Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seraphim (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 22 March 2009 (→An editor's behvaiour at AfD: Fix). 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

Arcayne

There is an on-going debate relating to the infobox within fictional characters. This debating is raging in the disucssion page of the James Kirk biography. For the past few days, the page has been fully protected while the debate continued. Today, moments after the protection expired (but clearly far from a resolution) user:Arcayne changed the infobox to fit the format that he's been promoting. Several admins have voiced their opposition to this format. WP:Film & WP:Television have both come to the consensus that this is an invalid position and yet Arcayne (an admin) moved forward without a consensus and did it anyway. The wiki remains semi-protected. Erikeltic (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to point out that User:Arcayne is not an admin, not that this makes any difference on a content issue. Black Kite 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Notified Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Erikeltic has been confusing me with an admin since he was blocked for edit-warring in the article 3 days ago, and apparently began socking shortly thereafter. Since pointing this out at least twice seems to have had no effect, I've simply tuned him out. Additionally, the point of seeking consensus is to affect change in an article without excessive edit-warring. The article was reinstated to its pre-editwar state. As I understand it (and maybe I am wrong here) but consensus needs to be found before the change is made, as per BRD. Lastly, I am not sure where the "several admins have voiced their opposition" bit is coming from, since I am only aware of one admin who has been actively contributing to the article (not as an admin capacity but as an editor). The Film and TV wikiproject consensus' do not say what Erikeltic seem to think they do. I think I am on pretty solid ground as far as inclusion goes, and have repeatedly suggested that mediation might be a route to pursue, as Erikeltic seems rather unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, having only made about 200 edits thus far. He's been counseled about his often attack-y and uncivil behavior by at least two other editors. This is forum-shopping, and having to duck-duck-goose where Erikeltic is going to ask yet another parent is somewhat tedious. This belongs in mediation, not ANI. - Arcayne () 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than even dispute or "reason" these statements and accusations, I would simply implore you admins to take a look at the discussion, take a look at the behavior, take a look at the history, etc. and you will see what's going on for yourselves. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Erikeltic and Marfoir

As a neutral party to this debate, I believe there may be some merit to Arcayne's sockpuppet allegations concerning Erikeltic. Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about this issue. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages . I think Checkuser might be prudent to clear this up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, doing a little searching through the edit history of the James Cawley AFD on my own, I may have a possible smoking gun. Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA. Coincidental? I'm doubting it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate. Our IPs are similar (not identical) because we live in the same area, so there aren't any surprises there. Why exactly have you made it your mission to come after me, FennShysa? You have left several warnings for me and correct a couple of my posts and yet you don't do the same thing to Arcayne when it's necessary. Why is that? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK! please... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Lol. So, let me see if I understand this, Erikeltic/anon24 (et al)/Marfoir/whatever - you are stating that even though you were socking before, you are instead guilty of meat-puppetry and canvassing? Sorry, that is almost as bad. Especially when both of you voted in an AfD related to this subject. Pursuant to a checkuser or SPP (I can never remember the difference), I'd like this user, in all of his/her many, many (at least 5 now) colorful disguises by blockety-block-blocked indefinitely. - Arcayne () 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By your own admission, then Erikeltic, you've violated Misplaced Pages policies. Please read this section about Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets - the relevant line is Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Misplaced Pages articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Misplaced Pages and support your side of a debate. So to answer your question (and poor attempt to deflect blame/attention from yourself), Arcayne has followed procedure - you, sir, have not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So the bottom line is: rather than lose the debate about the infobox, you'll just come after me personally to silence the opposition? And I didn't recruit anyone. I don't know when Marfoir got an account and I don't really care. The only thing I did was mention the wiki to him. What he did with that is on him, not me. What, you want our real names and phone numbers? I'll share that offline with THF or any neutral admin if that's what it takes to prove there is no puppetry here. Go for it. This is just an end-run to get around losing the debate. How sad. Erikeltic (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any userbox debate. I saw you behaving inappropriately, and called you on it. I saw another editor behaving inappropriately, covering you, and noticed a pattern, and followed up on it. Simple as that. And you can't have it both ways - you can't claim "I didn't recruit anyone" immediately after posting "Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate." You just admitted to recruiting him. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making it sound much more sinister than it actually was. You want to punish me for telling somebody I know about the edit war, then by all means: go for it. It is not fair, however, to dismiss my arguments or punish someone else because I'm a wiki-noob that is operating in good faith. Nor does anything I have done relieve Arcayne of his own actions. Erikeltic (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a normal content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Erikeltic has been more even-tempered of late, but this harkens back to his earlier forum shopping. --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone suspects a sockpuppetry, report it. Meanwhile, the underlying content dispute is being proposed for mediation. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with doing that, EEMIV (outside of the work involved in filing). That said, the Erikeltic has already admitted to abusive meatpuppetry, and has attempted to influence both consensus in article discussion and the results of an AfD. Hasn't ArbCom determined that "Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets."? Again, I don't mind filing the report myself, but I am also thinking of the collateral damage to articles and their attendant discussions as well as those pages wherein they are voting in concert. In my experience, Checkuser can be somewhat glacial in its progress. - Arcayne () 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation reopened, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of notifying both Erikeltic and Marfoir or the renewed SPI. - Arcayne () 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will voluntarily remove myself from the mediation process entirely and leave it between you, EEMIV, Marfoir, THF, Cool Hand Luke, Bignole, GlobalCluster, and everyone else involved with the content issues if it makes you feel better. Let the investigation against me proceed, but don't use me as your excuse against resoloving the dispute. Erikeltic (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed. What a mess one simple discussion has turned into. Oy. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Marfoir (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; a content dispute turns into a discovery of possible meat (or sock)-puppetry. Quick, someone get the movie rights to this. :) - Arcayne () 22:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though every person who posts about 'Admin Abuse', 'Bullying' etc. doesn't realise that they will be subjected to a thorough examination as well. It's funny watching them try to redirect everyone to their original complaint, once people have got wind of their meat or sockpuppeting, violation of the policies they link to etc. Great way to kill an evening. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And now, Erikeltic (not Marfoir,which has been oddly silent while E remains somewhat active), has updated his user page three different times. Initially with a non-free image and the caption "victory is mine" (this after a consensus was reached in an article that he was a part of). When he was advised he could use such in his user page, he replaced it with an anatomical drawing of an anus with the caption: "Indeed, they are everywhere". Lastly, he updated it with a childish ditty about his interests: a pun on articles to tell his detractors to 'bend over and kiss my ass, you people'. Now, I get that folk are allowed to clever up their page, but I am fairly sure that this user - who is still awaiting the outcome of an SPI - uses the wiki as a battleground; the comments about winning and calling the folk on the losing side of an argument assholes.

This user has spent a majority of their time either making uncivil comment in article discussion, creating pointy subarticles, wikihounding others, meat-puppeting (or socking) and turning their userpage into an insult. I am wondering why this person is still here. I am quite certain that they see the inaction here and at SPI as apathetic of their behavior; indeed, I think he sees it as approval for their behavior. I don't see it as improving until someone steps in.- Arcayne () 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Is this thing on? Test, test test... - Arcayne () 14:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hear you...just passing through...not an admin and I avoid the fiction and pop-culture demesnes like the plague, but I will agree from what I've seen here that this guy does not grok wiki, and I don't see that realization of what we are about imminent. Were I sysopped, I'd indef until I saw some sign of a epiphany. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am usually loathe to dismiss users, and don't urge a ban, but a block is clearly necessary; we do not allow meat- or sock-puppetry, and to complement the behavior by creating an attackpage and making personal attacks is corrosive to how the wikiis supposed to work. Intense and spirited discussion is okay; calling other users assholes is not. - Arcayne () 14:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

TO BE CLEAR: I never once called you an asshole. Show me where I wrote the words "Arcayne is an asshole" or "you are an asshole." Looking back through your user page, I can see that a number of other people have written this about you. It seems to be common theme, but I have never called you an asshole. I'd like to see you produce that in writing. Or is your only evidence my interests and pictures of a donkey and a black hole? There was no mention of you at all, so I really think you're giving yourself too much credit. Maybe you're reading into things too much or under the impression that I think you're worth the effort of insulting? I don't know and I really don't care. I'd just like you to quit hounding me. Oh, and just so you know, my user page has been taken down because CHL suggested it, so continue on with your crusade. Erikeltic (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you redacting the comments on your user page that called folks asshole, but its back-pedaling, Were that the only problem, it might be enough to simply close out the matter as a basic incivility matter. However, you continue to treat Misplaced Pages like a knife fight, wikihound others, toss personal attacks around like they were beads at Mardi Gras and are utterly unwilling to learn our policies and guidelines before trying to use them. Add to that the whole meat-puppetry thing (which is equivalent to sock-puppetry) with Marfoir and the previous anon IP socking and edit-warring, and we are left with an image that isn't at all encouraging. - Arcayne () 16:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:EugeneKaspersky

New user who is impersonating an administrator (, , ), faking barnstars by other users on his talk page, faking talk page comments by other users , perpetrating a hoax and impersonating a prominent real life person by his user name (violating WP:REALNAME) and self-description.

For context, see the vandalism and hoax edits that have been going on in the article Kaspersky Lab since January by numerous IPs and one-purpose-accounts, e.g. KasperskyHimself, Kasperski69 (blocked), DmitriMedvedev (likewise impersonating Dmitri Medvedev), Hwahwahwah (blocked), TheHelperBot (likewise impersonating a bot), 66.104.111.66, 173.15.141.106 and others. I would also appreciate it if someone would have a look at the request for protection for that article.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that it could be a misspelling of Karpersky Antivirus (I cannot find the link), which is a commercial antivirus software? MuZemike 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kaspersky Anti-Virus is a product of Kaspersky Lab (the vandalized article). Eugene Kaspersky is the person impersonated by this user. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the user is still claiming to be an admin, is still making changes to other people's comments on his Talk page, and is still claiming to be Eugene Kaspersky. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the claim to be an administrator. Mostly so that when I claim to be one no one will see through my evil scheme. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User blocked by seicer for username, maybe the userpage should be blanked/deleted/redirected. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that Mykleis21 (talk · contribs) is the same person? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• See also 67.128.73.38 (talk · contribs). Arakunem 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Only one way to find out. Call Shari Lewis! MuZemike 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, Shari went to the Great Puppet Show in the Sky, some years back. :( Baseball Bugs carrots 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

... and everyone has been very worried about Lambchop, as she hasn't said a single word since Shari passed away. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that movie: The Silence of the Lambchop. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The sequel--Silence II: Return of the Mint--was awful, though. //roux   23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It gave me a Charlie Horse. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, made me switch from regular shoes to Hush Puppies. MuZemike 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this person is gathering sockpuppets or others to deface the page on EugeneKaspersky's behalf via craigslist. WP:BANPOL Is a massive, coordinated attack in store? JordanDouglsas (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user's ISP contacted by an admin with claims of "libel"

I am quite concerned that an admin has contacted RMHED's ISP, telling them that User:RMHED has committed "libel" on Misplaced Pages. When asked about the libel claim, the response was, to say the least, not very reassuring - "Don't know, I can't remember. In my email I said that there was libel, but I don't remember exactly what (or if) it was". Contacting ISPs may be a good idea, but surely this should only be done in extreme cases (this isn't even a banned user), and only by official Misplaced Pages representatives (i.e. "the office"). Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:RMHED is now banned, but was not when their ISP was contacted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I found it disturbing that, when I asked above where said libelous comment was at, that they pointed to a diff that contained no libelous content. Rude? Yes. Libelous? Far from that. To contact an ISP and harass a user over that is a bit over the top. seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have cause a problem here. I certainly did not intend to. A few months ago, I wrote an American ISP about a serial vandal who was taking advantage of a /8 to daily vandalize TFA. At the time, I did not think contacting ISPs would be a problem, and I apologise if I have overstepped my bounds here. I will avoid doing this in the future. J.delanoy_adds 17:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's a long term serial vandal it's worth a go, but not for someone who was an ok contributor for a while and only went a bit wrong for a few weeks. Unless you mean that RHMED was the serial vandal. Such abuse would have to be long term or very serious in order to contact an ISP in my opinion, and false claims of libel shouldn't be made to try and cause trouble for someone- that would be almost "libelous" :) Sticky Parkin 17:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per Sam Korn's comments above in the ban discussion, it seems like RMHED has been socking and disrupting for quite some time. //roux   18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps true, but this was not known (as far as I know) when the ISP was contacted. RMHED was not banned and was not labelled a long-term abuser. This has the appearance of being related to RMHED's attacks on user:Jimbo Wales. Outside of that, it was simple vandalism and a bit of trolling. The response seems, to me, to be inappropriate for the level of annoyance that was being caused. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it would be good for Misplaced Pages to start coming down like a ton of bricks on people who are deliberately and knowingly flouting all policies. It would make the prospect far less attractive to those who do--RMHED, MS, G*, HR, etc--and make our lives easier, not to mention increasing the public opinion of Misplaced Pages as a useful and semi-reliable resource. //roux   04:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. My concern is who does it, how they do it, and what specific information is given to the ISP. That's why I started the thread, but I now see that this isn't a concern that others share. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jdelanoy, I'm not trying to single you out here. While I find it very concerning that you told an editor's ISP that they had committed libel, seemingly with no evidence of any libel having been committed, I am actually more interested in the general case. Should admins be contacting ISPs, and under what circumstances? I think that most ISPs will automatically and naturally assume that an admin is acting at the behest of, or at least with the knowledge of, some official body within Misplaced Pages. My opinion, therefore, is that admins should only be doing this if they are instructed to as part of an "office" action. Better yet, the office (or WP's legal counsel) should be the ones speaking to the ISPs.

Suspicions of abuse don't always turn out to be true. Rather than saying User:SuspectedSockpuppeteeringVandal did such-and-such, the only information given to ISPs should be IP addresses and times. The ISPs have the logs and ability to determine which of their users were involved. Telling an ISP that a specific user is an online vandal or libelled someone is possibly harming the reputation (and business relationship) of a possibly innocent person. And opening the reporter up to charges of libel themselves. I think there should be a little more (perhaps a lot more) thought put into this type of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly harming? No. The ISP investigates. If they see a problem, they terminate. If not, they don't. This is a standard every day thing. I worked as a chat monitor at AOL (a long long time ago and not for that long of a time) and reported many people for abuse who lost their accounts. I know of many people who had to deal with such complaints. These are every day occurances and don't "harm reputations". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, if you think I'm just drama-mongering here, why are you stirring the pot...? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm hoping this stays up long enough for you to be blocked for your blatant disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that people stop responding to a thread that has been marked resolved, but that doesn't seem to be happening either. Have a nice day! 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't in the business of controlling user's actions off Wiki like this. This isn't really a matter for ANI. Was jdelanoy disrupting? No. Was he involved in stalking? No. Was he making legal threats? No (it was a complaint, which anyone can file about anyone, ISPs get them all the time). Why is ANI linking to other ANI? Drama begetting drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An admin contacting another editor's ISP is likely to be seen as a representative of Misplaced Pages, especially if they identify themselves as such. I don't know if that was the case here, but it seems naive or disingenuous to pretend that admin actions off-wiki are unrelated if they spawn from incidents on-wiki. I made this a separate thread so as not to derail the discussion of banning RMHED which was proceeding to its obvious conclusion. I believe there are a couple of serious issues here, and your accusation of drama-mongering isn't helping address them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jdelanoy never stated that he represented himself as an admin, nor would it really matter. Anyone has a right to complain to an ISP about any problematic behavior. The ISP then sees if the complaint has merit or not. 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't really see an issue here. J.Delanoy's action occurred offsite and through proper channels. If his allegation wasn't adequately backed up that's the ISP's concern, and probably harmed no one. Threats and harassment are concerns at ANI, not actual action of this type. Durova 04:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm the only one who views this as a problem - feel free to mark it as resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt say anything on WP to stop someone contacting an ISP. people who do are encoraged if they think they need to bt the ISP's. there is nothing illeagl about doing so if thats what your's worried about.  rdunnPLIB  13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the thread at all? It details my concerns and that's not one of them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly view this as a problem. It is not the business of an admin to pursue users outside of Misplaced Pages. Jtrainor (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And why not? I'm not talking about real-life harassment or anything, but notifying an ISP that their service is being used abusively? Why on earth shouldn't admins do that? We either want to deal with the chronic vandalism and socking issue or we do not. I suspect the truth is the latter, but presuming for a moment that we actually do, then notifying ISPs of massive abuse coming from their subscribers can only be a good thing. //roux   05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this thread won't seem to die, and yet seems to have drawn very little admin comment, I'll try to make my point again. Contacting ISPs may be a valid way to address vandalism issues, but that contact needs to come from (or at least be directed by) the WMF, not individual admins, and it needs to present the information fairly and without risking the reputation of the editor involved. Look carefully at the case that prompted this if you don't understand my concern. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps initiating a non-specific discussion at WP:VPP might be the best way to proceed, if you think this should be codified. –xeno (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That is basically my view, Delicious. Jtrainor (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasser Latif Hamdani

I've indef blocked (overriding a related WP:3RR block) User:YLHamdani, who claims to be the article subject and was adding unsourced info the BLP Yasser Latif Hamdani; info which another user, User:Yasser Latif Hamdani (also claiming to be the subject), claimed was wrong and potentially dangerous to his person. Another editor claims to have verified the latter's identity (see WP:BLP/N). The indef-blocked user also published an email address on the talk page which appears to belong to the latter editor (though this isn't verified). I'd like another admin to review my actions and/or comment on what else might need doing. Thanks. Rd232

Account espousing conspiracy theories; Intervention needed

• Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs)

This account is soapboxing and causing trouble:

• I, and MANY other people believe the government is covering up the truth!
• Looks like a Thermobaric Bomb was used to bring down the Twin Towers.
• Also note the tiny debris pile of mostly steel beams . . . like where's all the broken glass, concrete, steel desks, etc?
• Obviously something caused the entire Twin Towers to disintigrate into a cloud of dust leaving a tiny debris pile.
• I'm serious: CIA killed JFK! I'm an expert on this

The account is wasting other editors time and disrupting talk pages. I'd like to see if somebody else could intervene and explain how Misplaced Pages works before more time is wasted. Thank you. Jehochman 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't need a soapbox for my ideas . . . I have a webpage and several Blogs for doing this. My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth. Seems everybody at Wiki thinks the Government is telling The Truth, lol, anyone who disagrees with the government's POV is considered a "soapboxer" or "conspiracy theorist."

I was told by an administrator that if I am an expert on a subject, I should say so. I'm an expert on the John F. Kennedy assassination and a skeptic of the Government in regards 9/11.

In the "Controlled Demolition" article's Talk Page I suggested opening up a new subject in the Article explaining why it appears that a bomb destoryed the entire two 100-story World Trade Centers, left a tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and a blanket of dust inches deep throughout New York City. The government's explaination is ridicuous. Governments do lie, U know! A bomb better explains what happened at the WTC's. I also mentioned that two references are needed for the most crucial paragraph in that article. I don't know how to add, "Citation Needed" to the one sentence and the other reference (#23) is a broken link. (Just noticed that someone fixed it but the link #23 does NOT cite a page explaining why there was such a tiny debris pile and blanket of dust throughout Manhattan . . . see the Talk-Page, cited herein.)

There are many other ppl besides myself who believe bombs destroyed the WTC: Google, Thermobaric + wtc. As I said above: The article on "Controlled Demolition at the WTC" is poorly referenced in a crucial paragraph and is one-sided.

How do we know the editors/censors of Wiki who are harassing me are not government agents bent on covering up the truth? Rather that allowing a discussion on a Talk Page, these ppl would censor and ban me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Misplaced Pages editors are government agents bent on covering up the truth? Please. Go read our policy on reliable sources (nothing claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy fits), and WP:TRUTH. Better yet, go back to your blogs and/or Conservapedia. //roux   20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Roux's comments, a requirement of editing here is that you assume good faith of other users. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian, and if I was government I'd be getting paid more. You are espousing a point of view that is definitely considered on the fringe side of things. You'd require extensive reliable sources to be able to include such material in the articles. You're not being censored, you're going over ground that's been covered many times on these articles, and being informed as to the guidelines that need to be met for such activities. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK seriously, why are we feeding this one? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Educating, not feeding. For now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Go look at reference #23 as a "reliable source" to explain the tiny debris pile and dust everywhere several inches thick. What page number in reference #23 explains this? Same to U about "Good Faith" editing!

On no! The truths! Hide the children... (in fact, i think this is just a troll.)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't poke fun at the user here. WP:BITE and WP:NPA apply here on ANI as much as anywhere else.

It's clear to me that Raquel is trying to do things which Misplaced Pages is not here for, including WP:SOAP etc. However, that needs to be politely communicated, and she needs to be given the opportunity to contribute in a positive manner. I left long message on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hafta go for about 72-hours. I also promise to be more careful in the Discussion Pages but please don't ban me or erase anything I've written! If U want me to erase or edit something, please discuss it on my Talk Page before erasing what I have written! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What you have written remains in the article history - but content that is not sourced to reliable references may be removed from the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the curious :D --WebHamster 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • omai. //roux   21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth". With the best will in the world, on her own talk page this editor claims to have been around since 2005; if s/he hasn't got the clue by now, and does not move forward, it has to be "kiss, kiss, bye-bye". Without the kisses. We have far too many such editors and give them far too much leeway as it is. Absent a severe change of attitude, it's time for a kick+door scenario. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I started out in 2005 an then quit and came back a coupla months ago. Why do U write "s/he" my name is Raquel.

This whole issue stems from a discussion-page about "Controlled Demolition" at the World Trade Center. The way the article is written, it is unsourced as to why there was such a tiny debris-pile and huge cloud of dust which settled over Manhattan several inches deep. The most logical explaination, which many other researchers are saying to explain that is Thermobaric Bombs were placed inside the WTCs, which complerely pulverized the two-100-story buildings. Google, Thermobaric + wtc. U guys are ganging up on me 'cause U don't wanna face reality or???? Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel - This is not the location to argue about content or what "the most logical explanation is." As you may be aware, we care not for the "most logical explanation" or answers to questions like "why there was such a tiny debris pile?" Instead, we care to best reflect what a preponderance of reliable sources report, and have policies for dealing with fringe beliefs, a general disregard for the "Truth", and policies for editor conduct (of particular interest to you may be one on how to deal with disruption). You may think wikipedia's approach is wrong, or stupid, or something else. If so, you don't have to participate here. If you are going to participate here, you need to abide by the local rules and standards. If you stay and don't abide, there will be sanctions and that won't be censorship -- just as tossing a shirtless guy out of a private club (who insists ignoring the dress code is a form of free speech) isn't censorship either.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

let me add that[REDACTED] is intended (like any encyclopedia) to be unextraordinary, unrevelatory, and non-specultive: everything short of dull, pretty much. when and if the world gets to the place where you can suggest that the twin towers were destroyed by thermobaric bombs and most people will look at you and say "yeah... so what?" - then that information belongs on wikipedia. probably not before, though... --Ludwigs2 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* I get the feeling that this isn't the last time we'll be dragged into this debate. But can someone please explain to me why, when there are myriad blogs and forums, do the fringe and conspiracy theorists have to come here? Why do they have to try and insert their unproven theories and 'evidence` into perfectly good articles? When, Raquel, are you and your compatriots going to realize that Misplaced Pages simply doesn't care, about your theories, or 'the truth'? If reliable, third party sources discover that it was a plot and it turns out that those bloody towers were thermobarically demolished, then I'll happily admit I was wrong; hell, I'll add the paragraphs and sources myself. Until then, you can politely take your huge cloud of dust and your tiny pile of debris, and shove them.

Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If U Google, Thermobaric + wtc, U will see many reliable sources for bomb in the WTC, which puverized everything and left a tiny debris pile. If U want I'll sort through them and tell U about the aurhors (some are University professors, some are Archetects & engineers, etc.) The Government's 9-11 report never examined or explained why there was such a small debris pile and so much dust everywhere but it seems obvious to anyone with an open mind that a bomb musta done it.

So what's the problem here? All I'm trying to do is add a topic catagory at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Evidence_of_Explosion:_What_Kind_of_Bomb_Could_Have_Pulverized_Everything.3F "Controlled Demolition" article at the WTC. I already showed that the critical paragraph at the article was unsourced and poorly sourced (i.e, first the link was broken and now it's linked to an 18MB PDF with no page reference.)

Again, I didn't tamper with the article, I merely wanna discuss adding a new section to the article to discuss the probability of a bomb. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally am always open to new ideas and theories, and if you post some links on my talk page, I'll certainly have a look with as open a mind as possible. Whether or not it's 'obvious' that your theory is correct is up for debate, but I'm afriad Misplaced Pages isn't the place for those debates. I must admit that I haven't had a chance to read through all of your edits, and all of the background material, so I can't make any judgements, but just looking at the link you provided above, it seems that you're trying to discuss a hypothesis, and provide evidence for your theory. Like I said before, this isn't the place for you to prove that your theory of events happened. Nor is it a place to discuss how the towers may have been destroyed. Misplaced Pages is here to document what mainstream media have reported about the event, and what has been reported about other theories. Whether the towers were destroyed by terrorists with a plane, someone with a thermobaric device or the Teletubbies with cuteness, is beside the point. This isn't the X-Files, and while 'the truth' may be out there we aren't here to report it before it can be suitably verified. Get your theory published and peer reviewed, and then we can talk.

Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Cena Jr's continued trolling

Cena Jr. continues to troll the talk page of List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. He does not agree with the new format that User:Moe Epsilon has implemented based on a prior consensus, and the user continues to troll the talk page and leave rude/uncivil comments. His account is an obvious SPA, which leads me to believe he is a sockpuppet of somebody. A few examples of his comments: trolling AN (again) removal of content against consensus (again, and again, once again)

If I listed all of the trollish edits here, I'd be posting nearly every one of their edits (but if you need more diffs, I can give them). This person does not have even 100 edits, and the majority of them are trolling about this article. The user is clearly not here to help build the encyclopedia and I believe a block would be in order. iMatthew // talk // 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I blocked him for 3RR at one point in this mess. Looking at it now, that seems to have gotten mixed up with a sockpuppet block and unblock. Previous discussions here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive185#Problems with WWE Alumni Page, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#More Problems with the WWE Alumni Page. As best I see, he has not tried any attempt at dispute resolution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 12:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The talk page is as relevant to discuss the disagreements as anywhere else. And I was unjustly accused of being someone's sockpuppet despite the fact I've never even heard of that person's name. But that's not relevant. I haven't done any reverting lately.Cena Jr (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through his contribs, i'm struggling to find any good edits. An indef block may be in order if he doesn't improve fast. Wizardman 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited any article, so I am not doing anything wrong.Cena Jr (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you even here? iMatthew // talk // 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You tell me, you're the one who started this thread.Cena Jr (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was rather referring to Misplaced Pages. Why do you bother coming to Misplaced Pages to edit if you aren't going to edit an article. Your last comment sums up to "I'm not here to edit articles" - the only purpose of this website, the articles. If you have no intentions of editing articles ever, and trolling over talk pages instead, you will find yourself blocked. iMatthew // talk // 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, when the aggravation an editor causes is greater than the contribution that editor makes, then an indefinite block is appropriate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And his userpage isn't helpful either. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD refactoring, removal of sourcing discussion

Can some neutral editors consider whether this is appropriate at an AfD ? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. AFD discussions are supposed to be threaded to provide a proper flow of said discussion. Organizing them by head count is not only nonconducive to WP:NOTAVOTE but also serves to polarize the discussion into yes/no camps. It is against basic AFD decorum and should be reverted back. MuZemike 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh psh, that 'not a vote' thing is yet another elephant in the room we need to banish. It absolutely is a vote, we just weight some votes (e.g., those citing policy etc) more than others. Honestly, organising XFD pages that way provides a much, much clearer way to establish consensus and close. That being said, this instance of it should be reverted; as it is such a major change to how XFD is presented, a change like this should be discussed at WT:XFD. //roux   23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of instances where WP:BOLD is a good thing, but not here. These discussions sometimes go to and fro as people add relevant or previously overlooked points regarding policy, or the article gets updated or whatever, so a timeline of discussion could be very helpful to the closer. Thus not a good idea to reformat this or any other AfD discussion in this way. Regarding AfD as (not) a vote, while technically it is not, other than those unsalvageable articles (total copyvios etc) that have to be deleted and cannot be saved, off the top of my head I don't recall ever seeing a closer contradicting consensus. Though I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Response from Scjessey

It's my fault. I did not know this was inappropriate, and when asked about it I explained my reasoning and apologized. Filing a report about it here seems extraordinarily unnecessary. Feel free to clap me in irons. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is resolved. Time to move on. Fetters will not be required.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept it was done in good faith and was a mistake. But not only were the votes and discussion reordered, but discussion of sources (as is noted in the edit summary) was also removed. I'm not really sure about putting it back how it was or if that's even possible, but as several votes have been added in the meantime, it's rather troubling. It's a controversial AfD on a controversial subject (currently the subject of an Arbcom proceeding) and removing the discussion and listing of sources is very prejudicial as that's the key to the argument for keeping the article. At the very least, perhaps Scjessey could try to put that discussion back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As indicated, the sources are listed on the talk page (as well as being woven into the article itself). Having said that, the sources do not have much of a bearing (if any) on the whether or not the article should be deleted. It is not a "controversial" AFD, as you describe it, as evidenced by the results (thus far) of the nomination. A well-sourced POV fork is still a POV fork. I am not sure how it could be described as "prejudicial" - people "voting" in the AfD should be reviewing the article before making up their mind, not the text of the nomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think all we can do now is ask that the closing admin takes the circumstances into account when determining consensus. Let's leave it there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Malcolm. Scjessey's refusing to restore discussion from the AfD he removed is unacceptable and prejudicial. Since when is it okay to remove the discussion of reliable sources from an AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Scjessey didn't realised it was inappropriate to refactor an Afd. I had a look at the AfD, I agree it may have been prejudicial, that it may have swayed the later !votes but I don't think it can be disentangled now. We have to make the best of a bad job here, I think, and ask the closing admin to do the best he can in the circumstances. If it is kept, another AfD can be listed; if it is deleted, it can be reviewed at DRV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on the page, I disagree it's prejudicial. Keep !votes are predicated on the idea that good sources justify an article; delete on the idea that they don't, and rather encyclopedic value of some form has to be demonstrated. Ergo delete !votes aren't influenced by the removal of the sources. Bad idea to be avoided in future? Yes. Any effect on outcome of what is clearly not a controversial AFD (keeps clearly misinterpret policy by ignoring the "presumed" clause of WP:N, and the thing could even be closed now per WP:SNOWBALL) - no. Rd232 13:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand all that, but there is also the issue of REMOVING comments addressing the sourcing for the article. That Scjessey continues to argue he/she was right in doing so is a problem. When I posted this notice I hadn't realized that Scjessey was the nominator for the deletion, which makes it all the more inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove any comments. All I removed was a duplicate list of sources, since they are not appropriate for the AfD and already exist on the talk page of the article. Also, I find it highly unlikely that any "votes" were swayed when "keep" and "merge" votes appear before "delete" on the page. Please note that ChildofMidnight is already noted for being highly disruptive and editing Obama-related articles in an agenda-based manner, which explains why this ANI report was opened despite my earlier apology of following this misunderstanding. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone will remind Scjessey that it's inappropriate to reorganize an AfD discussion to his liking and even more inappropriate to remove discussion of sources that indicate notability. It's also wrong to make personal attacks, as he's been reminded previously. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of my mistake. I apologized for it. Twice. Once before and once after your report here. I won't make the same mistake again. There is no need for you to pursue me around Misplaced Pages repeating the same thing, adding your usual layers of mock outrage and misrepresentations. I am sorry that your agenda-driven editing is getting push-back, but there is no need for you to vent your frustrations by attacking me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. He probably didn't realize that we don't do that in AFDs. No harm has been done. Let it go, and drop the stick. MuZemike 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Scjessey is obviously not aware that it is inappropriate to remove comments. In this discussion he states "I did not remove any comments. All I removed was a duplicate list of sources, since they are not appropriate for the AfD and already exist on the talk page of the article." Sources and discussion of sources is of course very appropriate for an AfD discussion and should not be removed. The idea that no harm has been done is an interesting opinion. What is clear is that Scjessey's actions disrupted the AfD and ended discussion, turning it into a vote and removing important comments regarding the very basis of notability. This editor still has not acknowledged that removing comments that list sources establishing notability is totally inappropriate. He's also now started to make personal attacks against me which is slso inappropriate and is something this editor has been asked to refrain from in the past. Far from attempting to beat this user with a stick, I'd just like to see this user refrain from disruptive and inappropriate actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of AfD comments

Whoever closes this discussion should be aware that both Scjessey and ChildofMidnight have removed comments by others from the AfD at this point. Please see the page history for confirmation of this. I would ask that whichever brave soul closes this AfD attempt to take such removed comments into account. Although I have expressed an opinion in the AfD, I am not attempting to favor one side in this; both editors have engaged in bad behavior. I am hoping there can be an appropriate close in spite of this. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Which comment did I remove? If I did so it was absolutely not intentional and I will have a look and restore anything I accidentally removed now if I can find something. Removing comments from AfDs is unaccaptable and if I ever do so it is by accident and I would ask that you please correct my mistake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere that I removed a comment. Please refactor your statement that I have engaged in bad behavior or back it up with a diff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to remove part of a comment that I restored after is was removed by Scjessey (a duplicate keep vote), but apparently I was working on an old version of the page because when I did so a few recent comments were removed. Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. As I stated, I dont' remove people's comments unless they are a clear policy violations, so if you find that I have made a mistake, feel free to correct it. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner. Both you and Scjessey are guilty of what I will assume in good faith is sloppy editing; to the best of my ability to follow the additions and removals, there are not now any missing comments, though I still believe any closer should be aware of the heavy editing that discussion has undergone. As to the reason I didn't attempt to fix it myself: the whole problem is that both of you have felt free to make problematic alterations. If I made more alterations to the AfD, it would risk making things worse, not better, so I did not do that. It would be nice if both of you would concede that you've stated you point and stayed away from further editing of the discussion at all; however, I don't intend to formally request that you do so - please just consider it a well-intended suggestion. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Distruptive editing, POV pushing and sockpuppetry

Mortician103 (talk · contribs) appears to be here only to push this agenda during his/her brief tenure editing as this user. This user started editing using talk pages as a forum for this agenda. , , and has shown evidence of sockpuppetry first identified by NJGW (talk · contribs) (I concur), and two instances where ipsocking was used to give the appearance of consensus and where I believe the editor logged out to comment on own discussion (on Talk:Jesse Washington this parenthetical comment added by Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC) for clarity). Going further, removal of relevant facts from an article because they differed from this editor's POV, although they were sourced (but not footnoted) and civility issues. I believe this editor has gone far enough. I need a non-involved admin here. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be a bit WP:IAR to block this early, but I don't see any indication that this editor has any chance of being a net plus to the project. We should also be blocking left-wing and conspiracy fringers early, too. THF (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't support censorship at all. However, sockpuppetry and disruption shoud be dealt with. Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I created an account after editing without one, there is no sock puppeting... And any civility issues come from unfounded accusations like this one with obvious personal agendas against other users.

If any other administrator can look at my edits and tell me they go against standard procedure and policy, then please do so. toddst1 has been actively trying to get me banned since I answered a question on David Duke's talk page. I think that's when he chose to continually harass me and revert justified edits.

My edits have usually come after debate and discussion on talk pages. toddst1 only links to WP:consensus and reverts my edits without actually taking a stance on the consensus. His actions on Jesse_Washington_lynching show that he didn't come to any conclusion on the consensus reached in Talk:Rob_Knox. His basis for penalizing me came from me supposedly going against a consensus he doesn't even understand. His only defense is that he's a "passive" administrator, which is obviously untrue with his continued harassment against me. Mortician103 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, that user on Jesse Washington's talk page is not me. I am very frustrated at these unfounded accusations. Look at my ip address if you can, and you will see that I have a different one. Mortician103 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor is right that I have not taken any active role in the consensus discussion - that was deliberate. No consensus exists when the editor is agreeing with their own IPsock. That is one of the reasons I brought this here. This occurred on Talk:Rob_Knox and Talk: Jesse_Washington_lynching. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

toddst1, how is it possible for me to log out of my account to sock puppet when this account was created a week after that discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox started? Please don't leave out important information like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortician103 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"No consensus exists when the editor is agreeing with their own IPsock." Consensus comes from continual discussion and debate, not democratic vote. I made no effort to hide the fact that I was the same user when I added to the discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox. In fact, I made this account to avoid the issue. Also, IPsoc did not occur on Talk: Jesse_Washington_lynching, please don't state your assumptions as facts. Mortician103 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal Agenda from Administrator

I believe Toddst1 is on a personal campaign against me that consists of petty accusations, intimidation and other forms of harassment. I first answered a question on Talk:David Duke that hinted of sympathy towards white nationalists. He deleted and penalized me the first time. I then reworded my answer so as to be less "preachy" and simply answered the question in the most succinct way possible. Toddst1 then penalized me again and deleted the question. I found this behavior to be a bit petty, and informed him of my objection. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:David_Duke&oldid=277089336#Kenya

He also reverted my edits to Rob Knox based on a consensus from a short discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox. I continued this discussion from my days of editing as an unregistered editor. Toddst1 appeared in the discussion suddenly after my edits to Talk: David Duke, insisting that my edits conflicted with the consensus. He also made a remark that led me to believe he thinks I am a U.S. Southerner and insulted me based on a stereotypical phrase associated with racism. The main reason I'm making an appeal to other administrators is the following sockpuppet accusation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mortician103

It is a simple case that I created a new account after editing unregistered from my house and a public place. If Toddst1 had looked at my account creation date, he would see that the case for IPsocking is uncalled for. I believe he willingly ignored this fact for the sake of his campaign to get me banned. My IP address is now available to the public, a situation I tried to avoid by creating this account. My family is now potentially open to retribution from extremist groups because of an administrator's personal dislike for me. He is now hastily bringing his case before you after I told him that I would be taking my complaints to other administrators.

I request that Toddst1 cease his personal campaign against me and immediately delete his sock puppet allegations. Mortician103 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

When you edit Talk:Rob_Knox as 3 different editors, then claim consensus (with yourself) , the claims of sockpuppetry are very valid. Editing like that will put you on any admin's radar if it doesn't get you blocked for that alone.Toddst1 (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not edit as three different editors. I never quoted myself or agreed with myself. I simply continued the dialog with other users. Surely Misplaced Pages's sockpuppet policies are not blind to the case of someone graduating from IP to account? Mortician103 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 which you confirm each was you here. Add misrepresenting your own actions to the list. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I confirmed they were all me to clear up this confusion. One of your accusations was that I logged out of this account in order to give the illusion of consensus. This is an impossible case as I created this account after making those contributions, except for one small and irrelevant change. I really don't see the issue here. From WP:SOCK

This page in a nutshell: The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.

I did not violate any of those clauses. I was not deliberately misleading in Talk: Rob Knox. Also: Clean start under a new name is a valid cause for creating a new account. Surely this can be reduced to someone wanting to make their first account? Mortician103 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean slate doesn't apply when you continue your old arguments. That's sockpuppetry. Then claiming consensus is highly disruptive and an attempt to manipulate Misplaced Pages processes. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So now you're arguing for deception of which there is no probable cause. If you read that section out loud, I think it's pretty clear the same person was continuing the argument. I didn't create multiple accounts to vote Nay/Yay on some deletion or merge vote, I continued a dialog with no deception. Also for my argument, the "accounts" did not concurrently continue the discussion. The dialog occurred in a linear fashion that reflected my daily life and eventually the creation of this account. Just admit that you are blowing an innocent situation way out of proportion. I feel it is only to my disadvantage to actually defend myself for creating a new, unique account. Mortician103 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

<-Let's just be clear about what is happening here. Mortician, who believes in a white homeland according to his user page, is pushing for the person who killed Rob Knox to be described as "black", even though there is no evidence that race is relevant to the crime; and arguably using misleading tactics to create an impression of consensus for this change. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Prove that it is less relevant than his name or hometown... Anyway, please take that debate to where it belongs Talk:Rob Knox. I've already illustrated my points. And the White Christian Homeland is a parody of the mission of Zionists. Funny how it's offensive when Christians hold this belief. Funny was my intent, but the satire is lost on the overly sensitive maybe. Mortician103 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No - the discussion is about Distruptive editing, POV pushing and sockpuppetry and about misrepresenting your own edits. This belongs right here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the debate on whether Rob Knox's murderer's full details (what I was referring to) should be censored belongs on Talk: Rob Knox. I see though that you're intent on banning me for perceived POV as evidenced by your refusal to drop the simple IPsocks case. You were intent on banning me since Talk:David Duke, which is why I believe your power abuse should be kept in check. Especially when it endangers my safety. Mortician103 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

The IP/account overlap isn't overly concerning, and I'm not sure I'd call it sockpuppetry. That said, a scan through Special:Contributions/Mortician103 yields a pretty clear picture. I've indefinitely blocked the account. This sort of editing and agenda is absolutely bad for this project. Since I'm not logging on much anymore, I'll proactively acquiesce if any other admin wishes to overturn the block and let this account follow the standard, drawn-out trajectory to the same endpoint. MastCell  03:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

For a ten-second summary of his approach to editing, just compare and . There's obviously no chance of this editor working in a neutral, collaborative manner. In other words, this has my complete (admin-bit-free) endorsement. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking through his contribs, it seems that race only matters when there was a person of colour as a victim or a defendant. Nobody else's 'race' (a concept I abhor) matters. Good riddance to bad white-supremacist rubbish. //roux   05:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

88.108.128.0/17

I've just pulled FT/2s rather long hard block on this ISP range which belongs to Tiscali UK. If anyone dissagrees with this please say so.Geni 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This rings a bell to me for some insidious vandals; links would help. --Rodhullandemu 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Contributions log, Block log. Add the CIDR Gadget in your preferences to see the range contributions, though I can't see any at the moment... NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the range being used by RMHED for his ..whatever it is he thinks he's doing.. --Versageek 02:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Block has been reinstated by me. This range is the source of long term disruption significant enough to warrant the collateral damage that will occur as a trade off. This was explained by the initial blocking CU, but apparently Geni knows better than FT2 or I do what the circumstances of this matter are? ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a checkuser making a block based on checkuser results. Why are we on WP:ANI? A checkuser, who can actually see the collateral damage such a block would cause, it more capable of determining if the block is needed than those who can't. We can give IPBE to those who need it. (Oh, and I disagree with unblocking.) Prodego 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case we know that range blocked so anyone can make a reasonably educated guess at the level of the damage likely to be caused. The question is is that level accept in return for the benifits of blocking given how long the block is for. Giveing IPBE to those who get hit by it rather assumes people are prepared to go through those extra hoops in order to edit wikipedia.Geni 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct... Or to complain to their ISP, who would then be encouraged to act against the user(s) causing the disruption. A good thing.

So yes, anyone knowing the range can make a reasonable guess at the damage. CUs, however, can see the traffic coming in, adjudge how much of it is disruptive, and make an informed decision as to the likely damage. Not a reasonable guess, but an actual evaluation of actual recent traffic so far. One CU did that and, after consulting with other CUs, decided the benefits of a block outweighed the benefits of an unblock. After you questioned it, and then, outside of process unblocked it, further consultation with other CUs happened. Another CU took a look and reaffirmed the evaluation of benefit and reblocked. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that when a CU makes a block, a CU must be contacted before an unblock. Also, you said "no reason given on[REDACTED] for blocking", when in the very block log it states This IP range is blocked to prevent vandalism. Bona fide users should please request unblocking and checking for "IP block exemption" -- apologies for the disruption, and thank you for understanding." //roux   20:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

FT2 forgot to put {{checkuserblock}} in as the reason. Geni was just impatient after he asked, he didn't wait for the answer long enough. And then waszn't satisfied when it was given. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So pulling a poorly explained /17 block after confirming the blocker is not online and informing AN/I of what you are doing is now an example of impatience rather than part of the normal checks and balances in[REDACTED] process? As for satisfied I simply told you to take your justifcation to AN/I which is not unreasonable for a indef hard block (you've brought it down to 3 months) on a significant chunk of a major IP.Geni 22:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to get the block to be exactly as FT2's first one was, and it took me 3 tries, I never intended it to be indef. As for your tendency to shoot early? Yes, I do think you were impatient. So, then, are we done now? ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD clarification

Automated Tissue Image Systems just survived AfD a few days ago and has been renominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Automated Tissue Image Systems. Isn't this discouraged or am I missing something? -- Banjeboi 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous AfD discussion was about SureClick. This doesn't appear to be the same article, unless I'm missing something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous AfD was a bundled nomination that included both articles. But for some reason the discussion only focused on SureClick and didn't address ATIS at all. I see no harm in renominating it. Reyk _YO! 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No harm except not following policy. I agree the article is a mess but the policy is that any article that just went through AfD, can't be re-AfD'ed so soon. At least that's what I've always been told. They shouldn't have been bundled together, but they were, as part of an AfD that was closed as No Consensus. This makes the article safe for now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly an occasion where WP:IAR can and should apply. Reyk _YO! 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, discussion is a good thing and Automated Tissue Image Systems has not had it chance to be discussed in the previous debate. -- Darth Mike  04:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I found WP:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion and WP:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. While they recommend against immediate renomination, neither says that simply surviving AfD immunizes an article for a certain duration. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is at least some copyright violations in Automated Tissue Image Systems. See the AfD for details. Chillum 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification that my actions are being discussed here... oh wait, I wasn't notified...

I've looked, and I haven't been able to find any policy page that says an AFD ending in "No consensus" cannot be sent through AFD again shortly thereafter. If that's policy, fine, but it should be written down somewhere. Me, I just thought of the new AFD as equivalent to re-listing, which is what I thought was going to occur when it was closed, instead.

OTOH, when Articles for deletion/SureClick was closed, MBisanz (the AFD's closer) didn't take the AFD message off of Automated Tissue Image Systems. My guess is that that was because he didn't realize that it was part of the AFD. I'm not blaming him for that in any way, just myself—I realized later that I'd written it up in such a way that it wasn't obvious that two articles were covered. Consequently, I figured it was a good idea to run it through AFD as an individual article.

Yes, there's some copyvio in that article. And some nonsense. And some copy & paste from at least one other WP article. And some unrelated babbling. And some... well, I'll just quote T L Miles, writing about SureClick during its AFD:

I've removed all the things that have only tangential references to the subject. These include 90% of the text, as there were entire FDA regulation texts and manuals on product testing and complaint processes. I can only hope that these were copyvio, cause otherwise the writer has real issues.

IMO, Automated Tissue Image Systems has more issues than SureClick did, and needs at least 90% of its text cut to be worth keeping. Unfortunately, it's written so randomly that I can't tell which parts (if any) are worth keeping. And with copyvio issues, I'd rather we got rid of it entirely than keep it around in the hopes that someday, someone might take action to clean it up. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notify anyone because I wasn't sure if it was an incident or not. Regardless the article is being worked on, the AfD is underway, etc etc. Hopefully consensus will help guide what to do here. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed 90% of the text, most of which was extremely fine technical detail about hardware, some software, components of ATI systems that made absolutely no mention of how the component was related to ATIS, and redirected the article to its proper title since it claims to be various and assorted such systems rather than an acronym for a proprietory version of one such system. Once properly gutted, only the first section of the article and the references are much worth keeping. The AfD will take care of this issue, one way or the other, so not much more to do here. --KP Botany (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Could use a pair of eyes

This is an experiment in trying to head off trouble before it arises. After a case of overlinking at consciousness, I wrote this to the editor who did it, and he responded with this, also cross-posted to my talk page and to talk:consciousness. Based on this rather bizarre response, I foresee that there is likely to be drama when I undo the overlinking, and I wonder if I can trouble some helpful admin to direct a pair of eyes toward the page, to be ready to head off any problems that may come. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Maurice Carbonaro (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) is not an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages, but may be on other languages. Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't wait 24 hours like I kindly asked? Merely 8... duh?

This is a "giving up, right now, in trying to head off trouble before it arises".

Please note that:

• The experience on which you based your experiment should be in need of attention of an expert on the subject. Not much of an ordinary wikipedia administrator but someone specifically recruited by the Philosophy Portal or Philosophy Wikiproject. At least this is what has been shown on the template of the experience[REDACTED] article template for the last two years at least;
• I have a well visibile "pair of eyes" as it is clearly shown in real pictures about myself on my[REDACTED] user pages. This in order to simulate a face time effect. You don't. You could also be a jabberwacky as far as I am concerned;
  
• the term "overlinking" has never been used before by you (User Looie496) nor me;
  

• It seems to me like you are not assuming good faith towards me with these insinuations;
  
• I just kinldy asked you if you could wait 24 hours of time before answering you properly but it seems like you couldn't wait even 8 hours for posting directly on this Administrators noticeboard. (For the news I found two tracing cookies on my comp. And this needs indeed some attention priority I guess. But ok, it doesn't matter: here I am.)
  
• I personally find your statement that I gave "bizarre responses" subtly offensive. I certainly didn't use this kind of language with you;
  
• I don't see any "drama" honestly in your over-undoing the alleged over-linking: I just made the numbers 4 and over 7 in bold which I tried to give a percentage idea of your undoing over the total last 7 (seven) edits. 57.142% to be precise: something that I find a bit "excessive", yes.
  
• Responding to Toddst1. Yes: I am an administrator on the sicilian language[REDACTED] for example and I never wrote I was an administrator on the english wikipedia;
  
• You allready troubled an administrator: me. I am personally going to undo all the "drama" that I created.
  

Someone should keep an eye on Looie496 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves): I will for sure.
Please try to keep yourself "blue": because it seems like you got a bit "red" lately.
Have a nice sunday and let's try to be friends like before.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Carbonaro, this is an extremely strange way to react to a polite attempt at discussion. Be advised that if you continue communicating in this vein, your presence here may be judged to be disruptive.  Sandstein  12:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maurice ... first, when there's a potential for disruption, you know that no version of Misplaced Pages can wait 24hrs for resolution. Second, you admit above that you created "drama" that you will now undo ... um, Misplaced Pages is not a place to experiment in the creation of drama (I personally recommend local theatre for that, although I am more of a fan of comedy in place of drama). Third, if you had responded politely in the first case (and had assumed good faith from the start), we would not be here at all to discuss this. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to claim to be an administrator without disclosing that you are not an administrator of the English Misplaced Pages? -- Darth Mike  15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Carbonaro is an administrator on the Sicilian Misplaced Pages (http://scn.wikipedia.org) per this result from sulutil. I share the above concern that Maurice's response may have been over the top, calling Looie496 an 'undoing revisionist' and critiquing some of his recent contributions, rather than just giving his own opinion on Looie's proposed changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Maurice has voluntarily reversed the edit that started this, I'd be happy to let the matter drop. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Nukes4Tots is back from his second block in a week

User:Nukes4Tots is just hours back from his second block in a week], and he has proceeded to call me a stalker 4(!!) times since returning], ], ],], because I filed a second CheckUser on him. The most recent CheckUser I filed is currently hidden from regular users and has been deferred to ArbCom, so any further details are currently unavailable unless you contact ArbCom. I will just say that calling someone a stalker over 4 times, across multiple pages, and after returning from a block, isn't really conducive to civil editing to a collaborative environment. I realize that people don't like to be accused of or busted for sockpuppeting, but 'stalker' is definitely a disparaging and uncivil term. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can an administrator please chime in on this? Clearly a case of wikihounding. I'm not going to bother with all of the diffs on this one defending myself. I'm using the term "stalker" as that's what it is. He won and lost arguments with me and has now reported me about a dozen times for various real and imagined issues. He's also spreading his stalking around to other users such as Sus scrofa because he, like me, edits firearms articles. Theserialcomma has a professed vendetta against people who edit firearms articles. I'm tired of this. Drop the stick already. A reasonable person test would demonstrate that my use of the term "stalker" is appropriate and a bit understated. Check his edit history. Check this series of edits where this user went back years in my and other users edit history digging up "evidence" to try and bury me. Really, I don't need this. It's time to back away from the carcass. I am clearly being harassed here as are other unrelated users like user:DanMP5, user:Koalorka, and user:Sus scrofa. I'd like some action to prevent this. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop being paranoid and stop making frivolous accusations. You've abused our sockpuppetry policies in the past – Theserialcomma is revisiting these issues by bringing up prima facie legitimate SPI cases. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

people should know that 1. Nishkid64 is the actual checkuser who gathered the evidence of the first SPI and then deferred the situation to ArbCom. If Nishkid64 says this guy has abused sockpuppetry policies and is making frivolous accusations, then that means something. I, out of respect for Nishkid and ArbCom, cannot comment further on the first checkuser evidence. but what i will say is that Nukes4Tots has a lot of nerve to be so disingenuous as to make any nonsense claims as to the "evidence" i gathered. he has so much nerve that it's unbelievable. how dare he leverage and manipulate the silence that was awarded to him by ArbCom so that he can make false claims against me that I'm not allowed to defend. I know the truth, he knows the truth, Nishkid64(the checkuser) knows the truth, and ArbCom knows the truth. Nukes4Tots is manipulating all of our kindness. however, i stand by my evidence 100%. as for the second checkuser that i filed tonight regarding new sockpuppets, the whole thing has been hidden and deferred to ArbCom. only the first checkuser is currently visible, but the results are hidden. and as for Nukes4Tots calling me all sorts of variations of stalker and everything else, i believe that if he cannot provide clear and unambiguous diffs for his claims, then he is making a direct personal attack. and that shouldn't be tolerated. especially from someone whose alleged sockpuppet accounts have been blocked like 10 times. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the interests of transparency, can ArbCom (or Nishkid on their behalf) explain why a) this information is being withheld from the community, and therefore b) why an abusive sockpuppeteer is allowed to remain? //roux   07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

One question here, the old case is over, why is there a new case? Please perform a checkuser and get it over with. This is not a legitemate SPI case. The only evidence submitted was that somebody edited firearms articles while I was banned. It's fine to attack me but to go after people JUST because they edit firearms articles is rotten. And why is it I cannot complain about harassment (which I've been doing since about the fifth or sixth report) yet Theserialcomma is free to complain about anything? Not sure why the double standard. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you've been complaining about harassment, stalking, wikihounding for over a year now. Just drop it, already. I'm sick of "mediating" this spat between you two. Roux, I've contacted the Arbitration Committee for an update, but I received no reply. I sent the case over to them because it involved some real-life harassment, and I felt ArbCom had better resources to deal with it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to file a request for clarification? It's really unacceptable to have disputes here that admins can't touch because supposedly Arbcom is handling them, even though Arbcom has not given any sign of it as far as I can tell. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

just for clarification, the 'stalker'/'harasser'/etc. from a year ago was someone else. i'm a different 'stalker.' also, calling someone a stalker without diffs should be considered a personal attack, and i hope that someone will ask him to choose his words more carefully, or show real evidence. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will apologize for using the word stalker if that offends you, however you have been harassing me. If you take offense to the word harasser (your word), then I don't know where to go from there because I take offense to the word sockpuppet. By your professed standard, I cannot accuse you of ANYTHING because the mere accusation becomes a personal attack. I find that standard to be absurd and hypocritical. I thought that you'd backed off and dropped the stick, I don't know why you brought it up again nor why you felt the need to take it here as you were already appealing to an admin. You won your battles and now you want to try to refight them and then re-refight them and then re-re-refight them. Please, drop the stick. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't really take offence to the word 'sockpuppet' when it's been proven you've used them, FYI. //roux   20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, his dozen reports of me for various items, half of which he himself baited me into, so long as they are proven to be harassment by Misplaced Pages's definition, would give me immunity to call him a wikihound? Am I seeing something here that's not there? Am I seeing a double standard where the accuser, so long as he continues to accuse, gets a by on his pushing the envelope yet I am held to a higher standard because of my real and imagined violations? I can't call him out on his wikihounding because the mere mention of my accusation is somehow now a hate crime... a personal attack; THAT is what this report is about right? My acusation of "wikihounding" is a personal attack... that's the heart of this report. I can't accuse him of wikihounding until it's actually proven that he's a wikihound? Can I get a do-over too? I want to know how I can report him for wikihounding without actually using the word... Shhhhh, I'm just doing this for demonstrative purposes... stalker? So, why is it that WP:STALK directs you to the harassment article? If the use of the word stalker is a personal attack, then Misplaced Pages is complicit in this wrongdoing by letting the word be used. Cheese and crackers. Is there a reasonable level of sensitivity that I can presume or can I say NOTHING anymore for fear that Theserialcomma will call it a personal attack? (disclaimer: the use of the word cracker is not intended as a personal insult. I apologize in advanced for any and all offended parties or hurt feelings that might result from my use of this controversial word. I did it out of the spirit of debate and discussion) (redisclaimer: the use of the word "spirit" is not intended to imply the existance or absence of a God. I apologize in advance to all God-fearing and athiests alike for any mental trauma caused by my use of this word) (re-redisclaimer: the use of the word "mental" is intended in the scientific term. I in no way, shape or form intended for this word to offend those suffering from psychiatric conditions) --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you stop with the random nonsense and address the fact that you have--proven!--used sockpuppets abusively? Unless and until you do that, there's not a whole lot of point in listening to anything you say, given that this "I'll throw out a bunch of attacks" thing is your usual MO. //roux   07:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

← Until the ArbCom responds to this, there's not much point in arguing this further here. Let's chill for the moment. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What shall we do about this editor?

Fortynateyate (talk · contribs) has some interesting contributions...and the saga around Rod Dreher continues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's very likely he's a sock of the blocked User:Rod Dreher, and he absolutely a sock of User:Wilerch, as they shared an IP in a dialup pool in the same timeframe. I'm not home right now, but I have more info on this on my home PC. Casliber, look for my post to the Functionaries-en-l list on this subject from ~two days ago. --Versageek 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So can we R_I the AFD? (You guys get to do the B bit, no shiny button for me). //roux   04:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All accounts blocked. AFD kept. seicer | talk | contribs 04:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This needs a checkuser, someone's playing silly buggers. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a checkuser, and I have checked them starting shortly after User:Rod Dreher was disclosed to be an impersonator. Oddly enough, this fellow, the impersonator and Wilerch are all on the same dialup ISP as was the IP which inserted nasty vandalism in Dreher's article before the whole affair started. There are some other things that I was hoping another CU would take a look at before we started blocking accounts. However, after he started this fourth AfD it seemed prudent to close the sock drawer and put an end to the nonsense. --Versageek 06:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that we had new CUs... Tony Fox (arf!) 06:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward the opinion that we should fully protect this article for a week or two. The subject has already had to tolerate "someone playing silly buggers" with his biography and out of fairness we ought to take all available steps to prevent recurrence in the immediate future. However, I do not intend to implement this without some degree of consensus, given the kerfuffle such things tend to generate. CIreland (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The BLP-violating revisions got restored after the article was accidentally deleted and restored. Someone should redelete them. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.--Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster

After the AfD for Cloudbuster closed User:Verbal unilaterally merged it to orgone, making a false claim that this was per the AfD (the closing statement actually reads "The result was keep. Any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages" - I make count of votes 6 delete,including the nominator and verbal), 2 redirect, 3 merge, 9 keep.)

This was rolled back twice and a merge discussion started, with user:Verbal reverting to the merged version both times. User:Sloane then picked up the torch, making the somewhat bizarre argument that the redirect should be kept until the discussion is complete (note that the discusson as it stands is overwhelmingly against the merger).

I request that these users be dissuaded from this course of action, and the merge discussion be allowed to run it's course before any user attempts merging the pages. Artw (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: ArbCom has imposed broad sanctions on the editing of Pseudoscience-related articles such as orgone, which is explicitly flagged as "on probation". Perhaps cloud-buster should be similarly flagged. -- Shunpiker (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looking back at the afd, I see 9 merges/redirects, 1 delete and 8 keeps. User:Verbal was not at fault for being bold and redirecting the article. Also, the Cloudbuster article isn't classified under Pseudoscience but under Alternative Medicine, and had no Arbcom tag applied to it, until after this incident report was filed.--Sloane (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I count 9 boldface "keeps" in a discussion with 18 participants including the nominator. I do not understand how an experienced editor could construe that and (more importantly) a "keep" close as a consensus for merge or redirect. Overriding process and then reverting challengers is not WP:BOLD. FWIW, the Cloudbuster article was classified under Category:Orgone energy, which in turn is classified under Category:Pseudoscience. --Shunpiker (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you how I read that !vote: there are not enough to keep the article in and of itself, but an overwhelming majority to keep the content. As such, since merge will keep the article content... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There are appropriate ways to discuss merging, AfD is not one one them. Outcomes of AfD discussions are not decided by headcount but by policy. The closing admin makes the decision regarding policy consensus, in this case it was keep with a recommendation to discuss merging. The merger did indeed not preserve the integrity of the information and even if it did it would be inappropriate to do so without prior discussion. The instruction to start an 'unmerge' discussion is also not particularly diplomatic. Unomi (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that Artw contacted both User:Verbal and User:Sloane to comment on this ANI. Ikip (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looking back on the afd closing comments it clearly states that further discussion is to take place prior to merger. Also, insinuating that merging Cloudbuster into Orgone doesn't constitute editing of Orgone is 'novel'. Further, the initial unilateral merger constituted of cutting the contents of Cloudbuster down to a paragraph. The people agitating for a merger should at the very least have made a userspace version of how they envisioned the resultant article should look, and then merge once/if consensus was reached. Unomi (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I see only 3 sources at cloudbuster. One of them is a Kate Bush music video, and the other two are explicitly about orgone. That's not exactly screaming "I deserve a standalone article!" Instead of edit-warring over the merge and demanding that the other guy needs to jump through the following 6 hoops, find some decent sources. If the article is redirected for 3 days, it's not the end of the world. Spend the time digging up a few decent sources and working them into a text, instead of edit-warring, and then it will be obvious that cloudbuster needs its own article. Right now, it's a hard sell: the sources cited in the article directly support the argument that it should be merged, and all I see from both sides is unproductive edit-warring and wikilawyering. MastCell  22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, MastCell. Stop trying to inject logic at AN. Silly admin. Your spoiling the view from the balcony. Keeper | 76 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly given examples of reliable independent sources that are written primarily about cloudbusters and only tangentially mention Orgone. You can find these in both the AFD Discussion and the merge discussion, if you take the time to search for my comments. I have not worked to incorporate these sources into the page because the discussions were still going on and I didn't want to have my diligent work hastily thrown away if there was a consensus to delete or merge. I would appreciate it if we would consider what sources are out there, not only the ones listed in the article--which I might add is in a pretty sorry state. Thanks. I think it's sad that the discussion has spilled over onto this administrative page.  :-( We all need to be more civil here, myself included. Cazort (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Biblbroks

User:Biblbroks has been behaving in a disruptive way on the article International recognition of Kosovo, mostly on the talk page. He seems to have an issue with the page title and has posted numerous times on the talk page (consensus has previously been reached that the current title is NPOV and acceptable). Normally this would not be a problem, but his posts are extremely long and impenetrable, and he does not react well to counter-argument. (I cannot explain this particularly well, you need to read the thread to understand what I mean - see here.) In one of his most recent posts he pasted similar sentences countless times, filling the screen. At the end of this post he stated, "I'm sorry and that I am ready to face the consequences of my actions, however severe they may be," which seems to be inviting a ban (he has a history of them). He also redirected the article to a new title (the page is protected against moves), which was quickly reverted. Although I believe he is acting in good faith, this is not the way to behave. Can anything be done? Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second Bazonka. I have also warned Biblbroks, but he refuses to listen and continues to be disruptive. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Alyster

User:Alyster has made a serious very insulting statement-attacks, which according to the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks are not allowed. The user made such statements:

"Türa down lõpeta mu kalli armee laimamine sellega et ta osales Teises maailmasõjas...Ja ära topi Viru õlle lehte mu kalli Viru pati lingiks. Krdi pidur."

Which in translation from Estonia to English means:

"You cunt, retard, stop harassing my bellowed army with it's participation in World War II. And don't put any Viru beer link as a link to my bellowed Viru Battalion link. Stupid "brake" (which might have been as meant "pidar" which is a slang word for gay in Russian)"

I believe that the user Alyster thinks or feels that some pages belong to him in[REDACTED] which by my knowledge is a violation of the WP:NOT of the point "...personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic" and the WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND of the "wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear". I have never myself used such vulgar language against others in all the time I have been editing pages in Misplaced Pages. Neither have I ever received before such insults in Misplaced Pages. I'm concerned about the user use of language and attitude. I have not answered to his insulting statement yet as I believe it would only encourage him to use more of that vulgar language.

Can anything be done in order to cool this user down and to make him to respect the Misplaced Pages general rules of being and getting along with everybody? Thanks. Karabinier (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a generic WP:NPA warning on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If that translation is accurate then I would say a block would be better than a warning. When people become abusive in content disputes it is our neutrality that is damaged, and we really like our neutrality. If this user keeps this stuff up, feel free to post a message on my talk page. Chillum 16:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to verify the translation, and while I assume good faith of the complainant I see that no-one appears to have interacted with the "miscreant" in mentioning that such comments are unacceptable. In the absence of definitive proof of the content, I think a warning is sufficient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that we should assume good faith until the translation is confirmed, I don't think people need to be told not to call each other "cunts". I think we can safely assume people know that type of human interaction is not appropriate. Chillum 16:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The only part I can make out for certain is "defamation of my army." I have a friend that speaks Estonian fluently; I will IM her and ask her to translate it for me. Should only take a few minutes. Landon1980 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cmp7 (talk · contribs) and WP:FAKE

I've been having trouble with the user Cmp7 for a while now. For starters, he created the Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) article, that for all intents and purposes, should not exist in the first place. None of his sources, or any that I could find on google, say anything about a "second phase" of a war that ended years ago, or mention anything about guerilla warfare at all. In fact, none of the listed events in the article have even occurred in Chechnya. Nonetheless, my proposal to delete the article ended in no consensus because there were only about three other replies, one of whom was the article creator, and another of whom is a notorious conspiracy theorist who supports any article which portrays Russia or its government in a bad light (and who on numerous occasions has accused people of being Russian agents). But that nonsense aside, anyone can objectively look at the page and see that its sources do not at all match the theme of a "new phase" of a "guerrilla war" in Chechnya.

Anyhow, I decided that if the article were to stay, the information may as well be accurate. I fixed a bunch of errors and added information, all of which is exactly according to his own sources. Then a couple days later, he makes this series of edits and basically removes and reverts my changes under the guise of "making corrections". Well, clearly most of those aren't corrections at all if you read the sources. So I asked him about it on his talk page. He replied to me on my user page saying he was sorry and that I was right, then asked me how to reply to someone's talk page, something I find rather suspicious considering the fact that he managed to create an article, reply to the proposed deletion page, and use the talk page of a different article. At this point I started to think maybe he was just a troll or sock playing dumb (but I didn't say anything, I was trying to assume good faith).

So after I made the same corrections for a second time, and after he flatly admitted I was right and said sorry, he did the exact same thing again. I also noticed that he deleted my comment on his talk page, with the edit summary "corrected mistakes". You can interpret that any way you like, but it's a little hard to be assuming good faith at this point.

Even all the reverting aside, there's the fact that he keeps adding fictional information to the article (and did the same thing in the Second Chechen War article (he even manipulated numbers) that had to be reverted by another user). IF you check his edit history, it's full of number manipulation related to the topic of the Chechen wars. His latest dubious addition is an edit claiming that a helicopter was shot down. If you read the sources, all it says is that a helicopter had to land because gunman was wounded, and specifically that the helicopter sustained no damage.

Anyways, I don't know what this guys deal is, but I think something definitely needs to be done. Creating fictional conflicts is bad enough, much less manipulating and spreading misinformation about actual events. I've already twice tried to explain to him about reliable sources, and twice directed him to the appropriate policies, but obviously that's not getting through to him.

One more thing to point out that's perhaps related. When I originally marked the page for uncontested deletion, only a few days after its creation and when only one user had ever edited it, the other user I mentioned above who voted against deletion, Biophys, removed the template a mere 15 minutes after I had added it. So this tiny article that virtually no one yet knew existed was apparently on his watched list for some reason, and he's the only other person to defend it. Is that grounds enough for a sock check? LokiiT (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Issued uw-4 to the editor for original research/synthesis. Editor may be blocked on next unexplained change of numbers or addition of synthesized material. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TreadingWater and Generation Jones

I have a possible sock puppet to be considered, but it doesn't quite meet any of the investigation reasons....

TreadingWater (talk · contribs) has two recent reverts on Generation Jones and Baby Boomer. 170.170.59.139 (talk · contribs) just did a third, with an insulting edit comment. I don't think it quite ripe for a 3RR investigation, but it's still edit-warring. In both cases Knulclunk (talk · contribs) and I are on ther other side, proposing a more-or-less compromise position for Baby Boomer, and I'm proposing deleting succession boxes rather than tagging almost all entries in the box as disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial edits by Duffbeerforme

Duffbeerforme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is basically a follow-up to /

Several people seem to be visibly annoyed by this editor's behavior of borderline edit warring and page-blanking/redirecting without consensus. User has been warned several times for his highly controversial edits, incl. but it looks like the editor is not willing to change anything. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It also should be noted that all given examples seem to proof a case of WP:HOUND, since all the articles were edited by Duffbeerforme only after I mentioned or edited them. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 21:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't read all the diffs - the AfD tag edit-warring looked wrong, but he's completely correct about A Beginning - should be redirected; I have done so. Black Kite 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's an ongoing discussion with not only me opposing a merge.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord points to four warnings for vandalism for edits that were not vandalism. HexaChord points to edits made which respect WP:MUSIC. HexaChord points to nothing done wrong. HexaChord is bitter because I dared to suggest that articles based around Buckethead are subject to the same standards that apply to everthing else. HexaChord needs another look at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. I'm not scared off by bullying or by baseless warnings. Complaint does not show I've done anything wrong, just that I am willing to stand up to support the truth. Duffbeerforme (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is that several other editors such as User:Zclone and User:EOA3928 are annoyed, too. It was not me who reported you to WP:AIV today: . --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord's claim of WP:HOUND, is based of false claims. See Duffbeerforme (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, this one article is the only exception from the list. Sorry for that. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord, your complaints are from February. User:Zclone's AIV listing were removed here. Are you saying that Duffbeer has been on a one month personal campaign against you? I see a number of prods on articles, mostly focusing on Buckethead (or somewhat related) but nothing that seems particularly out there. He prods a bunch of articles, you deprod them, and both actions seem fine. The redirects are within policy as well. He redirects (as a bold move), you revert, fine. If he lists at AFD, then fine. It doesn't look too out there for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and User:EOA3928's complaint here seems to be based on a desire to use primary sources and forums against policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Ricky's comment above, I removed the report from AIV because the recent actions weren't obvious WP:Vandalism and the discussion was turning AIV into a drama board. AIV is not the place to sort things out and frankly I didn't see any wrongdoing in my brief look into the situation. It looked more like a content dispute to me so I left a note for Zclone to that effect. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

About the hound: After Duffy nominated all Buckethead song articles for deletion, he continued with some Beatles related articles I had mentioned before, and today he began a raid on all Hurt related articles shortly after I contributed to the AfD on the band's main article. Am I paranoid? I posted the AIV link only as evidence that it is not only me who's annoyed. And if you follow the links above, it's going back half a year at least. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 23:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the first AFD I looked at, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ballad_of_Buckethead seems to have been validated by many of your peers. Where's the beef? Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been no response, I looked further on my own. Here's what I found in terms of recent AFDs from Duffbeerforme:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/December EP: open, no discussion yet
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Liam Bedford: open, all votes are for delete
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Beaucoups of Blues (song): closed, no consensus
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Binge and Grab: closed, delete, HexaChord was the only editor commenting keep
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Big Sur Moon: closed, no consensus delete, HexaChord was the only editor commenting keep
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/We Are One (Buckethead song): closed, result redirect, HexaChord was the only editor commenting keep
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Ballad of Buckethead: closed, result redirect

It appears to me that there is not a problem with Duffbeerforme's pattern of nominating articles for deletion at all. If anyone has an outlying position, it's HexaChord. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course you left out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jordan (song), which followed this edit, as well as the other AfDs where I was not the only one to !vote keep. But that's not the point at all, is it?. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 00:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Omission was not deliberate. The point is there is not a problem with Duffbeerforme's pattern of nominating articles for deletion at all. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The pattern of nominating articles for deletion never was the point of this case. Remember, we're not talking about some AfDs (which would be a whole different case), but about some controversial page blanks/redirects, followed by some borderline edit warring. Since this did not only occur with me but also with several other editors in the past, it probably is not my problem in the first place. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I (and two other admins) haven't found anything worth administrative action against Duff and I've spent a fair amount of time investigating this. I have found several folks who don't know what WP:Vandalism is including a rollbacker (which is the most troubling thing I've found). I think we're done here and I'll mark this resolved - again - in a few minutes unless someone can show something more than a difference of opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're already committed and should not close this.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Toddst1's close, I can close it with the same verbiage, and I haven't been involved in any of the deletion discussions or the attendant drama. In case you're counting, this makes four admins that agree that there is no problem here. Horologium (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Banned user with a clean block log

Wanli (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). He got sitebanned by the early developers circa 2003, but his block log is clean. Could an admin please look into this? →Dyl@n620 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The logs began appearing after 2004 or so. No users blocked before then will be in the conventional logs. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked User:Isis, User:Khranus, User:BuddhaInside, User:Reithy, User:Weezer, User:EntmootsOfTrolls, and User:DW (who should be tagged as banned) indefinitely over a period from 2006 to 2009 per their Jimbo-enforced bans enacted from 2003-2004. I was wondering if the same could be done for Wanli. →Dyl@n620 01:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you wasting time on a user who made 30 edits back in 2003? Looie496 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible block evasion?

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

94.192 was recently blocked for edit-warring. 76.241 has popped up shortly after the block and is edit-warring on Antun Saadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a page that 94.192 previously edit-warred on, with identical edits and rationales. 94.192 has previously threatened to evade blocks. Perhaps a coincidence. THF (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The WHOIS indicates different countries (UK/USA), but I am not familiar enough with proxying to assume that these are different people. I suppose it comes down to whether enough people consider WP:DUCK should be invoked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I would hazard that they are not - they may for whatever reason object to SSNP figures or party being compared to the Nazi party. Further, I don't see that particular subject recently being edited by 94.192. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it may be a coincidence, esp. given the geographic disparity, but I first ran into 94.192 with the identical page-blanking issue. Of course, it's perfectly within the realm of possibility that two different editors have the same agenda with respect to SSNP figures. THF (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ahad's Constant

I am not sure what if anything should be done, but a quick glance of this article's AfD shows an unusually high number of single-purpose accounts and IPs which in many instances just voted with no argument. As such, I am not sure how real of a consensus we are getting from that discussion. And while everyone knows me as an inclusionist, I think in this particular case the suspicious IPs and accounts are mostly on the keep side. The subject does get some Google Hits (although no news, book, or scholar ones), so it may not be a hoax, but I don't know, something just doesn't seem right in the discussion... I apologize if this posting here is out of place, but as a member of the Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron, I was going through the rescue templated articles to see how I could help and after fixing the reference format within the article under discussion checked out the AfD and noticed all the accounts and IPs that seemed suspcious. Anyway, it may be worth further looking at to see if there is some kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just add the {{spa}} tag to the SPA !votes. Up to the closing admin to sort through the nonsense, since an AFD is not supposed to be a nose-counting procedure. May want to leave a note at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, in case they're more familiar with what's behind this. THF (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, definite off-wiki canvassing behind the multiple SPA votes. THF (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Wow. Good find! Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mm, that's going to be a charlie foxtrot, there. The off-Wiki canvassing makes me think an early close and reboot with semiprotection might be necessary if it gets too out of hand. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• I tried requesting semi-protection on the discussion at WP:RFPP a day or two ago (it was already bad IMO back then), but was shot down. MuZemike 01:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I should also add (after reading the obvious Wikicanvassing attempt) this: what part of this is not a majority vote do they not understand? There is a big huge box clearly explaining this on top of the page, right when they click on the link! This is stuff I would expect from teenage fanboys canvassing on an AFD about a video game someone made in their mother's basement, not from a bunch of intellectuals about a topic in Physics! MuZemike 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, did you ever happen to see the lists of participants at most of the smaller WikiProjects? They clearly state "Please add your name BELOW in ALPHABETICAL order" - but, ehm - you know... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 01:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(only semi-related but probably good to bring up now) For future reference, I've set up an abuse filter to try and detect socking at AfD discussions. Special:AbuseFilter/67 should trigger (i.e., log a hit) if there are two separate instances of editors on the same IP range adding a !vote to an AfD discussion within a two-and-a-half day period. There's more detail on the filter about how it should work, but if you suspect socking at an AfD, give the filter logs a glance. This will be far from reliable, but should help. Hersfold 01:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ahad's constant" was kicked out of Scientific_phenomena_named_after_people last month. All the references to it are in blogs. --John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Cosmos Raver

Based on a series of abusive edits (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) to Tadakuni's user page, as well as similarly abusive edits (here, here, here, here, and here) to Tadakuni's awards page and to his talk page (here, here, here, here, here, and here), I blocked Cosmos River as a sockpuppet of Darin Fidika. This user is now complaining about this, so I bring it here for review. To me, it's fairly obvious this is Darin Fidika, based on the articles edited and what the edits were. Please comment here (or on the talk page there. Thanks! ···日本穣 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think his status as a sock is irrelevant. Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm bringing it here for review, anyway, as he seems to think I'm evil or something (I do have a userbox on my page that says I am, so maybe he's right?). Oddly enough, I just stumbled on it while reviewing another edit. While looking through a series of edits made by this user, I noticed the ones listed above and things clicked. ···日本穣 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If this UID had merely been dicking around with somebody else's user page, he might merit a strong warning, and, if this were ineffectual, a short block. However, Fidika is blocked indefinitely. "Cosmos Raver":

1. is intent on readding samurai-related factoids sourced to Fidika's favorite wiki (e.g. here or here);
2. exhibits Fidika's inimitable prose style: "pretending as if his actions had been virtually substantial to Misplaced Pages's quality standards"; "If you don't believe that Tadakuni is deserving of any fault then you shouldn't be an administrator, because it's very apparent I intend on helping Misplaced Pages and am not speaking words that are disapprovable"; etc etc.

"Cosmos Raver" is a sock of an indefinitely blocked user, and should be treated as such. Putting myself in maximum-solemnity mode (as befits this august page), my only difference with Nihonjoe is where he writes it's fairly obvious this is Darin Fidika: it's not fairly obvious, it's blazingly obvious. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably Fidika, but he seems much meaner than the old socks / the original Fidika. I remember him making arguments trying to justify his plagiarism, but I don't remember him vandalizing user pages or mass-reverting admins. Regardless, I think this user ought to remain blocked. The owners of the original material that formed SamuraiWiki had been talking about lawsuits, and this guy's agenda seems to be to push the re-inclusion of suspect content. Mangojuice 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kuuzo had his own problems. Sure, he could have filed a suit, but it wouldn't have gone anywhere as the issue was addressed as soon as we were made aware of it. That's all that's required because anyone can edit Misplaced Pages. As long as we address the issue in a reasonable amount of time, he can't ask for anything more. And I agree he (Fidika) seems to be meaner now. ···日本穣 04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure so this is why im asking

http://en.wikipedia.org/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/02#Whitehat.servehttp.com

I understand why this domain is not whitelisted, but I just want to make sure Guy is talking about *.servehttp.com and not whitehat.servehttp.com. It just confused me when he said it was blacklisted for abuse. --Deo Favente (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed over there. — neuro 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Related information" sections

User:Butwhatdoiknow, based on reasoning outlined here, has been adding the heading "Related information" before templates in articles. See for instance here, here, here. Now, before this spins out of control, can we agree that the perceived "benefits" of adding this header are very thin indeed, that it needlessly clutters up articles, that no one asked for this change, and that certainly no broad consensus has been reached for it? - Biruitorul 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I am happy that you agree the proposal has benefits, albeit thin in your opinion. Second, if there is a benefit then the cluttering is not "needless." Instead the issue is whether the benefit outweighs the cost. Third, I am not familiar with a "someone must ask for a change for it to be valid" rule. Can you point it out to me? Fourth, saying that no consensus has been reached is a Catch-22 objection that is contrary to wp:CCC. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Very thin indeed" is a polite way of saying "zero". The idea has zero benefits that I can see. Also, see WP:CREEP - we can't have rules for everything, but in general it's a bad idea trying to impose a change on thousands of articles without broad consensus. - Biruitorul 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems like something which would be better posted to the WP:PUMP (specifically the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) board). ···日本穣

it's pointless cluttering of articles, and most of his 'reasons' aren't really reasoned responses to objections, but 'ilikeit' responses about how useful he thinks it will be. I'm reverting in the three examples above. Also, editor needs to be notified. I'll do that after reverts. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The clutter is pointless if there is no benefit. I've outlined several benefits here . Are you saying that none of these are actual benefits or that the cost of the clutter outweighs those benefits? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors was notified, and I note that his talk page already has a great deal of objection to the edits, but he seems intent on continuing it. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk page has objections from two editors. As soon as I received the first objection I stopped adding the "Related information" heading pending wp:consensus regarding that editor's concerns. That editor, however, refused to discuss the substance of his objection. Then a friend of the first editor objected and suggested I put the idea out for comment, which I did. So much for "a great deal of objection" and "intent on continuing it." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit from this heading. If someone is familiar with the structure of Misplaced Pages articles, they will know to expect these templates to appear at the end of the article. And if they are not familiar with the structure of Misplaced Pages articles, they won't know to expect these templates to exist at all, although they may be pleasantly surprised to find them once they get to the end of the article and see them. Just putting in the phrase "Related information" isn't going to be of much help. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I percieve to be one clear benefit: Some articles have navboxes and some don't. At present, the only way to find out whether an article has a navbox is to click on the heading for the last appendix and then scroll down. A "Related information" heading alerts the reader in the table of contents that there is helpful information after the last appendix section and allows the reader to click to that information if the reader is interested. Are you saying that this is not a benefit or are you saying that the cost of the "clutter" outweighs the benefit? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly the only one finding a benefit. I'll go one further. Unlike 'See Also' and 'External links', which are fairly obvious in their purposes to new wiki-users, 'related information' sounds like 'here's a section about stuff we couldn't fit into the article in other ways'. Those readers looking for what you call 'related info', will probably look at 'see also' for such things, and find the templates and such that way. Yours instead tryign to gourp all that end of article stuff under one either redundant or confusing header. ThuranX (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, did you actually look into this at all? If you had, you would "clearly" see that Bwdik is not the only one finding a benefit. You would also see that this noticeboard is not for content disputes. No administrator action is required here. You are free to comment in appropriate locations. Bwdik is very politely working to gain consensus and I haven't noticed too many people who actually edit the articles objecting to their changes so far. Franamax (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, it's not a matter for just those few pages, as he's attempting to institute a project wide change. So those articles' pages aren't the best places for this, as conflicting consensii may emerge. he hasn't proposed it anywhere else, so this is as good a place as any to show that it's not an idea that's going to take root. ThuranX (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I see two people finding a benefit and at least four objecting loudly. That hardly constitutes consensus. - Biruitorul 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Username question

I think this falls under Misplaced Pages:CHILD which should be brought here. See Iminpuberty (talk · contribs). I'll defer action to others. Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No objectionable (or indeed any) edits and no obviously disruptive username, so any discussion should take place at WP:RFCN.  Sandstein  06:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Once they start editing (there are no contribs as of a minute ago), someone could suggest they change their name, to avoid the drama associated with self-identified children. If they start posting identifiable information, that's much more serious. But at this point, the user hasn't edited, so I don't think this is actionable. -kotra (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Tough call. I look at it this way; either it's true, a joke, trolling or a (pedo) trap. The first case, a recommendation to change username would be in order. The joke case, probably OK to ignore, but a change username should be recommended to prevent further drama. The last two probably merit immediate blocking as they are potentially detrimental to the project. The safest route is to probably recommend a change username. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Mendaliv, though I might go so far as suggesting that we should insist that a name change occurs if the user wishes to edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let's use the brains God (or your local variant) gave us: there is no way this is the username of a child. Act accordingly. //roux   07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussing with user. — neuro 16:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SP

{{subst:discussion top|Forum shopping - take to Misplaced Pages talk:Subpages. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop#Temporary injunction: non-interference with relevant policy and other related guidance for the duration of this case --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)}}

I made some changes to Misplaced Pages:Subpage, which Francis Schoenen reverted. I restored them here. Frank characterizes my changes as "tendentious, inaccurate". What do you think? -Stevertigo 08:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Forum shopping or otherwise, this should probably not be archived by an involved party. –xeno (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: Gwinndeith

Gwinndeith (talk · contribs) engaged in disruptive editing at Center Against Expulsions, a planned museum of both the German government and the German Federation of Expellees.

Disruption in mainspace:

• Gwinndeith (talk · contribs) introduced him/herself with this edit, calling the head of the federation "a daughter born to Nazi Germany stationed in occupied Poland who claims expellee status", altering the museum's objective as outlined in the respective German law and the charta as "claims" and altering the text in a WP:POINTy manner.
• This edit was rolled back by another user, restored by an IP most certainly Gwinndeith and reverted by me .
• Gwinndeith then introduced a bunch of unsourced "claims" the museum allegedly made in respect to the history of Gdansk which I reverted
• Gwinndeith then again introduced the information that the head of the foundation is a "a daughter born to Nazi Germany " among other stuff which I reverted.
• Gwinndeith tagged the article with a POV-tag, re-introduced the "claims" about Gdansk and added paragraphs to the criticism section detailing the views (most certainly in line with Gwinndeith's views) of a writer and a Holocaust survivor devoting an own paragraph to each. These paragraphs were then combined to a section "Jewish criticism" because both critics were of Jewish descent When I tried to integrate the views of these two in the views already stated in the criticism section per WP:UNDUE, this was reverted, again the museum's objectives declared as "claims", and the head of the federation tagged with a POV- and a weasel-tag because the information about her "Nazi father" was removed
• This was restored, along with the removal of information another user has added in the meantime, i.e. that one of the critics said something positive about the head of the federation (the"Nazi daughter").

Talk: According to WP:DE and WP:DONTBITE Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) and I outlined the relevant policies at Gwinndeith' talk page. Also I forwarded a discussion at the article's talk page outlining the respective policies WP:WTA WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE WP:BLP WP:POINT which s/he did not adhere to, also the respective arbitration cases.

I think I have exhausted the steps outlined at WP:DE and that the behaviour shown by Gwinndeith matches the behaviour described there as typically disruptive, and thus I turn here. A glance at the edit history of Gwinndeith shows that before turning to the article in question, s/he was devoted to "cleaning" articles from German names. I also doubt from his/her behaviour that s/he is really that new to wiki (account is of early Feb 2009). Skäpperöd (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I ask admins to look into what Skapperod writes-not all links show what he claims is happening. The main controversy is that Erika Steinbach is born to Nazi Germany soldier in occupied Poland and claims status as expelle. The fragments Skapperod cut do not show what I wrote-the precise wording was that she is a daughter of Nazi Geramny soldier in occupied Poland not "daughter of Nazi Germany". This fact has been brought up by Polish government in discussions with Germany.

Skapperod removed information that people have retreated from support of the Centre and the POV template on his own, while the dispute was ongoing.

I asked Skapperod to remove the template after the dispute will be over and seek third party solution as he the side of the dispute(before Skapperod created thread here)

As to Jewish criticism I am opened to discussion-criticism by Holocaust Survivors would be ok. But arguments of those people should be represented not removed.

I oppose Skapperod's removal of criticism by various people and removal of referenced information, as well as removal of arguments for the criticism which are removed.--Gwinndeith (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to make this look like it was a content dispute, but it is not. It is mud slinging agenda pushing. "A daughter born to Nazi Germany" are your words, added repeatedly, don't accuse me of misquoting. These words and your subsequent tagging are directed against a member of the German parliament. Previously you accused wiki editors of writing an article that reads like a neo-Nazi campaign. Some of what you edited to be "claims" is a project of the German federal government ruled out in federal German law. Of course criticism should be stated, and there is a section on criticism already. But to full quote someone whose notability for this project is questionable at least who calls the German government "nationalistic", "arrogant" and self-serving is not constructive, neither a "content dispute", it is making a point in a disruptive manner. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Behind Gwinndeith is no other than User:Molobo again, who is still on a 1R parole. I'm not even sure this is helping since by simply using a different provider he has always easily managed to get around CheckUser. If you think about it, even blocks wouldn't help with someone who can just create a new account. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Psb777

Hi, I just wanted to report this harassing and derogatory response I received from User:Psb777 after I sent him this friendly, civil reminder. I don't expect to be harassed and lambasted for giving friendly reminders, therefore, I reported it here. I expect that the administrators will handle this in a timely, effective manner. Thank you. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what nonsense! "Harassed and lambasted" is a mischaracterisation. And the "friendly reminder" seemed calculated to patronise and annoy. No wonder Axmann8 has to have the bold warning at the top of his Talk page showing his readiness to take offense. As demonstrated here. Clicking on the "contributions" link of such a speedy deletionist seems oxymoronic. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Houston, looks like we have a problem here: WP:AGF and WP:Civil. PSB has been warned. Toddst1 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Rotary_Air_Force_RAF_2000 for more context. I think expressions of frustration can occasionally be understandable, I don't see that there is any need for admin intervention here: it is basically a miscommunication between two users helping the project in very different (and sometimes conflicting) ways. henrik•talk 13:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No question that it was a hasty CSD tag. However that isn't a license for namecalling. Toddst1 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd now appreciate additional eyes on this as PSB has accused me of inappropriate behavior after I left a polite message. I think further action is in order but I'll leave that for someone else. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate my accusation of inappropriate behaviour. It is inappropriate for an admin (or anyone) to over-react. It is inappropriate for an admin (or anyone) to falsely accuse anyone of personal attack. Now, possibly, and out of frustration, *I* overreacted when an article was overzealously tagged for speedy delete. I suggest the same remedy for Toddst1 as for me, whatever that is. Perhaps we should monitor his behaviour to make sure he doesn't over-react again? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think nothing would be served by dragging this incident on longer. I suggest everyone drop the matter and go back to editing. God knows there is plenty of other stuff that could use the time and effort here other than prolonging a minor disagreement. henrik•talk 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I really do owe you an apology Hendrik. But I need to point out this: User_talk:Toddst1#Rotary_Air_Force Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it to your userspace User:Psb777/Rotary_Air_Force where it can be worked upon. Once it is more complete, it can be moved back to article space. henrik•talk 14:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Henrik wanted to drop this, but I would like a chance to respond to the situation, as it has obviously been blown out of proportion by PSB. To clarify my opinion on this matter, you are a hypocrite, PSB. You completely overreacted to a friendly reminder (which you somehow took as a conspiracy against you, like i planned it out to patronize you, as if I wanted to waste my time on something so petty). I suggest you stop acting so paranoid and learn to take advice when it is given. I've been in your shoes. Trust me, I have. Ask most of the people on here, and they will tell you I used to get VERY defensive and upset over things, but I learned to control it and deal with it like an adult, not like a child who got their candy taken away. All I am saying is that you need to create articles in your user namespace before you put dictionary definitions into places where entire articles belong. Personally, I don't think articles should be published into the article namespace until the first draft is completely finished, but that is just me. Anyhow, learn to take advice and don't jump to conclusions and assume people are out to get you. If anyone has had inappropriate behavior, it is you, PSB, no one else. -Axmann8 (Talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I wish you hadn't posted that Axmann. Calling fellow editor hypocrites, "child who got their candy taken away" and accusing them of unilaterally inappropriate behavior is simply not ok, even if you think they could have behaved differently. Every editor should be treated with respect, at all times. I hope I don't have to see any more comments like that. henrik•talk 15:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Luis Napoles

The editor Luis Napoles keeps removing my additions to the article "censorship in Cuba." I have also had issues with him regarding his sources on the article "racism in Cuba." I have tried to talk to him about these problems but he ignores me, and I have given him reasons for my edits on these pages as can be seen on his talk page and edit summaries, but he continues to revert to edit warring. I've requested help before, and talked to admins, but no one has helped me. It is really frustrating. Zd12 (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Earlier this week, Zd12 received a 48 hours block. Right after expiry he came back to continue replacing research by the Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists with his "ZSpace" post by some unknown author (two latest: ). It looks like another 48 hours or more is needed.Luis Napoles (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Zd12 blocked for 2 weeks for continuing edit war. User:Luis Napoles warned about potentially violating 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

my Wikistalker

User:Iamandrewrice has threatened to 'stalk' my future edits; we came into contact with one another on Maltese people: the article has since been semi-protected (after being protected for a while because of the same vandalism). Is there a standard procedure for this sort of thing? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That editor appears to have been banned in 2007. Was there a sock involved? Toddst1 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP account was being used: however the situation seems to have taken an unexpected turn; - we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So... is there anything on Misplaced Pages in place to deal with this type of individual? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Persistent POV pushing Wikireader41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some diffs which show his/her uncivil remarks He/she is targetting editors of Pakistani muslim heritage and pushing there own POV onto articles as admins can clearly see: Also a recent article in extremeism amongst british pakistanis was created by wikireader41 but was deleted this goes to show his pov pushing check edit history please 86.158.237.159 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be banned user nangparbat . please block him

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

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

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat

User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader

Moving on admins can see outright his pov racist slander in the diffs he is detracted from the subject at hand and must be brought to justice for his persistent pov pushing 86.158.237.159 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, socking editor continuing to flout WP:UP#NOT

Despite being blocked, SPA Cbffproduction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (or rather, are: this appears to be a shared account: "Our name are Sam Won and Aya Vargas") continuing to elaborate her soapy user page. The user(s) had attempted to evade the block by socking. Perhaps the page should just be deleted or else blanked and protected. --Rrburke 14:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I blanked their page and warned them against soap boxing. If they continue to use their talk page for promotion of their group then I will end up protecting the talk page as that of an indef blocked user using their page for promotion. Chillum 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And they kept using their page for promotion so now they cannot edit that either. Chillum 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Racist comments by CENSEI

CENSEI (talk · contribs) has made a couple of comments (diff1, diff2) at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama that refer to Barack Obama as the "Chocolate Messiah". At the same time, this editor has made a number of non-neutral edits to Obama-related articles (see recent contribs). It is also noteworthy that he/she seems to be using WP:3RR as a way of attacking editors he/she disagrees with. I am not sure if this is the proper place (or form) to report this issue - I would welcome administrator guidance if this is improper process. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

His commentary is certainly repulsive and disruptive. Not sure if its sanctionable. But it should at least stop at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that Scjessey is not above playing the race card in his ongoing eidt warring in all things Barack Obama. Typical I suppose considering that his actions has put him in arbitration. I also see that when Scjessey says I have made "a number of non-neutral edits to Obama-related articles", that exact # is one, and the neutrality of the edit is not in dispute, only Scjessey's overinflated sensibilities.

I suppose all we have to do now is wait for the army of meat puppets to chime in. CENSEI (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of this. Clearly some logged out editing/socking/meat puppetry going on over at Teleprompter now. Here's the contributions log. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean chocolate puppetry, right? Wikidemon (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take this over to RFCU if your suspicions are strong enough. After all, I am certainly the only person on earth who has noticed this. CENSEI (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)It's so over the top it is hard to take seriously. Calling Obama the "chocolate messiah" is a clever turn of phrase and could probably be sold to certain noted radio personalities who enjoy such things, but the term is not in general circulation and Misplaced Pages is probably not the best launching ground for a new cultural meme. As far as I know "chocolate" is normally a term of affection for black people, often with strong sexual / homoerotic / fetishist overtones, as in Chocolate City. And as I said at the AfD, it kind of reminds me of chocolate Santas and Easter bunnies. Not sure if you intended all that. Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly revealing to read about you wide and deep knowledge of all things black and homoerotica, but I there was little affection in my comment. Now, can we safely put SCJesseys manufactured outrage to bed? CENSEI (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. I'm too dumbfounded to be outraged. So my reaction was more to think it funny, but still, tasteless jokes with sexual / racial overtones can get people riled up. Incidentally, methinks CENSEI doth protest too much. You're the one who brought up Santorum. .... |.... Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor's behaviour at AfD

Could someone please read this dialogue and review an editor's behaviour (User: A Nobody) at . My opinion is that this behaviour is disruptive and shows horrendous assumptions of bad faith. Seraphim♥ 17:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards