under her(?) belt; but look at the last couple of articles created (including the deleted article now a redlink). Unless there's a secret nasty Mozart I don't know about, this is some kind of wack vandalism that seems uncharacteristic, complete with a really nasty Durova quip in the edit summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's just ... odd. I've deleted the (English redirect) articles as CSD:R1, and will drop a note on the user's talk page. BLACKKITE 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  Beat you to it. I've indef blocked the account as it appears to have been compromised, and left a note on both the user's talk page and by email. This way, the editor will be able to reestablish his identity, change his password, and resume editing. — Coren  20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah - the only reason I didn't block myself was because the edit immediately after the article creations was in line with the user's normal editing interests. Still, better safe than sorry, and we'll see what they say. BLACKKITE 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a legit piece in the Mozart canon. We have an article on Leck mich im Arsch. Gimmetrow 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Don't jump to any conclusions or hasty blocks. Mozart wrote several canons with obscene lyrics for his friends. This was highlighted in a way by the Durova incident, as Durova and Guy have made baseless accusations against !! and Giano for discussing those canons. (That's what "obscene trolling, knows German" was about.)

I haven't looked into the edits thoroughly yet, but if you blocked someone just because you don't believe the thing about Mozart, you should (a) unblock immediately and (b) give the user a thorough, sincere apology lest you become the next Durova. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've followed up by looking at the article. It was completely legit. It even had references so that you could tell it was legit. What we've seen is a prime example of What Not To Do When You're An Admin, especially the week after Durova. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support immediate unblock. This appears to be K233/382e. Gimmetrow 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article appears legit -- see the German Misplaced Pages Article. The edit summary may have been a little uncivil, but certainly not grounds for a block. Pastordavid 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The German version does appear to be legit, however I deleted the two English redirects because they appeared unnecessary and I think that was a correct decision (doesn't the idiom mean "Kiss my ass" anyway?. BLACKKITE 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec x3)Roughly translated, yes based on what my German friends tell me. Strictly translated: Lick me in the ass. I had to ask after I saw that one created. spryde | talk 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard multiple people refer to the piece as "Lick me in the ass nice and clean". I wouldn't be able to spell the German version if I were looking for it. There's no reason to delete the redirect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually we'd just mention the English title in the article, but I don't have any real objection to restoring the redirects (they might be a target for vandalism, though). BLACKKITE 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary looks like it was intended as a needed warning to make sure an admin wouldn't rush in and do exactly what Coren did anyway. Reading it as anything else is assuming bad faith. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren isn't responding, so I've unblocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• And I've restored the German titled article, minus the revision with the incivil edit summary. BLACKKITE 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, whatever indicated this account was compromised? I would like to know for future reference. Gimmetrow 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the original editor looked at the rather incivil edit summary involving Durova together with the titles of the English language articles, then looked at the the user's previous contributions and thought they didn't match well. I can see why they thought that, and certainly when I first looked at the user's contribs (by then, the German titled articles had been deleted, just leaving Lick me in the ass nice and clean), I was a little surprised too. BLACKKITE 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope that for you there's a difference between "a little surprised" and "reaching for the indef-block button". When a good editor does something odd, you can always ask them about it on their talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what I did. By the time I'd left a note on their talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:M1ss1ontomars2k4&diff=prev&oldid=175778804), though, Coren had already blocked them. I tried to contact him on IRC to say I didn't think it was compromised due to the following edit, but he wasn't responding, and by that time the legitimacy of the article had been pointed out. BLACKKITE 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • For the record, an immediate indef block is the only proper response to an account that appears compromised (and given how... uncharacteristic those edits appeard to be for an established editor, that was a reasonable conclusion). If the account wasn't compromised the editor suffers a few moments of inconvenience while things are sorted out— if it was compromised then damage gets limited and the editor's reputation doesn't suffer needlessly. You'll note the block reason makes it very clear the block was put in place not because of behavior, but because the security of the account was in doubt. At no point did I presume, or state, or act in a way consistent with my believing that M1ss1ontomars2k4 was anything but a good faith editor. Drama much? — Coren  23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, whatever indicated this account was compromised? I would like to know for future reference,, because I don't see it. The editor didn't go on a vandal spree. A hair trigger seems to risk offending an editor. Fortunately, the editor didn't get offended, but if he did, it would have been a lot more difficult to undo than a couple bits of vandalism. Gimmetrow 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• See and User:!! for context. Although probably done completely innocently, it cannot be overstated how inappropriate an indef-block was here. Perhaps bring it to the board before a block next time? -- zzuuzz 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A temporary indefblock of an account that seems to be compromised is not such a bad idea. The user can be easily unblocked if it is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with the preemptive indefblock; it's much easier than reverting a bunch of articles. I've always been away for the entire time I've been blocked, seeing as people tend to unblock me before I even know I've been blocked. So I'd like to know what exactly can be edited by a blocked editor, because it wouldn't make sense if an editor couldn't explain his/her own actions in order to be unblocked. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• For exactly the reason you mention, when you're blocked you can still edit your talkpage, in order to post an unblock notice. BLACKKITE 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock is fine with me

Geesh. Stay away for ten minutes and see what happens!  :-) I have no objection to the unblock. I blocked for the benefit of the editor, not to prevent him from editing.

For the record, the very nasty Durova crack screamed vandalism, but it was only normal to assume the account was compromised and not that a good editor suddenly went rogue. — Coren  21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe...looks like you guys have figured it all out, so I won't put much explanation here. I cannot tell a lie; 'twas I who made those uncivil comments. Sorry for all the confusion, as it's mostly my fault. If you need additional proof that my account has indeed not been compromised, please feel free to ask! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry BLACKkite, I'm a guy. The m1ss1on is just that--mission. My username refers to the Spirit and Opportunity missions. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops :) BLACKKITE 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Single issue poster, multiple accounts

Rachalupa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.170.220.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These accounts appear to be used by a single issue poster publicising their dispute with Interactive Brokers by posing as them and posting derogatory information. Examples - spam links to their website interactiveBrokersSucks.com - , false information and vandalism (category) - , creating an alternate similarly named (spoof?) article -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You only seem to mention one account - Rachalupa. 71.170.220.213 isn't an account, it's an IP address, otherwise known as an anon. While the edits certainly seem as if they should have been reverted (which they have been), and the link to the spoof website might be classed as defamation, I can't quite see what administrator intervention could be made here. the vandalism is the issue here and I can't see where admin interventoin is required. As far as I know there's no specific policy against a registered editor who isn't blocked editing as an anon. I've given Racahalupa a warning about placing attack links in articles. Tonywalton  22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user account. A review of the edits show it is a vandalism only account. The IP I have blocked for 72 hours. If you or anyone wishes otherwise they may make the change. - JodyB _talk 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice, following/harassment

Hi, I'm a quite new user on Misplaced Pages.

I had some problems, with another user, from before I had even got a user-name on Misplaced Pages.

I was only having an ip-address, for a signature.

But even so, one user, kjetil r, knew that my usual username, for message-boards in Norway, was 'cons', and contacted me on Misplaced Pages, using this nick/user-name, when contacting me on Misplaced Pages, before I had got a user-name on Misplaced Pages.

(At least this is how I remember it).

And then, later, I was editing a page (grandiosa), and then another user, plased POV tags, I think they are called.

The other user and me, reach a compromise, like the other user refered to it as.

And then, seemingly from nowhere, the kjetil r user, suddently appeared, on this, the other page, and now on English Misplaced Pages, and not on Norwegian Misplaced Pages, where our first 'encounter' was.

And then the kjetil r user, placed new POV tags, almost imideatly after the first user had removed them, since consensium between me and the first user had been made.

So kjetil r wasn't involved in the discussion, but seemed to me to be surveiling me, and as soon as the first user and me had reached consius, then the kjetil r user appeared, seemingly from nowhere, and placed new tags, and disapeared again seemingly.

At least this is how it seemed to me.

I know I'm new on Misplaced Pages, but regardless of this, it seems to me that I have been followed and harassed in 'cyberspace' (that is, that the user must have been finding my user-name from somewhere on the internet, possibly a thread on a message-board, which I was linking in the beginning of my writing, before I understood all the things with the citations), and on two different Misplaced Pages editions.

This is how it seems to me.

So I was wondering what other people think of this.

And if I am on the right page, for this.

And how I should go forward regarding this.

So I hope that this is the right place to mention this, and I would be very grateful for advice on to go forward with this.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean your edits to Grandiosa such as this one, you appear to be using message boards and the like as sources - but they're clearly not acceptable sources, so it was entirely correct that this information be removed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And please learn to use the preview function - you've filled the edit history of that article with hundreds (literally) of tiny changes. Please add or remove content in one (or for complex cases, a handful, if really necessary) of edits, not a run of dozens. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the advice for the questions that I wasn't asking about.

I know I'm a new user on Misplaced Pages.

I'll continue to try to learn the learn the rules and the procedures.

The reason I was writing here now, was regarding possible advice on the following and harassment.

So thanks in advance for help regarding this!

Johncons (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You've not presented any evidence of following and harrassment. A review of your edits shows you've edited only one article, and repeatedly added inapproprate content to it. It's entirely appropriate for Misplaced Pages editors to remove that, and (as you've repeatedly added it back) to caution you and remind you of Misplaced Pages's rules. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the case that I'm writing about here.

I appreciate, that there are several things that can be talked about.

But I was thinking in the ways of, everything to it's time.

And now, I was thinking that it was time for the following/harassment episode.

And this was on the Norwegian message-board.

So if it's alright to focus on this case, with the user kjetil r?

Because if one mixes in to many cases, then it gets difficult to get the overview.

I'm not sure if this is making any sense?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens on the Norwegian[REDACTED] is none of our business - complain there. What happens on some message board is none of our business - complain there. There is no evidence that kjetil or anyone else, other than you, have behaved badly on the English Misplaced Pages. On looking at Talk:Grandiosa it seems everyone has been very patient with you, but you've been consistently making the same baseless claims for days, and everyone has been very patient with you. It's becoming difficult to believe you're interested in solving disputes constructively. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I don't really see what the point is, with me writing anything at all, if you don't belive what I'm writing.

Could you please confirm or not, regarding if there is any point at all that I write anything more?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to consider abandoning your current username and starting a new account here under a different name, as long as you understand the basics of editing here. Skål! --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okey, that might be a good idea.

I'll try to learn more about the basic rules.

I'll also see if I can find some of the evidence, with the intitial post.

So, if it's alright then I'll just bring that later.

Since I'm a bit new to this yet, then it could maybe take me some time to find this.

So if it's alright then I'll just return later, within a day or two, with the mentioned diffs.

If thats alright.

(Skål tilbake ja, selv om jeg ikke skal påstå at jeg har så mye øl her nå, men det får jeg heller ordne senere anledning.)

And sorry if I'm a bit harsh in these post, I think I need a break from Misplaced Pages, and then return tomorrow or something like that.

So sorry about this, and thanks for the advice! Johncons (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

a threat of violence on Roman (film)

In a recent edit (thes two edits) to the article Roman (film) threatens violence against a person. Can someone block the user (User:Demonchild 13 7")? It might also be good to inform law enforcement in whatever locale this user was editing from. I have no way of doing the former or finding the latter. So, I'm asking here.

Cf also a question I asked regarding the policy on this sort of thing.

-- Why Not A Duck 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for harassment. One more such edit when their block expires and I'd say "indef block", and I'll not accuse anyone of wheelwarring if they up it this time. Tonywalton  22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN

User:TTN has performed several acts such as uncivilty and acting superior to other members and trolling (in his specific case, sending AFDs to satisfy himself; see List of Bleach characters talk page and List of One Piece characters talk page). Recently, he has also been suspected of puppetry. I suggest that something be done to be dealt with this matter before a blocking or banning is suggested for him. I am sorry if I'm not reporting correctly, but I have to get off right now, so please forgive the mistake. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He's AFDed some articles you wish he hadn't: that's not incivility or trolling. "Acting superior" is not an issue[REDACTED] administrators are empowered to enforce. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please present it here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN is currently involved in an arbcom case. You may request an injunction there. - Mtmelendez 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the user's contributions over the past few days, and can't really find any blatant evidence of incivility. There's clearly some disagreements between the two editors, but nothing that (to me) raises any alarms. Here is the listing at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets, though it's not in the list (perhaps the page was just created). Dr. Cash (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Profg

Profg (talk · contribs)

This user was blocked by an admin who had his actions reversed by another admin (User:B) who said he would "adopt" the user. Subsequently, User:B has left Misplaced Pages and only returned to edit VTech articles, leaving this user unblocked and able to continue disruptions. Please consider reblocking.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be a bit cruel to yank back a second chance wouldn't it? Let him go, unless we have new problems. Prodego 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What has he done? He !voted in the arbcom election, wikified a word in an article, and responded to a direct question pertaining to an arbcom case. His comments that he left with his !votes - "POV-pusher. Shouldn't even be an admin." - could be considered trolling I guess, but on the sliding scale of "not very nice", that's pretty minor. --B (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let it go. None of this is too bad. I'll keep an eye on his contribs for a while, but unless I see something ugly, I'm inclined to let him continue editing. - Philippe | Talk 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, i am a bit concerned about his return, since there are some Conflict of Interest problems - he outed himself in one of his past edits. It's not the worst conflict of interest, but... Adam Cuerden 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So we keep an eye. if there is disruption, then there seems to be plenty of potential for a long block or ban. If there is not, then we can say lesson learned and acceptable editor. Don't be hasty if there isn't any direct disruption, please. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I have no plans to be hasty, not after last time, but I do think we'd best watch him pretty carefully, and I'd be happier if someone officially took over his mentorship. Adam Cuerden 02:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lostinlodos

Lostinlodos (talk · contribs) did a cut and paste copy of Burma to Union of Myanmar. I reverted him and explained that 1-there was no consensus for the move, and 2-that his move was a copyright violation because the edit history was lost by his cut and paste move. He replied with several legalisms. On the Talk:Burma page, he's claiming , and is repeatedly trying to claim on my Talk page and on his own, that the cut and paste move didn't violate international copyright law, and therefore it was perfectly legitimate. I have no intentions of getting into an edit war with him, but this is just a heads up that he'll probably try to make the move again, since he sees nothing wrong with what he did. Corvus cornix_talk 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to have the article at the right place, but there's the specter of legal threat there, and he's being uncivil, and he DID do a cut n paste. Maybe an admin do the move and redirect properly, and issue a warnign for legal jargon being unfriendly, as well as a general incivility warning? ThuranX (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But where is the "right place"? There is no consnesus to move it, that I can see. Corvus cornix_talk 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

UNtil the revolution begins, it should be at the UoM page. The Burma page can deal with the historical location, the prior nation and people, and the struggle to free it from tyranny. The UoM can deal with the torture and human rights violations, the radical politics of the Junta, and so on. In other words, 3000 years at burma, 18 years at UoM. Let each article cover the proper subject matter. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The move has been discussed to death, and there is no reason for it to spill onto ANI, aside from discussing Lostinlodos's actions. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Corvus cornix_talk 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Talked to death, but ultimately, POV. Arguing that the title 'legitimizes the junta' is absurd. Misplaced Pages's far less a journalistic endeavor than most of the newspapers using Myanmar. Write the article using NPOV sources, and you'll find that most people will quickly figure out that it's a bullshit Junta of bullies thieves and monsters. But it is the name that that absurd mess self-identifies by. Use the Burma location for the history of the nation before that government, and solve the problem. Let the articles tell the story. That this has made it to AN/I shows that this is not settled. As for LostinLodos, his actions were wrong, and I've supported a warning against him. However, this issue needs to be addressed. I recommend that those most involved open an RfC on the matter. Misplaced Pages isn't a political action group to condemn or 'legitimize' the government, just to write up the facts. The fact is, there was a nation by the name Burma. That nation needs coverage. There is currently a government called the UoM, which occupies that nation currently. The occupation government (junta) needs coverage. SPlit the 125K article into a history of Burma and the occupation nation, and be done. at 125K it's too large anyways. There's a mioddle road, IAR/BOLD and be done. ThuranX (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not only talked to death, but talked to death in a 100+ kilobyte discussion involving over 50 editors (that's where I stopped counting). An RFC is unlikely to resolve anything, but neither is discussing it here. ArbCom might be the right stop for this if there is still no consensus. Bold IAR actions should be avoided when it's a given someone will revert it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire‎

... blocked for 12 hrs Miranda 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Robscure doing a cut and paste move to Ivory Coast trying to bypass WP:RM. Also Ivory Coast is listed in Category:Protected redirects but is apparently no longer protected. --Polaron | Talk 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He broke 3RR also. Miranda 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

...and got blocked for it. - Philippe | Talk 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Ivory Coast redirect is semi protected, not fully. Since this is a one time event, I don't think full protection is warranted. -- lucasbfr 11:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)

I noticed this very nasty personal attack made by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Frisbyterianism, I also noticed a consistent basis of personal attacks from him like , . He was warned for the last link here, but he quickly blanked it. I'm close to giving a 24 hour block for this. Any objections. Thanks This is a Secret 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I shan't comment on the other topics, but the one "personal attack" mentioned is actually a fairly apropos play on the deletion subject at hand, and clearly intended as humor; I laughed, at least. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another, he was asked to refactor and I believe did so. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any personal attacks. The accusation of puppetry might be, if thoroughly groundless, but it looks like there's some back and forth there, so ...eh. As to the 'very nasty' one, it's funny, and clearly intended as humor. one in four is a maybe isn't much of a record of horrible incivility. I'd object to a block. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No block, I don't think any offense was intended. Neil ☎ 11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies

Hello, I'd like to know if there is any way of stopping banned user User:Mmbabies. He has created a ridiculous amount of sock puppets and does not show any sign of stopping. What can we do to stop him? Thanks. This has gotten really out of hand. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI is currently the only thing we can do, given other, often more drastic, measures that have been taken (and pretty much failed). —Kurykh 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design sockpuppet attack?

Suddenly, a number of different editors have taken to deleting whole sections of the Intelligent Design article, all using the same language. If somebody puts the section back, a different editor appears and deletes the section again. I'm not a regular there, so I don't know who's who, and I was told to report this suspected sockpuppet attack here. If it is not a sockpuppet attack then it is an edit war. Please help. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's a mass of obvious single purpose accounts, you should try to assume good faith. There is an ongoing content dispute on the article's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

plus the suspected sock has over 3500 edits! One of the other "puppets" has over 15000 edits! Raul654 (a 'crat) is the most recent editor... he didn't protect the page...Balloonman (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move-Protect Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt

Can I get an admin to move/rename-protect the article Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt? Another editor keeps moving it (here and here) to Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to make a WP:POINT regarding a discussion on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding the use of the term "occupied" when referring to the Israeli-occupied territories.

I made the mistake of pointing out that other Occupied territories are referred to as "occupied", citing said article as an example (here). The article was promptly re-named in a "ta-da! problem solved!" kind of way (here and here), without even bothering to change the first line in the article itself, which still referred to the territories as "occupied".

I undid the move (here), only for it to be moved again as soon as it was noticed (here). I recently moved it back (here) and would like it to be protected to avoid this kind of WP:POINTish edit-warring.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:19

i agree that the page should be protected from moving, only while keeping the "rule" word insrtead of the word "occupation" - pedro here, has been extremely aggressive with his POV and i don't quite yet see why it is of higher value than the one i am advocating for. Jaakobou 09:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. here is the main page where we are "bickering" on . Jaakobou 09:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Well, he's done it again (here)... I'm not really into edit-warring, so could any admin please move the name back and move-protect the article? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:50

BTW, the same type of WP:POINTynes is being used on the article Gilad Shalit by the same editor regarding the use of the term "hostage" (latest revert here). I'm not sure if this warrants admin action, but it's along the same lines... Changing one article to make a point in a discussion regarding another article. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:53

i really don't want to bring down the level of conversation by linking to diffs of how you're "negotiating" your preferred version. no normative admin would implement "his version" before protecting a page. please consider resolving disputes within' the proper channels of WP:DR rather than "POINT" fingers at a person who's challenging your POV reverts. Jaakobou 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International refers to him, in the linked source, as a hostage. What is your NPOV reasoning for not using the same language used by this commonly pro-palestinian group, Pedro? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) An admin will invariably protect the wrong version. And you're both at fault for not seeking dispute resolution, as you're both revert warring. Start a seperate discussion just about this, start an RFC, get some third opinions. There's no point making an edit you know will be reverted. Please don't let content/wording disputes spill onto ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DR is the right way to go and there is a RfC going on at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The problem is that User:Jaakobou is using edits on other pages to push a point. What does he do, exactly?

1. In the dispute regarding "occupied" vs. "disputed" I point out that many other articles, e.g. Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt (look at the nice list on List of military occupations for more examples), use the term "occupied". User:Jaakobou, in response, renames the article to Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to not have to concede that point in the argument.
2. In the dispute regarding the use of the word "hostage" for Gilad Shalit, I point out that in the article Gilad Shalit the term "POW" and not "hostage" is used, as discussed on Talk:Gilad Shalit. User:Jaakobou, in response, replaces "POW" with "hostage" in Gilad Shalit adding a reference to a one-liner in a BBC article referring to all prisoners in the conflict as "hostages". A few days later, the use of the word "hostage" in the Gilad Shalit article is used as an argument for using that term.

Again, I'm all for WP:DR and we are currently involved in that process, but these edits are being used as a weapon in those discussions. Whenever I make an argument of the type "but article XY says that...", User:Jaakobou goes and changes article XY. This is not the way discussions should work. Editors should not go and modify articles with the sole purpose of pushing their line in a WP:DR.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:39

please stop "POINT"ing fingers, you have nothing that is not content based and the request tha an admin revert to your version and block the page shows a lack of understanding on core policies. Jaakobou 10:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

POW is not fitting. Was Gilad captured by the Palestinian Authority? No. He was captured by a gang of thugs. I reviewed that talk page and found no evidence of a discussion to use "POW" to refer to this hostage. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \leftarrow }$ His status as a POW/hostage is a red herring/straw man. This is about modifying an article to make a point in a discussion elsewhere. Please stick to the topic. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:59

No, you bring something up on ANI, expect that your own behavior will be questioned. You're a party to the mess on these pages just as much as Jaakabo is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards