Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smith Jones (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 12 December 2008 (→Latest attempt to censor “Phi Kappa Psi”). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Not properly attributing contributions in merge edit summaries

l'aquatique || talk 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See and for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• , , and merged to
• merged to
• merged to , which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with
• merged to
• merged to

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. You've got some chuztpah coming here with complaints about misleading edit summaries LGR. seresin ( ¡? )  01:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An apparently bad faith effort has been made to disrupt the thread I started. As I have indicated here, I have changed usernames due to real world harassment concerns and have requested that I not be referred to by my old username. I therefore cannot imagine any good faith or constructive reason why anyone would refer to me by my old username given that request. If the real world issues were not a concern, I would have just continued going by my old username. So, to stay on target... Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See and for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• , , and merged to
• merged to
• merged to , which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with
• merged to
• merged to

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The poster above, 1, 2, 3, actually has kind of a point when it comes to complaining about edit summaries you have made in the past week that are, um, not entirely descriptive of the edits they were summarising. Motes and beams and such. // roux   04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with regards to what specifically I am discussing in this thread. Yeah, I adjusted the format, fixed spacing, and adjusted the format of the articles. I just disregarded the unilateral intermediate edit to redirect an article that was kept in an AfD, but none of these has anything to do with merging and not adequately attributing to those who worked on the articles in question. These are apples and oranges and in any event, whether the pot calls the kettle black or not does not change the kettle’s being black. So, to stay on target... Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See and for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• , , and merged to
• merged to
• merged to , which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with
• merged to
• merged to

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, those edit summaries are misleading and very recent, so it's a bit odd for you to be complaining about someone else doing the same. Also, I'm fairly certain that posting the exact same 3500 characters three times doesn't do a lot to help you out, here. Your choice, obviously. // roux   04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When looked at in the context I indicate above, they make sense as they only disregard the unilateral redirects made in after AfDs that closed as keep. People can naturally mischaracteriz them all that want, but this thread is not about me and trying to make it about someone else without addressing what this thread started with is baffling and unproductive, especially when I am "complaining" about someone doing something totally different, i.e. not properly attributing contributions per the GFDL. I am NOT railing on him for misleading edit summaries, but for not acknowledging the contributions of other editors. Apples and oranges, again. That is what we are discussing here, and "shooting the messenger" just derails the discussion and ignores the actual validity of what I am commenting on. Moreover, in the first instance, I see no reason to humor someone who changed his name for whatever reason and whom I would never refer to by his old name who nevertheless sees fit to refer to a user by his old name when I changed names due to real world harassment concerns. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Then, I guess this thread can be archived. Best, --A Nobody 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the issue you want to talk about, I can see both points. For some reason, people are reluctant to protect redirects. I don't think there's any valid reason that a redirect that is produced as a result of a merge should be left unprotected, because, as TTN points out, anyone can log out, undo the redirect anonymously, and have his cake and eat it, too. Still, that seems like a policy issue, not something that one can expect an admin to take direct action on, so this might not be the best place for it.

As for your other issue, if there was any actual outside issue that was causing you any kind of actual peril, you would have really left when you were supposed to. You abused the right to vanish, cost multiple people time and effort, and then returned when you knew full well going in that the right to vanish was not a way to come back under a different name. Please don't bring that up again, no matter what people choose to call you ... it undermines the credibility of any complaint you may have. Lying in edit summaries is a problem you have had in the past, and apparently still have in the present: on Nov. 30th, 2008, you were User:A Nobody, and User:A Nobody did this. It never ceases to amaze me that you are allowed to edit here anymore. Actively deceitful edit summaries like that are things that admins could be expected to take immediate action about.—Kww(talk) 04:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See and for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• , , and merged to
• merged to
• merged to , which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with
• merged to
• merged to

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help, but I'll see what has been added to Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries and will continue the discussion there and encourage TTN to do so as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OKay dude, seriously? Reposting the same thing over and over and over isn't going to change the fact that when you post to ANI, you're going to come under the microscope too, as I have good reason to know. // roux   04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try discussing with the editor instead at the link Flatscan provided and am thus withdrawing my request for administrator assistance for now and archiving this discussion. Thanks Flatscan for the help! Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I, however, echo Kww above and would like to see some consideration about A Nobody's deceptive edit summaries. They are clearly disruptive and inappropriate behavior. seresin ( ¡? )  05:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean disruptive edit summaries like this? Or wait, there is no edit summary. So, unless if you are willing to look at the inappropriate behavior of yourself and others whom you side with, please do not engage in further hypocrisy. This thread is resolved and I, and no good faith editors, have any wish to entertain any further bad faith micharacterizations. Good bye. --A Nobody 05:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Except you don't have to leave an edit summary when contributing to the noticeboard. Leaving no edit summary is not misleading. Seraphim♥ 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely disapointing from TTN - I brought this issue up within a few weeks back, yet he continues to use edit summaries that don't give proper attribution to satisfy the GFDL. I'm going to give him a final warning now, should he do this again he'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

and warned. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

*Are you going to block A Nobody, then, if she does the same thing again with undoing redirects? Or does her shit not stink? MuZemike (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• • A Nodody isn't infringing on the GFDL by undoing the redirects. I don't care whether or not the content is merged - that's an editorial content dispute and should be solved through dispute resolution channels, but I do care that content isn't being properly attributed to the users that create the content. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merges and GFDL attribution

According to Help:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger, the source article must be recorded in the edit summary to comply with the GFDL. This requirement is frequently ignored in practice. Does it really carry any weight or is it more of a recommendation?

I have started a discussion at Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please direct any comments on the general topic (not re: TTN, A Nobody, or blocking) to the linked discussion. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It must be done, it's a requirement not a recommendation. People release their edits under the GFDL, and we must comply with it. What TTN is doing is a copyright infringement - he's not attributing the work of others correctly. He's been warned twice now, and if he doesn't comply he'll be blocked. You say that this is ignored, well if you see it please do come to my talk page and let me know where it's happening. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with this. I agree that you can block TTN for violating the GFDL and that making contribution history obscured is prima facia disruption. But I think you are understating flatscan's concern that what TTN does is indeed common practice. When flatscan says it is common I think he means it is common--as in, lots of folks do it. I have to say that I've done it the way TTN does it almost every time. And if the AfD closing script doesn't edit the target article when closing a debate as "redirect" I have probably done it very recently. Should I be blocked for copyright infringement? Should we consider apparent motive? Should we consider actual practice? I agree that TTN shouldn't do it anymore. I won't do it anymore. But I'll be damned if we are going to have a conversation about blocking someone for this when we brush aside the possibility of blocking someone for making deliberately deceitful edit summaries. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I second Protonk's above comment. I'm another frequent merge-and-redirecter who doesn't mention the source in the merged-to article. Well, I'll avoid doing that from now on. But anyhow. Whomever minds Template:Oldafd might consider appending to the end of the template, "Content merged to another article" --because a lot of these are left in the hands of the article's frequent editors to merge "soon", rather than the closing admin. immediately-- "needs to be attributed back to this article." But that doesn't address merge-and-redirects done specifically to circumvent AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A redirect isn't the issue, it's the merge where content transfers from one article to another. In the AfD closing script that I use, when I close as redirect it simply redirects the article over, if I close it as merge, it tags the page to be merged (not redirect it) and editors should manually merge the content over. I said it up above somewhere, if people see a merge taking place where edits aren't attributed properly then they are more than happy to come to my talk and tell me and I'll gladly deal with it. The project is licensed under the GFDL, when editors release their content they do so on the understanding that if it appears somewhere else they will still get the appropriate credit for it. When you don't give proper attribution, you break the GFDL and therefore infringe on copyright making the type of merges that TTN was doing extremely serious and problematic - certainly block worthy if they continue past a warning. If you have concerns about A nobody using deceitful edit summaries, then by all means start a new thread about that, giving evidence and I'll happily take a look at that. The concern with this thread is TTN's merges that go against the GFDL. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have the same discussion in three places now. As I said elswehere, the GFDL is not violated here. Editors are not authors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant this subsection to be a discussion notice. I'll link it once it's archived. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors are authors. See WP:C. --Moonriddengirl 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy says nothing of the kind, see elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Such as Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Merge edit summaries and GFDL attribution? I believe you may be misunderstanding GFDL in this regard. --Moonriddengirl 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I hope TTN does as well. The likely result of this thread is that TTN will take a few more steps in the merging of content and everyone will be happy. I don't mean to make this about A Nobody. I just want to make sure we aren't grabbing Al Capone for tax evasion here. We should make sure that the gravity of this specific offense matches up with the severity of the warning and the threat. We should further assume good faith from TTN that when he says "merged" in the edit summary it actually isn't a "deceptive edit summary" but a good faith attempt to note that he merged content. I don't think the right step from a warning from A Nobody (which TTN is likely not to take seriously, but that is neither here nor there) is a threat stating that he will be blocked for disruption. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Markdav

Markdav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be Kevin Bishop, or perhaps Kevin Bishop's agent, or mum. He has no edit history outside of pages about Kevin Bishop, the Kevin Bishop Show, and Kevin Bishop's antics at the 2008 British Comedy Awards, and all of his edits have been to remove or mollify less flattering facts about Bishop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.29.156 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this removal is what precipitated the comment here. Considering WP:BLP I think it was appropriate. The IP has provided little convincing evidence of a COI, and I'm not sure there's a particular need for admin intervention at this point. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that this will not be the end of the matter. The latest version includes an account of the incident in question -- Bishop's behavior at a 2008 awards ceremony -- that is more neutral than the version Markdav reverted. However, Markdav's latest version also contains an account of that incident, but in less detail. The best solution would be for the people involved to avoid an edit war & hash out the differences on the talk page, & if that is not successful then take it either to conflict resolution or the appropriate BLP forum. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100

Following complaint posted unsigned by Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs). Jaakobou 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100 is obviously a sock puppet of an established or banned account. NoCal100’s use of the complaints procedures has been phenomenally fast for a ‘new account’. The method of attacks on Calton at Sellick666 in tandem with MegaMom (one wonders how many sockpuppets she's bred) to gain status is suspect and typical sockpuppet behaviour.

NoCal100, often, promotes POV by insisting that there is consensus in his/her attempts to flout the rules for dealing with POV. NoCal100 stalls improvements to articles through false claims of consensus, these are rightly ignored as disruption of the encyclopedia, alternatively, NoCal100 might insist that there is "no consensus" for changes that bring an article's text more closely in line with the rules for dealing with POV.

Acting in tandem as a tagteam Nocal100 and Jayjg accounts should therefore be considered one.

This is not a dispute of content. NoCal100 uses the technique of edit by deletion and then claims that consensus must be gained for anyone to be able to have information inserted thereby initiating edit wars. NoCal100's actions are incorrect, the wiki policy is that consensus should be gained before editing. NoCal100 turns up on an article that he has no previous experience of editing therefore he should seek consensus prior to making an edit, he does not do that. When NoCal100 needs to be adopted and his edits vetted until he learns to use the references in an NPOV manner and not be allowed to remove any material until he has learned to edit sensibly and not an "I don't like it" manner and to control his wikistalking. NoCal100 edits (both deletion and insertions) show that NoCal100 is editing for a POV and not NPOV.

It is a dispute over the inability of NoCal100 to edit constructively. NoCal100's edits have generally been to reduce the information available, to remove links that he/she finds not to his/her Ideological liking using a myriad of nonsensical spurious arguments. In the pursuit of an ideological goal he/she has become the antithesis of the founding principal of the ethos of wiki the "access to information". That is Edit by deletion without consensus in a manner that places inaccurate and misleading information in[REDACTED]

a) Banias

With no other editor involved. NoCal100 with no previous edits on that subject deleted with no attempt at consensus. Wiki Policy clearly states that consensus should be reached before editing with interested parties. (deletion is an edit) NoCal100 made not such attempt. examples below.

i) NoCal100 repeated removal of sourced material here

His/her argument being "Not directly related to Banias".

John Francis Wilson, the academic and author of Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan I.B.Tauris, (2004) ISBN 1850434409 thought that the incident was of such note to Banias that he included it in his book on page 178. (the Wilson (2004) book has been repeatedly used throughout the Banias article and as the book is available electronically one must assume that NoCal100 must have read it before editing on the wiki article that he/she recently wiki stalked his way to)

ii)NoCal100 repeated bad faith edits here

repeated reversion to "by mutual agreement"...it is a facetious statement; in that all agreements, if made, are by the fact, of an agreement being made, obviously by mutual consent. In this instance, no agreement was made therefore there was no mutual consent. His edit is only to try to repeatedly expound his/her ideological POV of the myth of Israel as the peace maker whereas the reference given pointedly show that it was a Syrian offer that it was rejected by Israel, as shown in the references supplied.

b) Shaufat

again NoCal100 bad faith edits here

NoCal100:-

No one was yet living in them.

quote from reference supplied by NoCal100: At least two of the houses destroyed Monday were occupied by families; the others were empty. The Abu Kweiks moved into their one-story, four-bedroom house four months ago, the family said, after saving and scraping for five years to build it. Members of the family have lived in the Shuafat camp since fleeing their original home–in what is today central Israel–during the Jewish state’s 1948 War of Independence.

NoCal100 makes a blatant false statement. Nocal100 either doesn't read or is only cherry picking to suit his own extremist ideology.

c) NoCal100 Bad faith edits in Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing here where he/she removes work that is supported by the reference that he supplied.

From Lucy Dean (2003), The Middle East and North Africa, 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, ISBN 1857431847 p 915

Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians. However in early July both Islamic Jahad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce.

NoCal100 uses the reference to remove all sentences (which had citations) to the previous behaviour of Israeli troops a removal of which is 180° at variance with his own reference.

The bombing came 10 days after Israel's assassination of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus, Jamal Mansour and Omar Mansour, as well as 6 bystanders, including two children.

d) NoCal100 bad faith edits In the Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Removal of category nationalism by substitution of category here I can only assume because it mentions Palestine and nationalism which would fall under the category of an "I don't like it" edit to an Ideological extremist.

e) NoCal100 bad faith edits category removal..while on Palestinian subjects category additions blatant POV

f) NoCal100 bad faith edits placing POV

g) NoCal100 bad faith edits puts 1965 rather than 1930s because the initial cause was increased Jewish immigration into Palestine

The allocation of the Jordan's headwaters began to be taken seriously in the 1930s when increased Jewish immigration into Palestine created a need for sustained water management for agricultural development and drinking.

h) NoCal100 bad faith edits here calling University papers in the public domain "original research"...

i) NoCal100 bad faith edits the group was known as the Stern Gang, historical fact. (in the English speaking world it was only known as Stern gang).

j) NoCal100 bad faith edits here removal of pertinent material.

k) NoCal100 bad faith edits here again edit by deletion without gaining consensus for edit.

l) NoCal100 bad faith edits here the article is about the Semitic use of ADN from ancient to modern not just the Hebrew variant.

m) NoCal100 bad faith edits using I don't like it delete technique here

n) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem and still break 3RR here on 19 Nov 2008 (no penalty from admin)

o) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem again claiming consensus where there obviously is none. here on 19 Nov 2008

p) NoCal100 I don't like it edits POV edit here King of Jordan is not relevant to the Arab league (where the King of Jordan speaks of his hands being tied by the Arab league) yet NoCal100 finds that the mufti in Germany prior to the conception of the Arab league is relevant, strange edit basis.

q) NoCal100 bad faith edits

Is 10 a "large number"? I personally think not. In which case this should be renamed to "incident" or "attack" or similar. Otherwise any terrorist attacks that kill 10 or more people should likewise be listed as a "massacre". Misplaced Pages will quickly fill up with "massacres" diluting those that really are massacre of large numbers of people.

Oboler (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Renaming, per the discussion here

NoCal100 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

original here

And then on 1 December 2008 NoCal100 changes his mind on definition of massacre here

Scorpion pass is referred to as an ambush by the majority.

• Lipman ambush
• Israel Misard Ha-huts ambush
• Nissim bar-Yaccov Incident
• Eedson Louis Millard Burns Incident
• Liliental attack
• Morris massacre
• Oren massacre
• Middle East Institute ambush
• Ovendale ambush
• Hutcheson ambush
• Higgins incident
• Love massacre/ambush
• Neff ambush

or killing: The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957: 1948-1957 By Avi Plascov Published by Routledge, 1981 ISBN 0714631205 p 101

r) NoCal100 bad faith edits here. Use of the word terrorist..complete POV. The perpetrators were never caught, the main conclusion from Jordanian and UN investigations was that it was robbery, Israel's evidence was found to be incorrect and the Jordanian and UN version confirmed when ID from the robbery was found in Gaza several years later. How can you tell the motivating force without confirmation from either a group claiming responsibility or evidence, apparently NoCal100 is able to.

s)NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in collusion again here making controversial edits. The fact that the West Bank article has sections about alternative names one wonder why Nocal100 and Jayjg want to place a controversial name in the lead?

t) T stands for tag team NoCal100 and Jayjg here

The term "Judea and Samaria" is also highly controversial in Israeli society itself, and is often employed specifically as a collective reference to the Israeli settlements in that area, historically and presently, especially by Jewish settlers and their supporters. Left-wing Israelis prefer "HaGada HaMa'aravit" (הגדה המערבית "The West Bank" in Hebrew) or "Hashetahim Hakvushim" (השטחים הכבושים, The Occupied Territories). Many Arab Palestinians object to this term as a rejection of their claim to the land. Nevertheless, the term al-Yahudiyya was-Samarah is used by Arab Christians in reference to the Bible.

NoCal100's Previous history of bad faith disruptive and vandalism in his/her editing and stalking pattern:-

and identified as a wikistalker tracking both Nishidani and CasualObserver'48 here

• 15:17, 29 October 2008 CasualObserver'48 (Talk | contribs) m (7,597 bytes) (misc grammar, technical)
• 19:30, 1 November 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (28,427 bytes) (chur) (undo)
• 15:06, 2 November 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (29,743 bytes) (→British Mandate to contemporary: not directly relevant to banias) (undo)

Gilo

• (cur) (last) 17:34, 16 October 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (11,840 bytes) (→Shooting incidents: fixing phrasing) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 21:57, 16 October 2008 Ashley kennedy3 (Talk | contribs) m (11,842 bytes) (→References: condense refs) (undo)
• 01:55, 17 October 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (11,673 bytes) (→Land dispute: ref does not mention Gilo) (undo) (again after no previous record of editing gilo)

Palestine Liberation Organization

17:27, 30 October 2008 Nishidani

17:53, 30 October 2008 NoCal100 with no previous record of having edited PLO

previously exhibited stalking behaviour on non-ME articles and strong sockpuppet behavioural pattern.here

Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. _GB 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SSP is down the hall, first door on the right ... ►BMW◄ 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But with 73 open cases dating back over a month, who the hell considers WP:SSP to still be even remotely worthwhile? Except in the most blatantly obvious cases (two users named User:JohnQPretty and User:JaneQPretty editing the same article), nothing gets done...yes, I'm off topic. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I could mention WP:RFC/USER, however that process isn't exactly without it's faults either. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU seems like the proper place for this sock allegation.

p.s. I added a note at the top to register Ashley kennedy3 who forgot to sign their complaint.

Cheers, Jaakobou 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have no idea who NoCal100 is a sockpuppet for RfCU is inappropriate as it would then require a fishing expedition to find the account of the operator. I did sign it at the bottom 3 minutes prior to your post jaakobou but at the head is a better position due to the length, thanks..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not even remotely the right place for this -- a bitter content dispute masquerading as a sock report (which, even if true, isn't against the rules). IronDuke 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As IronDuke notes, this is actually a content dispute. What Ashley K somehow forgot to mention is that he is just off a 5 week block- one week for egregious personal attacks against me, and an additional 4 weeks for block-evading sockpuppetry. During that 5 week block, he continuously monitored my every edit to Misplaced Pages, compiling on his Talk page a list of "bad faith edits" - i.e - every edit he didn't like, and as soon as his block expired, put that list here on AN/I, under the guise of a "sock puppettry" report - for which he of course produces no evidence. This is a thinly disguised attempt at some sort of retribution. I might add that since the block expired, he has followed me around to at least 3 articles, including a new one I created and successfully nominated for DYK, to undo my edits there; canvassed editors to pile on at this AN/I report; and continued his personal attacks against me, on my user page and Talk page. NoCal100 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User Here Cometh the Milkman

This new user, with all the editing skills of a seasoned campaigner, has begun a program of tendentious editing (huge deletions from long-stable articles and edit warring). Please have a look at his contributions thus far. He seems to be stalking me in particular by targeting articles I've worked on extensively. I am not completely sure, but I suspect he is a sockpuppet for another tendentious editor, Andyvphil, based on his behaviour and the articles he is warring over, specifically Bill Moyers. I would appreciate some action please. ► RATEL ◄ 20:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started with a plain question to them as to why a new user would choose this path. We'll go on from there. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on lets call it a gut feeling, the fact that the IPs that the milkman is edit-warring in tandem with are geolocated in chicago, behavior, tone, etc followed by this edit to Acorn ] (basically seeking to revert to something that veered ever so slightly towards an edit war a few days ago, before his accounts first edit)... I feel the following past discussions may be useful.

] ]

I can guarantee you all that I am no one's sockpuppet. I am sure there are ways to verify this. Secondly, as I explained Ratel reverted an edit of mine. I found it rude that he did not offer a reason, and after a quick glance of his contributions he seems to be an agenda driven editor and I took the liberty to roll back some of his more egregious edits, namely material relating to Matt Drudges sexuality, which appear to be completely in violation of the rules here. 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Here Cometh the Milkman (talk • contribs)

Anyone interested, lets start with Bill Moyers. Milkman's first edit on[REDACTED] ] sought to revert to precisely the same language favored by this IP ] geolocated in Chicago the day before his account was created. He provides no edit summary nor does he go to talk. Ratel reverts, and contrary to Milkman's claim above that "he did not offer a reason" Ratel did in fact offer a reason ] and tries to clue him to how things work on Milkman's talkpage ]

Then Milkman reverts ] again, Ratel re-reverts (visible in that last dif), Milkman re-re-reverts ] Then another user reverts Milkman and he reverts this, though he does address one of his earlier spelling errors ]. I see this thread, hear quacking, and i revert. ].

Tune in soon for another episode in this unfolding drama, same Milkchannel, same Milktime, different[REDACTED] article.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratel's "reason" (if one can call it that) was that the material was unforced. That’s a lot of manure because the source was the exact same as the one already used in the article.

My text from the article:

In 2005 former deputy Attorney General and fuederal judge Laurence Silberman stated that Moyers denied writing the memo in a 1975 phone call claiming it was a CIA plant, however Moyers responded that Silberman's account of the conversation was at odds with his.

Text from the source

Only a few weeks before the 1964 election, a powerful presidential assistant, Walter Jenkins, was arrested in a men's room in Washington. Evidently, the president was concerned that Barry Goldwater would use that against him in the election. Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the files.

When the press reported this, I received a call in my office from Mr. Moyers. Several of my assistants were with me. He was outraged; he claimed that this was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos. I was taken aback. I offered to conduct an investigation, which if his contention was correct, would lead me to publicly exonerate him. There was a pause on the line and then he said, "I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?" And then he rang off. I thought to myself that a number of the Watergate figures, some of whom the department was prosecuting, were very young, too.

So tell me how Ratel can claim that this was unsourced?

As far as his "clueing me in" I don’t see how a standard boilerplate warning constitutes an explanation. Here Cometh the Milkman (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You know for someone who assures us they are nobody's sock you certainly are quick at picking up the lingo. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This conversation will have to resume in 24 hours or so - unless someone wants to unblock in the meanwhile. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an obvious sock of somebody, a 2-day account here solely to edit war on American politics articles. What good can come of this? Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He's raising, almost word-for-word, the same arguments used by Andyvphil on the Bill Moyers talk page a few months ago. The disruption and tendentious editing there earned Andyvphil a long block. I suspect he's back — the editing style, fearless reverts and cavalier attitude is identical. ► RATEL ◄ 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What strikes me is the marked familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. He is obviously someone's sock. Because of the areas of interest and the particular POV being pushed, I was thinking BryanFromPalatine, but the edits do look more like Andyvphil, on closer inspection of that user's edit history. Is a checkuser in order here? --GoodDamon 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It might not be BfP -- the spelling and syntax are even worse, for one. Just chiming in to let anyone who cares that andyvphil does not appear to be blocked. Had a 1 month block long ago, which expired and that user didn't resume editing. Unless i misread something.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally visit Chicago. I hardly think that someone editing from such a large urban center is reasonable cause for a check user request.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this response, and I must say, it's kind of weird, Die4Dixie. Who said anything about Chicago? --GoodDamon 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It rules out 95% of all American editors, so a brand new account joining an edit war initiated by IPs from the same town is a strong indication they are the same. The editing history itself (new abusive SPA created to edit war on politics articles) is strongly indicative of sockpuppetry. The combination of factors is persuasive but not conclusive. The need to keep Misplaced Pages stable in this case should outweigh any interest the new account holder has in anonymity / privacy. Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(snip long comment by me, have moved to Acorn neutrality dispute heading lower down). Will note that the milkman seems to be tied into some of the goins on at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• See also WP:ANI#NEutrality dispute at ACORN below. Given the evidence provided by Bali ultimate above, it appears that there may be some use of sock puppets to avoid 3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there does appear to be, or at least a coordinated effort by thosse who don't want the neutrality tag to keep it removed with out addressing the issues to have the tag removed legitimately.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

D4D. Are you "wiki-legalizing" sock-puppetry to "solve" an NPOV dispute at an article or did I misinterpret your comment? You know it is not about content here, it is about puppetry and edit-warring.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not sure I understand what your not understanding of what I said means you think I said. I mean that Bali Ultimate and others remove the templates in a coordinated way ,and then Lulu started in. I should have said meat puppet to make it clearer. Sorry for the confusion. What I was saying is that Will's deductions are correct in substance; however, the identifaction of who the problem is is mistaken.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors "coordinating" to defend an article against abusive sockpuppets is just fine - it's article patrol. If the same editors decide that you are a problem too and gang up on you, which they seem to have done, that is a mistake. Although it's not right, surely you can understand why they might have gotten that impression. If you put your arm the middle of a dogfight it could get bitten.Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Bali Ultimate has had a long history in his short time here of making accustations and bad faith assumptions. All I have said is the tag should stay , my arcticle edits have been good faith attempts to improve the article. If he views this as a dog fight, then he should do something else. Rabid dogs that bite are put down, to use your analogy, and he is out of control.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Threat

Look here. I prefer not to take chances, could someone please advise on the appropriate action in these situations (if any)? Thanks in advance. Scarian 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a note on the person's talk page. People who are tech gurus might be able to track down the IP (24.235.41.136) and call the person. Suicide is no laughing matter. It is true that sometimes threats are sick hoaxes but some threats are genuine calls for help. Chergles (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very inclined to agree. Perhaps a WMF concern? Scarian 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP is registered to Bluewater TV Cable, Limited of Clinton, Ontario, Canada. Probably calling the Ontario Provincial Police or the RCMPs would work. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 22:37

(ec)IP is Bluewater Cable TV in Goderich, Ontario, Canada. Telephone (519)482-9233. Any Canadians out there to call them or the local police there? Chergles (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chergles for the more defined WhoIs search. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 23:05

I have blocked the IP Theresa Knott | token threats 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 23:13

Sure, it's standard to do this as it prevents them from doing it again. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a bad thing in case this person really is serious? Maybe try and talk to them? I figure it is just someone messing around, but I guess I always err on the side of caution on these things. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 9, 2008 @ 23:48

No, if they seriously need help, we are not going to be able to give it to them, and if they're yanking our chain, we deny them a platform; that's standard response. We report to local authorities where ascertainable and let the experts in this sort of thing take over. There are many reasons why editors here should not get involved. --Rodhullandemu 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Worth pointing out this again. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I never actually seen that link you provided, so I wasn't completely aware of the policy. Had heard of it, but never read it fully. Now I understand, thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 10, 2008 @ 00:15

That link is an essay, not policy. We also didn't follow the essay. Chergles (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think our response was one of the worse possible. The person might have already killed themselves. We could have done better. I think the spectrum of responses, from worst to best is:

Z. &#*$, go kill yourself idiot.
Y. block the person with no explanation.
X. block the person with a nice explanation.
.
.
D. ignore the problem.
C. contact WMF, ISP, or police.
B. if you personally know the person, visit the user and seek clarification.
A. (another answer?)
Chergles (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I kinda understand why blocking would be a good idea. If the person really is suicidal we don't want anything to push him/her over the edge. Yeah, it probably isn't the best idea, but we aren't trained anythings. We looked up the IP, someone can call either the Ontario Provincial Police or the RCMPs and let them know and they (being trained in this kinda thing) can handle it. We can't, we are just editors at a website essentially. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 10, 2008 @ 01:26

"I got a letter the other day. It said, 'Darling, I love you. Marry me, or I will kill myself.' Of course I was rather disturbed at that, until I looked at the envelope and noticed it was addressed to 'Occupant'." -- Tom Lehrer -- Baseball Bugs 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I started a CU case, but didn't move it to the main page.Synchronism (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing stops us from blocking the account, getting a CU and notifying the police. I'm unhappy that blocking the account is listed next to "go kill yourself" on the spectrum of responses. We do the same thing with bomb threats and other situations where harm could conceivably come from the person on the other end of the line. This is just a website. We do not automatically become grief counselors by virtue of editing here. We should, as a matter of human dignity, attempt to extend help to the person. We should also, as a matter of practicality, not let it interfere with the rest of the encyclopedia. For one, we don't want someone who doesn't care to run into it and say "go kill yourself". Two, in the likely event that it is someone trolling us, it limits the impact. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of Politician Texas

This user (AndrewGirron) has the same modus operandi as PoliticianTexas; northern New Mexico high schools, the New Mexico Activites Association and recent changes to New Mexico match those of another recent PoliticianTexas sockpuppet(Ani Archive), even the edit summaries are strikingly similar.. I started a sockpuppet case but need to do my (real) homework now, Uncia informed me that WP:SSP doesn't have to be immediately used for PoliticianTexas', that he may be discussed here first. It seemed to scare the user in question away for a little while though. I find the evidence compelling, if somewhat limited.Synchronism (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed sock of PoliticianTexas. Blocked indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections part 2

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

Part 1 of this discussion was started by ChrisO here. He was worried that Armenian users were opposing John Vandenberg because they believed that he made biased and wrong judgmental decisions in the Armenia-Azerbaijan corner of wikipedia. Armenians believe that John drank the Azeri coolaid if you will. ChrisO suspected off-site canvassing and said that such behavior undermines the integrity of ArbCom votes.

Just so it happens inactive Azeri users started to vote in support of John. A clear indication that they have a stake in Jayvdb's victory in this elections.

• Special:Contributions/Dacy69 - inactive 7 weeks made his first only edit to support John.
• Special:Contributions/Iberieli - inactive 5 weeks, made his only edit to support John.
• Special:Contributions/Aynabend - inactive 4 weeks(if we don't count the single talkpage edit).
• Special:Contributions/Gulmammad - inactive 2 weeks and 3 weeks before November 23 single edit. Edit summary of the vote "what a great deal!".
• Special:Contributions/Atabəy - inactive 1 week.

Something tells me this isn't the last of them.

If such a big noise was made about the "evil" Armenians opposing John, will such a big noise be made when Azeris are supporting him? You can't have your cake and eat it too. --VartanM (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli is Georgian, not Azeri. And only 4 Azeri votes against 30+ Armenian users, many of whom were dormant for many months, some for over a year? How would that make a difference? This is something that was expected, see . There will be people, who would vote just to spite the Armenian ethnic block. If Armenians voted against, they will vote in support, no matter what it is. Grandmaster (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli maybe a Georgian, but he acts and edits like an Azeri. 30+ Armenians? are there really that many ARmenians in wikipedia? wow. Your last sentence is a gem. You are basically admitting that Azeris are racist and hate Armenians. What happened to the AGF? What happened to not turning[REDACTED] into a battleground? Should I start profiling them like ChrisO was doing it? Ahh the hypocrisy. VartanM (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You are basically admitting that Azeris are racist and hate Armenians. This line is simply brilliant, I'm not commenting on that. But in my previous post I was just repeating what other users already observed. There's a trend for spite voting here. No good, I agree. But ethnic bloc voting is no good in general. If you form such blocs for voting, you must expect other blocks to appear too, and they might be voting to oppose your bloc, for whatever reason. I think, the election system in general is no good, it needs changing for the next year to prevent bloc voting. Specifically something needs to be done to prevent inactive accounts from voting. But in any case, those 4 votes mentioned by VartanM are unlikely to make any difference comparing with dozens of canvassed oppose votes that were cast there over the last week. Grandmaster (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is any action actually needed at this time? This isn't a normal democratic vote. Jimbo has said to that he analyses the votes before making his final decision. Presumably the more obvious ulterior motives of some voters will be one of the things he takes into account. This is one area in which Wikimedia's take on elections might have an advantage over straight voting where interesting results can occur when ethnicity is a factor.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No Peter, this was merely to demonstrate how Armenians were demonized for voting against John, but no one says anything when the same thing happens on the other side. VartanM (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is hard to understand for VartanM, but non-editing of pages does not mean that the contributor does not follow pages. And folks, come on, does it have to be any more obvious that VartanM is engaging in a battlefield mentality along nationalist lines when he now blames editors for simply voting! Those admins which reserve leniency towards VartanM's repeatedly disruptive behavior, those which after half a dozen reported violations on WP:AE choose not to execute the decisions of ArbCom, those who follow VartanM's allegations accusing User:Ehud Lesar of being a sock, being proven wrong after major wasteful ArbCom case, and still continue to serve his POV propaganda in Misplaced Pages aim to block John's nomination just for not falling into the same pit. Does it have to be any more obvious to conclude that Misplaced Pages is definitely not a place for such POV politics? Atabəy (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Atabek, I knew that you couldn't resist passing this thread. Here is a question for you buddy, doesn't non-editing but following pages sound a little ownerish to you? I mean, I have to confess, I do have a pretty big watchlist(1200+ articles), but I don't watch them every day to make sure no one is editing them.

I don't blame you for voting, you can vote all you want, you must hurry tho, candidates are starting to withdraw from the race and every single vote counts, so hurry.

About the AE board and "half a dozen reports". Are you sure there is only 6 bogus reports about me in there? You must have filled about 20 just by yourself. I'm not even gonna count how many the master of all bogus reports, the Grandmaster, filled.

Atabek, Arbcom found that Ehud=Adilbagirov allegation was made in good faith, and appreciated our efforts to keep[REDACTED] sockpuppet free. What happened to Ehud anyway? You and Grandmaster must've spent weeks of your lives to get him unbanned, after witch he made 8 edits and hasn't been seen since May.

Atabek, you have been topic banned from half a dozen articles for POV pushing, so you are the last person in[REDACTED] that needs to talk about POV politics. VartanM (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• I will say it again, voting against JayB or supporting him on nationalistic lines regarding his actions in this case is counterproductive. If he gets on the Committee then he would have to recuse on any case involving these issues that are brought to it - if he doesn't get on the Committee then he is free to help take cases there. There must be something about nationalism that results in accelerated brain cell decay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad that you got that out of your system, ever heard of WP:NPA? I did not vote against him because he took Azeris side, and now admitted that he has. I voted against him because I witnessed his judgmental errors. Here is an example, He blocked User:Fedayee on December 26th for saying that User:Ehud Lesar was, then banned, User:AdilBaguirov's sockpuppet. Fedayee had a full page of evidence to support his claim, which John decided to look at a day after the block. Here is my question to you LessHeard vanU do you need an arbitrator that can't be bothered to read evidence? That is my one and only reason why I know that John wouldn't be a good arbitrator. VartanM (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If it was true that I did not read evidence, you might have a point. However I have already collated a complete history of this event at User:Jayvdb/AA_involvement#Fedayee for you, where I show that I had already investigated it, as had others, and they all found it to be insufficient evidence to support the allegations being made at that time, and other admins also told the Armenians to stop making the accusations until it was proven.

I did look at the evidence before the block.

Your willful ignorance here is quite trying, especially as you keep trying to mislead others as well.

The block has already been reviewed by admins at AN, and more admins are welcome to review it again now. You expect me to believe that the blocks by khoikhoi and nishkid64 were acceptable ... fine, ... how about you accept that my block was also acceptable. John Vandenberg 10:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

John the facts are that you blocked Fedayee on December 26th, and admitted that you started looking at the evidence on the 27th. Here is a diff, where you say that you did not examined the full evidence and had just started looking at it. VartanM (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had started looking at the evidence on the 27th; I had been looking at it on the 24th, for quite a considerable period of time! Go review the diffs. Everyone had told Fedayee to stop repeating this allegation until it was proven. It took me a week to put together a good case regarding Andranikpasha, and I am pretty sure I had told Fedayee it would take me a week or two, as this case was very vague and required a deep understanding of the topics in order to understand the allegations regarding behavioural similarities. John Vandenberg 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

John, one day after the block you said, " I started looking", not looked or finished looking, but started looking. You can not ran away from your own words. There is a difference between present and past tense. VartanM (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, since you now admit that you have taken sides in A-A issues, all of your decisions are open to discussion. VartanM (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never taken the "Azeri" side. I have made decisions based on policy and the information available to me at the time.

There have been many times I have acted the way the Armenians desired, for the same reasons I have sometimes acted the way that the Azeri desired - I was doing what was right, as I understood it as an unbiased third opinion.

I am not going to be "balanced" by letting Armenians be "right" 50% of the time and the Azeri be "right" the other 50% of the time. I opine and act based on what I believe to be right in each instance. John Vandenberg 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The single fact that you promise to recuse from future Armenia-Azerbaijan cases is indication that you have taken sides. Let me remind you that in last years election Moreschi got both Armenian and Azerbaijani votes and no one asked him to recuse from future AA cases. There are about 5-10 administrators who regularly patrol AA articles and deal with "us" I can't speak for others, but if everyone of them was running, you are the only one I would oppose. The reason I stopped contributing to Wikisource was because of your inaction, when I pointed out that a bogus text was added by AdilBaguirov. VartanM (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting awfully close to WP:NPA. And, your first sentence above is a huge abuse of WP:LOGIC. Someone can recuse themself because of a potential for perceived COI. ►BMW◄ 11:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

New sock of User:Yorkshirian

A couple of weeks ago Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) revisted us as Immense sense (talk · contribs), a clone of his previous Gennarous (talk · contribs) (both accounts editing Sicily and related articles from a right-wing, anti-Muslim POV (related AN/I discussion here). Now Beatrixers (talk · contribs) is making identical edits to the Sicily article: these two edits and replicate this one from the earlier sock , right down to the identical inclusion of a {{clarifyme}} tag. Can someone please take a look? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit by Immense sense is identical to some of the changes by Beatrixers. User has been blocked. Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The following as  Confirmed socks of Yorkshirian:

1. Beatrixers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Immense sense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Swinging 70es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Stipulater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Faces en la Crowd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Kilfeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Sketchy Berd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Bourbonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. A Flying Heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Guardian of Plato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Victory's Spear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. Sumside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Ten Dolla, Ten Dolla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. T Weatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. Learned Sprited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. Revealed Hand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. Thousand headed dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. Brown breaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. Milkmang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. Traseiro de Porco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yorkshirian operates from a pretty big IP range, so a rangeblock is out of the question. I'll see if I can narrow this to /17-/21 rangeblocks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Them's a lotta socks. Thanks for checking this out, Nishkid64. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also this apparently retaliatory request: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aragmar which has been Rejected ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action transcripts

• see also the sensationally worded #Users edit warring to replace copyvios opened below a number of hours later

During the last three days, transcripts have been created of national, and international, television and radio broadcasts. The from-scratch transcripts cover interviews where a individual (principally User:David Gerard) has represented Misplaced Pages in media coverage regarding the Internet Watch Foundation and Misplaced Pages saga. The transcripts have enabled the international editorship of Misplaced Pages to understand what has been said, and allowed feedback to the interviewee after the first live slot (on BBC Radio 4's The Today Programme). The transcripts also cover BBC World Service News and Channel Four News interviews.

Aswell as being crucial for the internal understanding of the unfolding sequence of events, the transcripts are explicitly allowed under copyright law, having been produced and initially transcribed (not by myself) in the United Kingdom, by those having access to the broadcasts.

However, whilst the Copyright situation is clear (and US copyright law is even broader in its "current events"-related exception), allowance under Misplaced Pages's own Misplaced Pages:Fair Use policy is unclear. WP:FU was not designed with internal Misplaced Pages collaboration in mind, and restricts its exception to those in main article space. As these transcripts demonstrate the conduct of an individual representing Misplaced Pages, a full interview transcription is probably required in each case (to provide full context). A reasonable implicit consensus appears to have existed over their relevance, with the transcripts remaining untouched on the page for 48 hours.

The exception to this tranquility has been removal by editor(s) following the letter of WP:FU in exacting great detail. There are two issues at hand:

immediate

Whether Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action should retain its transcripts for the next week.

If those restoring a consensus/exception should receive warnings/bans.

longer term

Whether an explicit note expanding upon "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" in relation to Misplaced Pages Project: space, be discussed or be added to WP:FU.

Circumstance raised here because the sub-page nesting, and because the transcripts have been removed. —Sladen (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

1. "Acts Permitted in Relation to Copyright Works" (PDF). Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Office of Public Sector Information. p. 40. Retrieved 2008-12-08. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help)
2. Note that the last summary differs, having changed from "copyvio" to "non-free violation".
3. Full disclosure: I received {{uw-copyright}} owing to reverting the first removal.

Um. Was DG representing WP? I am certain that he provided disclaimers in earlier interactions with various bodies - I understand he was acting as a press contact in a volunteer capacity rather than a representative. This may need clearing up when considering the above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As can be seen in the transcripts; DG was variously described as a volunteer spokesman for Misplaced Pages in this country . Technically or otherwise, his national TV/radio interviews were seen to be representative of Misplaced Pages. —Sladen (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny how this has come up with this public event but hasn't, I don't think, in the last few. DG is an official press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation in the United Kingdom. His work is unpaid, but coordinated by the San Francisco office via Jay Walsh. Avruch 01:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, foundation:Press room#Official chapters currently states

—Sladen (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Yaneleksklus and sockpuppetry (again)

Hi,

Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Yaneleksklus (3rd). This user is up to the exact same sockpuppetry as he's been blocked or warned for several times now. He's causing a big headache for editors at several articles, and I'd appreciate if someone could take a look. --Kaini (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

blocked, and back again under 82.209.208.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) :( --Kaini (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A recent attempt to attack my computer

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages?. seicer | talk | contribs 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Nortons Firewall has detected a recent attempt to attack my computer comming from Misplaced Pages.

The risk name; HTTP Acrobat PDF Suspicious File Download.

Risk Level; High

Attacking Computer; en.wikipedia.org (208.80.152.2, 80)

Whois search: Confirms Wiki foundations owns 208.80.152.2.

Destination Address; My computer, router #1, router #2... end destination 192.168.0.xxx, 50172 (my computer)

Traffic Description; TCP, www-htp

Note: The attack happens everytime I click on the edit button to edit Misplaced Pages content. --CyclePat (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is a related thread at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Intrusion attempts on edit pages? DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Another related thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Misplaced Pages triggering Norton Internet Security alerts. DuncanHill (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Finderskey, User:Fecklesse, User:Franckoise & User:Featheresse

These four users are already the subject of an SSP filing here, filed I think a couple of days ago by another editor (User:NoCal100). However that's stuck in the backlog and in the meantime they are continuing to edit-war some borderline vandalism relating to the assassinated Lebanese politician Elie Hobeika both into the main article about him, and also into Lebanon bombings and assassinations (2004-present). In the last three days, an extensive and totally unencyclopedic eulogy to Hobeika as well as a slew of scrappily written material sourced to blogs has been reverted into his page by one or other of these editors seven times as per the following diffs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

This is continuing despite the SSP case, despite numerous warnings (going back months) on the main account's talk page and despite two other editors reverting the material, citing WP:MEMORIAL and the sockpuppet warnings in edit summaries. Neither the main Finderskey account or the alleged socks have ever used edit summaries or posted on the article talk pages to even attempt to explain what they are doing, or responded to the warnings on their own talk pages. I would add that any editor(s) who can get myself and NoCal100 to agree on something must be doing something pretty out there. I'd suggest it's time for a simple block on all four accounts, for vandalism, disruptive editing, edit warring, sockpuppetry and effective 3RR violations - surely at least one of those sticks, if not some combination of most of them? It's not as if there haven't been warnings. --Nickhh (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Still at it this morning, without response to this ANI thread (I did notify them) or to requests for engagement on talk. Help, please? --Nickhh (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If filed a RFCU, since the sock puppetry has been used to get around 3RR today, but really, I think this is so obvious that a CU is a waste of time. NoCal100 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Users edit warring to replace copyvios

• note, (as noted in the initial post) this concern was already open above at #Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action transcripts which has a fuller-description but has received fewer replies

Someone posted various transcripts of radio interviews on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. Although the transcripts are "home made" they are of copyrighted material. Since a fair use claim (even if valid) cannot be made outside article space, I removed them. Various users have reinserted them, claiming "consensus". I'm getting the blame here for enforcing policy, but since they are making it personal, I'd best bow out.

See discussion here and here.

Warning have already been issued and . The copyvios still remain on the page as of now.

Can others take this up, remove the material and either convince the offenders to knock it off, or as a last resort, do something else....?--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scott has indeed been edit-warring over this, and threatening blocks, despite an active thread on the talk page discussing the interpretation of the policy. One admin has leapt straight to a final warning after a single revert by me, despite not having said on the talk page that it should not be re-inserted. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A clear warning was already on the talk page, which you cannot have failed to see. It is always better to warn before blocking. We can discuss this, but the policy is clear, and so you don't replace copyvios in the meantime.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no warning from any admin that I saw. Blocks or the threat of blocks should not be used when a good-faith discussion on a matter of interpretation is ongoing. I cordially invite you to participate in it, instead of hashing it out here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The status of the person issue the warning is not relevant. A talk page discussion cannot overrule policy. I have explained policy several times, there is nothing more I can think of to say.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a legitimate case for keeping this. It is not your run of the mill copyvio. This is material the project needs. WP:IAR considerations are appropriate, as are being discussed on the talk page. Jheald (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I will add that I did not see your (i.e Scott's) warning (timed at 21:17) before I had reverted your action (21:18). DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if this violates our civility policy, but you're all acting like idiots. There are no dire consequences for Misplaced Pages if the transcripts are included for a couple hours or not included for a couple hours. Stop edit warring over this and just talk about it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It was being discussed, until someone decided to remove it and threaten anyone who replaced it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there was no need to immediately force it back in. The issue is largely resolved. Nothing bad is going to happen in the interim, if you wait until some sort of consensus forms before acting. People always seem to think that being "right" justifies an edit war. It doesn't. Both sides think that they're in the right. That's why there's a war. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And there was no need for Scott to threaten blocks, nor for MBisanz to leap in with a completely unjustified final warning after a single revert. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I said "...you're all acting like idiots." It's a broad spectrum condemnation. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, if you haven't noticed Misplaced Pages isn't the only site that hosts text, in fact far from it. Just put the transcript on Google Docs and be done with it. BJ 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As Doc pointed out on the talk page, linking to a copyvio is just as disallowed (although I think it would be a good compromise). The last thing we need after this censorship ordeal is a copyvio ordeal. John Reaves 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that last sentence. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

BJ is right. Just throw excerpts up on a blog somewhere and discuss them there. Fair use of those transcript excerpts in US law is more broad and permissive than[REDACTED] policy by far. Linking to someone who claims FU to host transcripts isn't against the copyvio policy. Protonk (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get hot and bothered over a link to elsewhere anyway. However, can someone remove the transcripts from[REDACTED] in the meantime? I think we are agreed on what wp non-free policy is here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the talk page. Stop forum-shopping. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no forum shopping. A group of people on the talk page were claiming that a consensus there could set our non-free media policies aside. I brought it here for more eyes. Admins are here to enforce policy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't bring it here for more eyes, you explicitly brought it here to get your own way when your threats at the talk page had failed. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, chill out. Duncan is right that the talk page is the proper place for this discussion. There's nothing here that requires admin attention right now. Nevertheless, Duncan, these bad faith accusations (accurate or not) just aren't productive. So cool it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP; diff=257034992 is bordering on WP:CIVIL ("a threat against another"). —Sladen (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is always better that people are warned. They get pissed when blocked without warning.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WOW ! First, as a former broadcaster I'll tell you that this work ("transcript") is pretty much a work for hire (in US parlance) and IS copyrighted by the BBC. HOWEVER - there's no way to actually get that text from the BBC,per the BBC itself, so, there's a good case for IAR right there.

I support IAR in this. Leave it in. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 14:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ungtss at baraminology

Summary: Repeated removal/alteration/qualification of heavily cited lead text; persistent re-introduction of content written from POV. Both disputes have been taken to the talk page. Informed many times that this should not be done, and why. Still a problem.

Background: Ungtss has contributed to a variety of articles, usually in 'bulk' form (writing several paragraphs from scratch). Knows about baraminology, and has made bulk contributions in the past, usually describing its the processes and terms in detail (or, with verbosity). Every once in a while a new user or ip removes what they consider to be "pro-science, anti-ID" content from the article. User_talk:Gracie_Allan recently did this, was reverted, and I left a message on her talk informing her and asking for her input. She's now commenting at talk. Ungtss seems to have joined her, it appears seeing this as an opportunity:

a) to remove, alter, and comment out heavily cited statements that characterize baraminology as pseudoscience. There are either removed, or needless qualification ("seen by the scientific community as") is inserted. See . This dispute been taken to the talk page where there is ongoing discussion. The user has been asked to stop these changes at their user talk, in edit summaries, and in the article talk. (At talk, the user refuses to reply to comments in a "non-threaded" manner; injects comments into those of another, when this was brought up on his talk he recopied the whole exchange into a new section.)

b) to add large new sections to the article. This isn't itself bad, however, the new sections describe baraminology "in the context of baraminology", which is to say they're written entirely in that POV. When adding new sections, moves large ref blocks from other passages into them (though leaving a refname=x/) making it difficult to edit the new sections; user has been asked to stop. The moved ref frequently does not support the newly-written sentence. Tried moving sections to talk; user rewrote/reverted section (including unrelated additions of citations, and other changes). Currently inline comments and {fact}s are being used to inform user of how to change their paragraphs to comply with policy/style. User has responded by commenting out sourced statements that are 'anti' baraminology.

If cited statements in the lead are changed, and the change is reverted and a discussion started in talk, further "rewordings" of the statements should be prohibited. Keeping large newly-added POV sections in the article itself (with comments and {fact}s) is a courtesy, and if these sections are moved to the talk with justification the user should not rewrite and re-add the same sections, but rather discuss changes, and potentially ask for arbitration. Please prohibit the user from changing cited statements themselves, and from re-inserting large bulk sections. –M 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this a matter for admins? Have you tried, and exhausted, the methods listed in WP:DR to bring in outside editors to help with this dispute? Is there any evidence that multiple, outside editors have weighed in on the issues and that civil attempts have been made to argue your case? Has there been any attempt to work this out besides running to ANI to ask for a block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I was informed by an administrator that if one makes a significant change to an article and has that change reverted, then they are to take the issue to talk, and not attempt to reintroduce the material in question until consensus is met. The discussion is moving along fine, the issue is that the user continues reverting against long term consensus regarding a controversial issue, and reverting to text that is under discussion in talk. He doesn't need to be blocked, but a warning or clarification of rules would be nice. Posting here is, I hope, a better idea than reverting his edits until he explains himself at talk. –M 04:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

M's argument appears to be premised on the belief that the other users making those changes are socks. That premise is incorrect. Those repeated edits are being made by other users. The talk page shows that I have made efforts to discuss things with M, and that he had declined to participate. As a side note, his evidence for "consensus" on the topic consists in a number of different users dissenting with the "consensus" and being summarily reverted. Odd evidence for the existence of a "consensus," to say the least.Ungtss (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed sock

Can an admin take a look at Ian9x (talk · contribs · logs)? Either a banned editor or someone masquerading as such for lulz or to make a point. Skomorokh 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro. Skomorokh 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. And various bits deleted per WP:DENY. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be nice for people to keep an eye on FisherQueen's talk page, as she is apparently under sockpuppeting troll attack.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It's just a schoolboy who's discovered vandalism but hasn't yet realized how dull it is. I'm taking a RBI approach. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

All socks of Ianxp. I've now placed a rangeblock, so that should keep him off WP for the time being. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

He's adapting tactics. Today he came in on a mobile IP 89.19.79.234 (talk · contribs), and tried to spoof a message to me from PhillKnight (talk · contribs) (note the two Ls, not to be confused with admin PhilKnight (talk · contribs)). One other tactic that made me laugh, was on one of his new socks, IanUnix (talk · contribs), he pre-added the "indef blocked" template to his talkpage, before he contacted me.  ;) All of the latest accounts are now blocked (for real), but I did want to let other admins know to keep an eye out. The main common elements (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ianxp) are:

• He tends to create accounts that start with the name Ian, where the suffix is some other name, often an Operating System or an animal.
• He's logging in from Ireland
• He tends to gravitate to the following two school articles:
  • Patrician Secondary School
  • Newbridge College
• He also tends to refer to me, PhilKnight, and uncyclopedia. Lately he's also been haunting the talkpages of FisherQueen (talk · contribs) and Irmela (talk · contribs).

FYI, --Elonka 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Julianna Rose Mauriello

The last 2 comments in this discussion (minus my own in the middle) are making me nervous. One user (User:Sethacus) accuses an IP of being a "famous" (at least Google-able) scammer, posting a real name, and the other (User:98.97.199.70) posts his own location, then goes on to post the age of Sethacus, nearly accuses him of being a pedophile, and makes a veiled threat ("you are treading on very thin ice right now"). User:98.97.199.70 claims to also be User:67.234.104.242 and has already gotten into hot water claiming to be the actress' brother. It seems arguments from other sites (IMDB is mentioned) might be making their way here. I think both of them need to be spoken to. RainbowOfLight 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP nightmare. I've had this article watched for as long as I can remember, and many unreliable sources in relation to it have been cast into the fires of hell. With regard to the current position, I've told the IP in no uncertain terms that WP:OTRS is the correct route for complaints, and that we don't believe him. This is nothing new, because this person has been told this previously. If he really is the brother and concerned about the subject of the article, he will take our advice; OTOH, if he is a crank, he won't. Simple as that. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Rodhullandemu, but my concern is that they are starting to post each others' personal information here on Misplaced Pages, make threats (however veiled), and just that this argument of theirs does not need to take place on Misplaced Pages at all. Right now the article's talk page does not feel like a safe place to me at all, and it could be scaring others away. IIRC Sethacus had a previous username here which he changed due to a very similar issue of someone giving him trouble here on Misplaced Pages over Julianna Rose Mauriello, and calling him a stalker. (My point being that this is not the first time he has been involved in such a situation on Misplaced Pages.) RainbowOfLight 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the commotion is over this Youtube video, which is showing signs of being viral. Looking at the comments, people are unusually interested in her legality. bibliomaniac15 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time someone archived that section and told both anonymous users (and User:Sethacus as well) not to comment on anyone else's real life, whether they claim to be her brother or otherwise. Warn them that if they claim to be a personal friend, without an OTRS request, just wipe it off the talk page into the archives. They can scream fascist or whatever but it's time to bring a hammer on that talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine I did it. I think we need to go with a archive, warn about OTRS and ignore strategy for him. He'll either clue in that any discussion of his personal life is irrelevant or keep it up until he gets blocked longer and longer. At some point, he'll get bored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call Ricky. I've watchlisted the Mauriello article and will help out if I see any problems. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jacky cole

This bizarre (and blocked) user, whom I suspect to be a sock of another user, is insisting on disrupting this site via his talk page a day after his block. I've redirected the talk page to the user page, but I'd like to request the talk page be locked down. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Have protected the talk page. bibliomaniac15 04:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP) for requests like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Orpheus

User:Orpheus has elected to resume an editing dispute that I had hoped to end with a monthlong absence from the encyclopedia. In late October, Orpheus joined an editing dispute at Geoff Simpson over the inclusion of an arrest record that I believed was a BLP violation and I strongly opposed ahead of election day in the United States (which at that point was only about 5 days away). His contribs show that immediately prior, he had posted to the talk page of User:TastyPoutine, where User:HoboJones had just posted a comment trying to recruit TastyPoutine's involvement in the matter and in this way I believe he was initially biased in his edits. As that dispute grew into an increasingly bitter edit war, Orpheus reported it here, which was largely ignored, then began to leave snide remarks at my own talk page. Orpheus then reported me to 3RR and I was blocked for edit warring. Because HoboJones and Orpheus were both assisting each other in that edit war, neither breached 3RR and so neither was blocked.

After going through my contribs, Orpheus expanded the conflict to a dispute over the hatnote and dab page at The Rite of Spring where I had just removed a note, and where Orpheus had never previously edited before. Orpheus then monitored my contributions very carefully and, after I had made three consecutive edits to Dino Rossi, he immediately posted a notice (after which I made 0 reverts to the disputed article) and then immediately reported me again to 3RR and secured a second block. Though I don't believe I had technically violated 3RR, and though I had made 0 edits after his warning, and though the other party in that dispute wasn't blocked, mine was upheld after an appeal.

Aware that my edits were being closely monitored by Orpheus, I took a monthlong hiatus from the encyclopedia, since I don't believe I would have been productive with that user so eager to engage in editing disputes and to abusively use process to have me blocked in retaliation. When I returned yesterday, Orpheus resumed this conflict at the DAB page for Rites of Spring, but not before rifling through my contributions and taking another stab at me at a page he had previously made 0 edits to: CouchSurfing. I would ask that an administrator request of Orpheus that he restrain himself from continuing to stalk me across numerous pages and through numerous disputes and that he desist from attempting to intervene in any of my edits from this point forward. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• After reviewing the dispute at Geoff Simpson, I came across this, which is discouraging for two reasons: 1. I was wrong and the ongoing dispute at Geoff Simpson goes beyond just Orpheus. 2. There is an even greater depth to the abuse of process that I had not expected from those people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that if I ever want to resume editing Misplaced Pages again, I will have to waste hours and days going through all of this anytime I want to make a simple edit to anything.
• If there is any administrator that can advise me on what to do so that I can finally be free of all this baggage and resume editing again, I'm all ears. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that at some point, when everyone disagrees with you, it might not be a conspiracy against you so much as plain consensus is again you, right? I'm not saying that's what's going on but it's a possibility. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what exactly are you referring to? Are you saying that a three person consensus annuls my involvement in this project? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about annuling anything. However, we work on consensus and it appears the consensus is different than your opinion on that issue. All that to say maybe you were wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong about what exactly? What does consensus not support me in? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He appears to mean that maybe you were wrong about the Geoff Simpson issue, since consensus on the talk page has gone against you. I would add to that that maybe you are wrong about removing the hatnote on The Rite of Spring, since you have been reverted on that 4 times. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the forum to debate that issue. You should confine yourself to the AFD. I haven't edited Geoff Simpson since late October, so that dispute is hardly relevant in this context. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• So struck. Nevertheless, I believe the Geoff Simpson issue is what Ricky81682 is referring to when he speaks of consensus going against you. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to try discussing this with Orpheus first, so I'll suspend this notice for about 12 hours pending the outcome of that discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is awaiting the outcome of a discussion on Orpheus's talk page. It may not need administrator intervention. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:193.172.170.26

This IP address has been putting random spam messages on user talk pages. It's not really vandalism per say but I personally find it annoying. Maybe a block is in order.Nrswanson (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Trolling and spamming. Blocked for a month by an admin. His request for unblock is mildly amusing: "This is far to heavy man!" (sic) Baseball Bugs 09:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some users are calling for a reduction in block length. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Persistent image copyright violator

Red marquis (talk • contribs • logs) has been uploading copyrighted images to Misplaced Pages since 2005. This user has received numerous warnings on his talk page but has virtually ignored them. As far as I can tell this user has only edited his user talk page to remove these warnings, never discussing the problems. I could only find two instances of this user communicating with another user on their talk page, once in 2006 and once 2007. It is obvious that this user hasn't learned from all the warnings, as he uploaded several copyrighted Porsche images yesterday. I am very surprised that this user has managed to continue this behavior for so long without a block. swaq 16:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for a week, deleting the images now. Secret 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mccready in violation (and weird denial) of indefinite topic ban

Help is needed in enforcing a topic ban "from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed":

• Vassyana, at Mccready's user talk page: "the topic ban is now indefinite"
• Scientizzle, at AN/I: "Topic ban is extended to an indefinite ban."

Mccready recently posted as an IP to acupuncture, which resulted in my requesting a checkuser that was positive (and to which he even admitted). Still, he remains rather obtusely in denial about the existence of the topic ban, no matter what anyone says to him. He has again posted at Talk:acupuncture. Can we make that post his last on that particular topic? He was topic-banned for really good reasons (massive disruption and abiding ignorance of basic Wikiquette, cf. his talk page and block log). Someone please bring a stop to this disruption and disrespect for WP sanctions. Echoing others who have dealt with this editor, I suggest blocks of increasing length escalating to a site ban if the behavior continues. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 16:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When I closed that discussion seven months ago, it was clear that editors of all stripes in the science-alternative medicine dispute were frustrated with Mccready's actions on various pages. There was a clear consensus that he needed an extended break from those pages, thus I expanded his then-established temporary topic ban to an indefinite topic ban. Ignoring this is a fatuous attempt to get around his restrictions and I find it unreasonable.

That said, the recent edits attributed to this user in violation of this ban seem, to me, to be generally okay (this and this look like reasonable removal of fluff and unnecessary equivocation, and asking why those edits were reverted isn't far out of line).

Since Mccready has stated that he wishes to appeal this topic ban on AN/I, I propose this:

• I will personally block Mccready for greater than one month (the length of the last block) if he edits in the area of the topic ban again—article or talk pages, even in response to the thread he just started at Talk:Acupuncture—but will not block right now pending his appeal on ANI of said topic ban. That discussion can determine if his recent edits were appropriate or not, no doubt affecting the liklihood of a reduced topic ban.

I'll inform Mccready (talk · contribs) of this on his talk page... — Scientizzle 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Informed — Scientizzle 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scientizzle's comments. I am additionally very wary of reducing the topic ban considering the continuation of his tendency towards WP:IDHT and his failure (so far) to accept responsibility for the long-running problems that lead to the topic ban in the first place. Mccready should explicitly acknowledge the past problems in his approach and clearly indicate that he will be responsive to community concerns. He should also abandon the pattern of acting like notifications, comments, and other circumstances did not occur or were the result of his opponents' fabrications. Otherwise, I must strongly oppose any softening of the restrictions, as their preventative purpose is still required. Vassyana (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Dickens

Recommend protecting the page, having a rash of similar vandalism from multiple IPs. Ndenison  16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please file future reports at WP:RFPP. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd this page

Seems the IP's just wait for it to stop being protected and hit it again, so I set the term a couple days forward, although if anyone wants to un-edit protect this page at some point, don't have any problem with it, although I'd recommend being ready to re-semi it. SirFozzie (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Went Unnoticed

It seams that almost 4 months ago the page created for the Dividead visual novel was vandalized and transformed into a page about the death metal band Dividead. Not that i don't think the band doesn't deserve a page but stealing another articles page should be considered vandalism, i will not post the person who changed it here since it's just an IP address and don't consider it appropriate. To verify my claim it is only necessary to view the oldest page(s) in History, or at least the ones under 2008-08-07T13:10:06. I hope something can be done to satisfy both parts and an edit war doesn't start.--AlucardNoir 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlucardNoir (talk • contribs)

It's unclear to me whether either the book game(?) or the band should have an encyclopedia article. But, this is an issue for the page- I don't see that administrative action is needed. Friday (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages" (emph original). I have serious doubts that whomever replaced the content at Dividead had the intention of compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and genuinely believed he/she was correcting the entry. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see ... someone involved with the articles creates 2 pages ... Dividead (band) and Dividead (book) and turn the current Dividead into a disambig page. Problem solved. ►BMW◄ 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for a disambiguation page; it seems the name of the visual novel is in fact Divi-dead. Revert the other back to the band, add some hatnotes and everyone goes away happy. Steve 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I've restored the band article at Dividead and added hatnotes. Looks like Divi-dead was already created so I've added hatnotes to that and fixed the naming problems. I wonder if we need to do a histmerge? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you have any reaosn to copy any substantive text from one article to the other (ie, other than Misplaced Pages housekeeping like templates and categories)? If not, a history merge isn't needed. If you've copied something more substantive, a quick and dirty way would be to revert yourself and then restore with an edit summary that links directly to the Last Known Good diff of the article you copied from. Problem solved, I believe. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Thegreatestmoever (and sockpuppets)

User:Thegreatestmoever was a rather idiotic vandal who pretty quickly got blocked, and loved leaving offensive messages on the user pages of admins and others who reverted his changes or blocked him. It seems he's back with some sockpuppet accounts now, leaving nasty messages on the talk page of one of the admins previously involved. Here is a diff of the guy leaving offensive messages as User:Thegreatestmoever8, here as User:Thegreatestmoever2, and here as User:Thegreatestmoever10. All these messages appear to include moronic rape threats, and general unpleasantness. Other than that there has been more generic vandalism from these accounts, such as here (from Thegreatestmoever2), here (from Thegreatestmoever3), and here (from Thegreatestmoever7). He also claims often that "his friend" is doing the vandalism, even though he's been told that's not an excuse, and I'd bet he's created some non-Thegreatestmoever accounts so someone with the power to do so may wish to check IP addresses used by those accounts, and what other activity has come from them. Just thought someone should be made aware of all this, anyway. Xmoogle (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also: Arakunem 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arakunem, that list of usernames is handy. Most of those seem unused, however, as I'd checked using the User Contributions page through all of those names, and only edits by 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 existed. Xmoogle (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorized all into Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Thegreatestmoever. — Satori Son 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Oren.tal

I was advised by a user that he had removed a discussion from his talkpage, so I started checking diffs when I came across these: . After looking at the talk page and reading the edit summaries, I realized two things: a) the IP and Oren.tal are clearly the same person and b) this was a blatant WP:POINT edit. It is important to note that I have never made an edit on the page and actually had never heard of the subject until yesterday. Therefore, I left a note on Oren.tal's talk page. He then leaves me this message on my talk page about how other users are "breaking Misplaced Pages law". I inform him again that adding 19 sources to an infobox is disruptive - and that it messes up the formatting of the infobox. He then accuses me of lying and saying he didn't add 19 sources to one line in the infobox. Therefore, I provide him the diff and add a template to his talk page to let him know that falsely accusing editors of lying is a personal attack (I went to level 3 - he clearly wasn't new and it was clearly a bad faith accusation - he knew I was not lying). He responds by again saying I was "falsely accusing" him. He then tells me again on my talkpage that I have "falsely accused" him and then decides to claim that he only added 9 (which would still be disruptive, but it's also not true) and again accuses me of lying. So, I give him a final warning (I realize I actually 4im'd him, but the template means the same thing at that point). I also ask him if it is possible that someone took over his account, as I was really not sure what he was going for. Again, he calls me a liar and says we need to have "other administrators decide the number". Again, the number isn't important. I let him know we are going to ANI because he's being disruptive (and I don't want to be the one to block him at this point). At the same time, he tells me again on his talkpage that he did not add sources and again accuses me of lying and then demands an apology. Gwen steps in on my talk page and lets him know that she actually counted 20. Again he makes the claim that he only added 9.

So I recognize that's kind of long and a little confusing since it's taking place in two separate forums. But there you are - plenty of Wikidrama for everyone. --Smashville 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... this is Thursday: drama is for Fridays. ►BMW◄ 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a bit of a content issue as well as a small clique rejecting mainstream input backed up by reliable sources (I've yet to understand why). Oren.tal noted his erroneous counting so I believe this post is pure drama and counter-productive (see also: WP:NAM). Jaakobou 20:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with the conduct of the user. His edit history and interaction with everyone shows consistent bad faith accusations and incivility. Also, as I have mentioned, I have never edited on that article. --Smashville 20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but the only mastodon is Oren. Read Talk:Haaretz#Political allegiance. He's the WP:POINTy editor who's added 16 references to Gush Shalom and won't abide by the Talk page consensus that "left wing" doesn't belong in the first sentence. — ] (] · ]) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Having bad faith in this instance, where reliable references are being rejected on the discussion for non-contentious material, is not a far fetched response. There seems to be a bit of a battleground issue with several of the involved editors and I've yet to understand where these "per policy" statements are coming from. I would suggest bringing everyone involved under notice for the Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA and it's declared principals. Jaakobou 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) fix Jaakobou 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Gwen Gale seems to have acted already blocking Oren.tal (talk · contribs) for 48hrs. Despite some point to this block, I'm not sure if it were the correct choice of handling this incident. Clearly, fellow editors were edit-warring on more than one article as well. Jaakobou 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here is evidence of a history of further personal attacks, incivility and bad faith accusations since he came on Misplaced Pages:

• Calls a user an idiot
• Tells admin who blocked him to leave him alone and grow up
• Starts a thread entitled "Idiot I am former religious Jew"
• Threatens to report a user if they remove a link, while making it clear that their religion is why he will report them
• A less than friendly 3RR notice
• Accuses an editor of lying and says he will tell on him
• Calls another editor racist...for no reason
• Asks a user if he knows how to read
• Accuses an editor of making personal attacks when they have not done so
• Accuses an editor of having an agenda
• Accuses an editor of having an agenda for trying to explain BLP to him
• "maybe you need a lesson in English"
• Refers to Malcolm Schosha as "Malik" (in response to being reminded of WP:NPA
• Makes a sockpuppet allegation
• Accuses Malcolm Schosha and Malik Shabazz of being sockpuppets of each other
• Continues sockpuppetry allegation
• Addresses Malcolm Schosha as "Malik"

The edit history of this user shows that previous blocks have not served as any deterrent to the behavior he continues to engage in. And again to Jaakabou, this is a user conduct issue, not a content issue. --Smashville 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why you removed your "snarky" comment ... you have a right to be snarky after that brutal non-call on the Burrows hit intent to injure/charge ►BMW◄ 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If only he had referred to JP as sloppy seconds...he would be so gone... --Smashville 22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: adding his comments from June 2007 (i.e. Calls a user an idiot) to support an 48hr block in December 2008 is down right ridiculous.... but I'm open community input if you think I'm wrong here. Jaakobou 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you ignore the "evidence...since he came on Misplaced Pages" part? What we have here is a user with a history of personal attacks, and incivility who has continued despite multiple blocks. The fact that he continued to attack me today should have been enough for a block. This is a user who has continued to POV push and edit war since he came onto Misplaced Pages...I'm wondering if we need to do a little more than a 48 hour. --Smashville 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't mean to hang the scarlet letter over people for year and a half old comments. If there's a recent pattern -- and I'm not talking about borderline replies to incivil comments towards him -- please present this. Your calling him the t-word when he was adding more than proper content to Haaretz (which was on the page with a consensus for many months) makes me wonder if we need to re-assess your "uninvolved" status in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian articles.

p.s. I'm aware that he re-added 19 references, but that was after a smaller number of references was deemed "unreliable". Jaakobou 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I had a hard time believing he is not a troll. I said it in response to you saying it was a bad idea to open this ANI. I opened the ANI in response to his comments. He was already blocked when I said that. He can hardly be excused for making repeated personal attacks on me because of a comment I made after he attacked me repeatedly. Contrary to your descriptor, the response was to you. The reason I opened this ANI is because his actions seem trollish. And for the last time, this has nothing to do with content on an article I have never edited or a subject on which I know nothing about. The fact of the matter is - again - he added 19 sources to a one-word descriptor on an Infobox. I asked him not to do it. He called me a liar, said he didn't do it, demanded an apology, etc. I don't know how I can be more clear with this - personal attacks are not acceptable. And a user who has a long history of them is a problem. Accusing me of having an agenda is a) absurd, considering I have never edited any article related to any of these subjects as I have no knowledge of them, b) bad faith and c) completely irrelevant because for the last time, the content of the article is not an issue as I have never edited the article. A disruptive edit is a disruptive edit regardless of the subject of the article. --Smashville 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute at ACORN

There are editors who are removing the neutrality dispute tag at ACORN with out discussing it on the talk page. I would ask for some guidance from non involved editors. Involved editors may of course comment, but I have placed the tag twice, and another editor has a three times. Can anyone just remove tags that they don't like without addressing the perceived neutrality issues? What good is there to have a tag if a group of editors blocks its usage?Die4Dixie (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

They have all been templated. Bstone (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If your message is rude, templated, and/or begins with "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!", it will be reverted upon me seeing it. Note: Thank you notes are not included in this warning.

Why would you template experienced editors when you have this header on your own talk page?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this discussion about me now? Bstone (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not, just noting the irony. ;) Most experienced ediitors prefer personalized messages.00:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is... or was... discussion underway at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It looks to have ceased about 16 hours ago with little discussion. As there hasn't been a 3RR violation, I'm not sure if there's a need for admin intervention yet. The regular DR process might be appropriate. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bstone missed templating a user who's been central in this dispute, Syntacticus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). Based on editing patterns, it appears he also edits without logging in as 67.155.175.34 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). That's a concern because the IP belongs to Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank whose reports Syntacticus has been linking to in this and many other articles. One of their senior editors appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and asserted that ACORN paid volunteers with crack cocaine. The addition of the CRC report is the focus of this dispute. I've asked Syntacticus to comply with WP:COI, and will bring it to WP:COIN if there isn't a resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how we got here and how we appear to be veering towards full disruption on this page again. A few days ago Syntacticus made a series of 3 edits without summaries (last of them here ] )that reinserted information that had been hashed to death ad nauseum on the talk page (among the issues was the desire to cite an inflamatory and disproven allegation to a blog at something called the Capital Research Center. It was reverted (with an explanation as shown in that last dif), syntacticus re-reverted ]. On talk it was explained to him in great detail why what he was doing was absent consensus, without a reliable source, and factually false ]. In response he throws up a neutrality tag, at almost the same time adding in the debunked information (to whit, that acorn used crack cocaine to convince people to register to vote) cited to the right wing blog ]. I remove the cocaine falsehood, but leave the neutrality tag ] and go to talk, conclusively demonstrating the cocaine error ]. This having been done, and the issue over which Syntacticus had disputed the neutrality of the article (he had called it a "blowjob" and a "puff piece" much earlier in this charming rant during the last time we debunked the cocaine allegation and rid ourselves of the sock army ] apparently being resolved, another user removed the tag ] which syntacticus immediately reverted, which took him to 4rr and of which he was reminded on his talk page (I warned him at 3rr, he went to 4, someone else pointed that out ]. This was all on December 7. On December 8 Syntacticus again reinserted the neutrality tag (still not having really taken any of this up at talk yet) was reverted ] and Syntacticus reverts again ]. Then an IP address registered to the Capital Research Center (the group for which Syntacticus habitually adds links to articles, and whose opinion pieces he tries to use as reliable sources for matters of fact, a habit for which he has been warned multiple times) reinserts the tag ]. Now in comes the milkman, who makes the same edits syntacticus was trying to make in his first edit on Misplaced Pages ]. The Milkman's exploits have been well covered already. After he edit wars up to a 24 hour block, new user Bigus Dickus reinserts half of the material Syntacticus had been seeking ] . Apparently the name bigus dickus violated a policy, he is perm-blocked shortly thereafter. The next day, December 11, Syntacticus restores tag and seeks to use the Capital Research Center as a reliable source (something he has been told is a violation of policy multiple times). ]. Our friend Die4Dixie then reinserts the neutrality tag ] originally sought by Syntacticus over a cocaine allegation proven to be false. And in my opinion there has been no good faith effort by Syntacticus, his confederate from the Capital Research Center, the Milkman, Bigus Dickus or Die4Dixie to reach some sort of consensus on that talk page. This is disruptive, degrading to article quality, and smacks of game playing (if anyone thinks this may be a bog standard content dispute, please read this dialogue between dixie and i in which he accuses me of "original research" and failing to understand the intent of the project while i try to explain to him while editorials aren't to be used as reliable sources ]. Given the past painful experience with game playing over this article, i hope steps are taken to nip disruption in the bud.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Take out the Huffington post editorial ,which you seem to think better than the WSJ , and enough of my neutrality concerns will be resolved that the template can come off. I am not your friend, make no mistake about it, and your snide use of friend ass a pejoritive is unhelpful and gratuitiously snide.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also the above thread: WP:ANI#User Here Cometh the Milkman, a related case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie has been a long term "problem editor" on the ACORN article, trying to stick in various stuff against WP standards and article consensus. Having mostly not managed to get that stuff in, his/her latest attempt is to stick a "disputed" template at the top of the article, without bothering to state or explain any particular issue other than "the article isn't nasty enough towards ACORN" in some vague way.

All of the specific content issues have been or are being discussed perfectly well on the talk page nowadays. It had previously been very disrupted by an army of sock accounts arguing for roughly the same content that Die4Dixie does (but I'm confident that s/he is a different individual from him/them). In any case, none of the discussed issues are more than minor tweaks to a paragraph or two, or maybe discussions of whether one or two citations meet WP:RS. None of this comes anywhere close to being an issue of an "unbalanced" overall article... so the tag is places solely out of WP:POINT or to cause outright disruption of process. LotLE×talk 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The past history of disruption by POV warriors etc... can be found here ]

Someone please address these ad hominem attacks. I have made few article edits there, and the majortity have be kept. Please supply links to this contentious material that I have added. I have had one block for incivility , many months ago. I believe your editing history to be much more problematic. You are atributting motives here. my motive is that it be accuarate. I have inserted nothing about crack to the article, but used the talk page to discuss the issues. The article has nuetrality problems. Now what are the proticaols for dispute tags, or can people remove them and avoid discussion like LULU seems intent to do? Someone adress these attacjks too, please.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, it would be helpful if you could provide diffs to substantiate your comments regarding user:Die4Dixie. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Syntacticus' contributions to the article about acorn workers and crack were disruptive and suspicious, and his neutrality tag was inappropriate - a case of sour grapes after having clearly inappropriate content rejected by consensus. Syntacticus was the only one promoting that content and the editors were right to remove that tag - at the very least removing the tag was a legitimate consensus to reach, and it would be inappropriate for another editor to edit war on behalf of Syntacticus. I don't think that's what Die4Dixie is doing - he seems to have his own, independent, complaint about the neutrality of the article, which he has articulated. In other words, a tag added for the wrong reason can be removed. But if someone re-adds it for the right reason this time, fine. Die4Dixie is a legitimate, capable, good faith editor with strong political beliefs that he sometimes expresses. Please do not label him disruptive just because his position is different - it is a content position the same way everyone else has content positions. Both sides were edit warring over the neutrality tag, which seems pretty pointless. It's best to take them off and talk instead, but it is such a small matter it is a shame to have to waste time on it here. I suggest smoked WP:TROUT for all, and a return to polite discussion on the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Die4Dixie is a longstanding editor who knows and follows the rules, so far as I'm aware. The problem user that I'm concerned about is Syntacticus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If you will look at the talk page , I encouraged him to itemize his problems so that we could work towards getting it removed. I understand how it is an ugly banner. Rather that remove it, discussion ( which was on going on my part before the last revert by Lulu) should happen to improve the article. I'm done here. I removed the trigger for me ( from the Huffington Post opinion piece). I used the same guidelines that Bali suggests to exclude the WSJ opinion piece. I have never added blog/op ed sourced material to an article. I did agrue on the talk page if someone else wanted to use the WSJ piece, it was better than the right wing stuff they had. I never said I would put it in , an I viewed the convesation as an academic one.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal of Ianxp

I think that it's high time for Ian to go. It hasn't even been a month since he joined, and yet he already has a large sock farm, has made crude personal attacks, gamed the system, and has made a vicious and potentially dangerous threat. He also says that he will continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Anyone agree on banning Ian from editing Misplaced Pages? --Dylan620 _Contribs 00:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this. --Dylan620 _Contribs 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many alert parts

Its too many alert parts in the Reporting of vandalism page. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bot problem...--Smashville 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone broke the header. Fixed. -- zzuuzz 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some Huggle reports are breaking the header. -- zzuuzz 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the last one did. --Smashville 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did say some. Example -- zzuuzz 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems there may have been some section-editing changes in MediaWiki. -- zzuuzz 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Undo function acting strange?

Is it just my computer, or is the undo function not working properly? Several times today I tried to undo a word or two, but the change shown before I save is several sections long. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that. The preview was crazy but it saved just fine. Grsz 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the link on the above thread, there seems to have been a MediaWiki update. --Smashville 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Related thread at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#"Undo" button acting weird. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest attempt to censor “Phi Kappa Psi”

There have been a long-running series of attempts to censor the “University of Virginia” section of “Phi Kappa Psi”, which section concerns a rape or rapes.

In the latest of these, Led by truth made a series of nine edits to the article as a whole, most of which appear to be improving or at least innocuous, but the last of which

1. obscured that it was an edit of the section in question;
2. removed a citation of an article in which, amongst other things, a Deputy Commonwealth Attorney is quoted supporting a contention by the victim that there were multiple rapists, and further asserting that the rapists were members of the fraternity; and
3. applied a {{fact}} tag to a report that the State had asserted that the victim was gang-raped by a William Beebe and by members of the fraternity.

Even if the other characteristics of this edit weren't enough to discredit an initial assumption of good faith, the removal of the citation surely is. This willfully unconstructive editing was reverted, and the editor was warned.

In response, he is wikilawyering on my talk page. I feel that, since I am not an administrator, I shouldn't be left to mop-up here. I would appreciate it if an adminsitrator would tell the editor in question to refrain from such edits, and to refrain from drowning the pages of other editors in such pettifogging. —SlamDiego_←T 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not wikilawyering; it's scrupulous verifiability checking with respect to a BLP concern. Kudos to Led by truth, says I. Hesperian 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all scrupulous. For example, he begins the wikilawyering by insinuating that the article claims that Beebe was a fraternity member, yet it does no such thing (though the DCA implied that Beebe was). —SlamDiego_←T 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The way the article was written before his edits certainly ties Beebe to the fraternity, by implication if not overt association. The edits are solid. Go find a citation that Beebe was a member, please. That will solve this entire situation. ThuranX (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Beebe is tied to the fraternity. As the cited sources note, the national office admits that Beebe lived in the frat house. (The article notes this point later in the section.) Led by truth isn't trying to dispute that Beebe is tied to the fraternity, but is objecting to a finer-point claim that Beebe was a member as if the article makes such a claim, which it doesn't. —SlamDiego_←T 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)The edit looks solid. He cleaned up the text, added a fact tag to a point of contention, and supported his contention that it requires citation in a carefully written essay. I do, however, note that he does make the usual vague hand-waving legal mumbo jumbo pseudo-threat about how bad libel is. The editor should be warned about doing that. I will leave him a link to the appropriate essay and notify him of this thread next, but I don't see anything wrong here. ThuranX (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote is full is:

"The allegation in this statement affect the lives of living people—the men who were brothers of that fraternity chapter at that time—and it affects the organization as well. / You are probably aware that if you insist on publishing unsubstantiated, harmful, allegations you risk subjecting yourself and Misplaced Pages to possible legal action with potentially severe consequences. / I believe that the wisest course of action is to find citations that verify the statement as written, which evidently is unlikely, or to correct the statement."

I'm curious as to what makes this a legal threat, as opposed to a succinct summary of the legal context in which we edit. If it is a legal threat, then will you also warn whoever added the sentence

"Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so."

to WP:BLP? :-) Hesperian 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not my job. I simply gave him a polite warning about it, and notified him about this thread, and asked him to self-redact to avoid drama. You think it's out of line, feel free to delete my entire comment. Otherwise, so what? We all agree the guy din't do what the complainant alleges, so move on, unless the accused flips his shit. ThuranX (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The point in contention was supported by a footnote later in the paragraph, which footnote he removed from the article. If he hadn't deleted the footnote and hadn't buried the edit, then an assumption of good would surely prevail. At that stage, there might have been a discussion of whether individual sentences might need separate footnotes, but little more. However, what he did was to remove support for the claim that he challenged as unsupported. —SlamDiego_←T 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was and remain unconcerned over whether it were a legal threat (veiled or otherwise). The problem is that, having deleted a citation to enable a claim that an assertion were insufficiently supported, the editor was trying to game the system with wikilawyering. —SlamDiego_←T 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that at all. I certainly think he presented his counterargument as if it were a legal brief, but that's more a stylistic choice than any 'wikilawyering'. I saw no particular bandying about of WikiPolicy, nor gross intimidation tactics in his reference to libel, as I've already stated. I asked him to redact that libel bit as a matter of simplicity and ending this, but it seems you are insistent on getting your 'truthful version reinstated. Sorry, but there seems to be support for his edits. Go get citation, and learn what 'wikilawyering' means. it's different than real lawyering. ThuranX (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note the very definition of “wikilawyering”, especially item 4: “Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions”, and the references to pettifogging. —SlamDiego_←T 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

my two cents; i thinkt aht youre are overacting and triyn got use a minor point of policy that might have been exercised bytter by your complainant to try and get sanctions against a user that you have a edit distupe with. WHy dont you try to use other disputre resolution methos as per WP:DR first and come back if tyour editor is still being unreasonable or "wikilawyering" Smith Jones (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed image ban for User:Bnguyen

I propose a ban on working with images for this fellow. I estimate that the vast majority of his images, if not all, are just randomly pulled from some place on the internet and randomly tagged with some form of PD, usually claiming that they were by someo sort of division of the US government. He has received tons of warnings and complaints and only blanks them, or rants on people's talk pages. Durova has done the analytical details for me. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are any issues, please allow me to correct them and I will continue to be a positive member of the[REDACTED] community. Bnguyen (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Report on Extra-Judicial killings Committed by the Israeli Occupation Forces -- September 29, 2000 – September 28, 2001, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 2001.
2. Jerusalem bombing: A war increasing in cruelty, fuelled by lust for revenge, The Independent, August 10, 2001.
3. 'The street was covered with blood and bodies: the dead and the dying', The Guardian, August 10, 2001.
4. Lustick, Ian (1998). "For the Land and the Lord : Jewish fundamentalism in Israel". Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 0876090366. Retrieved 2008-11-06. For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank but as Judea and Samaria.
5. Bishara, Marwan (1995). "How Palestinians Should Use This Moment". Newsweek. Retrieved 2008-11-06. it stretches to the fanatical Jewish chauvinists who want to expel the Arabs from the land they call Judea and Samaria--a territory that, depending on how you read the Bible, could stretch past the Jordan as far as the Euphrates. Says Sternhell: "The minimum the religious Zionists can live with is the West Bank." {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
6. Thomas, Evan (1995). "Can Peace Survive?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2008-11-06. The religious settlers in the occupied territories believe that God gave them the West Bank--which they call by the Biblical names Judea and Samaria-and that no temporal leader can give the Promised Land away. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
7. Murqus, Sa'īd. Tafsīr kalimāt al-Kitāb al-Muqaddas (Cairo, 1996, in Arabic)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards