Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:54, 11 March 2009

• 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

Edit-warring on Spongebob Squarepants related articles.

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

User:WLaccount

• WLaccount (talk · contribs)

Originally posted this at WQA here, but this is starting to spiral quickly out of control. Incivility issues are noted at the WQA, and I don't know what the hell is going on at Talk:Kriss Perras Running Waters. Other relevant pages include Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Henry Mortensen (actor), User talk:WLaccount, User talk:Shawnpoo, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kriss Perras Running Waters. MuZemike 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MuZemike, he is taking things very seriously and being offensive. He's ranting about articles of his that have been proposed to AfD, and attacking other articles. Something needs to be done. All of the controversy has been linked above by MuZemike. §hawnpoo 08:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, keep Henry out there. The article is there since 2007 and mostly built by other people. It gets a lot of bad faith only for being somewhat related to the other three). The Kriss Perras article also is quite old but has some IPs ranting at the talkpage. Our friend is either Kriss or a close friend or simply a fan. Funny enough Kriss is accused to be nothing more than a fan of Viggo Mortensen herself. Also note, that another account with the name of the production company has been blocked yesterday (if I remember right).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also report these two people who deleted my request for deletion at the top of the talk kriss perras Running Waters page - Administrators said you are not supposed to do that and yet you did delete the request for deletion which is against Misplaced Pages rules for reqeust for deletion. The things listed on that page are grossly inaccurate and do not belong on a Misplaced Pages page. And that is why I am writing. I am neither a friend nor affiliated with Kriss Perras Running Waters. I came upon the vandalism on the page yesterday and decide to rewrite the page according to accurate information. My my this gets very petty on Misplaced Pages. This is really bad and I think I might report this page to the PR firm that represented the magazine the poster said was only a Vanity magazine. The irm was listed as Dick Guttman Asscs. and he represents Barbara Streisand among some other notable people. That was who was listed on the masthead of that magazine that this person says is vanity: Dick Gutman. Chek here for the facts on where it is listed this director lives: It is People Search http://www.peoplesearchnow.com/summary.asp?fn=Kriss&mn=&ln=Perras&state=CA&x=18&y=7&vw=people&Input=name It states on there the director lives in Topanga

the reason I am mad is the whole thing onmy edited pages was about no citations other than IMDb but when I say that someone is posting bad information without even one single citation other than OpEd News, which I guess is considered credible by Misplaced Pages, then yeah I get upset. If this is suppose to be about factual findings then why is it when I call the Administrators to the carpet for facts on someone else they do nothing but when I post edits with citations from known sources then all of a sudden it is request for deletion - that makes no sense. And the article on that talk page said more than just a fan the person states "However, I am more concerned about her unusual interest in a public figure and the extensive creation of vocational persona and vanity e-publications aimed at eliciting the attentions of actor Mortensen." That is not just stating she is a fan - if that was all then so what but god what the Hell? That is all I am saying is if this is suppose otbe about facts then why not make this person who wrote this without even posting a signature delete the posting? WLaccount (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the template off the talk page as it was being used in the wrong namespace. Please handle all article debates ont heir appropriate talk page or AfD page. §hawnpoo 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the request for delete on that page because it was specifically that page I was requesting be deleted - where are you suggesting I put the request? please post a link here and I will put the request for deletion there as you say - it just is not right there are no citations on that page and it is not neutral so that is my reason for request for deletion. Your rules state there must be citations and the article must be neutral. WLaccount (talk)

It's irrelevant there. Period. It doesn't belong there and nobody is going to be looking for that talk page at random. You have an option right now. You can either (1) continue to whatever you want to do, attacking every single person who disagrees with you, ignoring all advice, putting warnings and statements everywhere you want until you find yourself blocked and the fate of those articles decided without further discussion by you or (2) grow up and actually attempt to help get them saved by listening to people and doing the things asked of you. Go to the deletion discussion pages and try to convince people why they should be here. Read the policies they cite and be polite. Really, what is more important to you at this point? Getting a few minutes of insults and screaming out of your system or keeping that stuff there? Because, to be honest, blocking you to stop the disruption and moving on is a million times easier than actual conversation and dealing with you. And believe me, this pattern comes again and again. Some grow up, stay, become productive and things work out. Others have their ten minutes of fun and then are locked out forever. It's totally on you. Sleep on it overnight (nothing is going to get deleted in 24 hours and if it does, then go to my talk page and I'll personally put up a stink about serious violations of process here), and come back with a cool head. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't pan on posting anything else on this site and whatever happens to my two hours of research on what I posted and the article that cites not sources is whatever happens. I no longer consider Misplaced Pages credible about anything now that I see what happens here. WLaccount (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. §hawnpoo 22:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• It appears as though s/he has friends/sockpuppets who have stated their intent to disrupt the process in the AfD. Tagged notavote. DarkAudit (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but I didn't even open a sockpuppet case for this. Doesn't make sense at all. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 23:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User: Bluescreenofdef

Is there any chance of an admin looking into the current editing exploits of User:Bluescreenofdef. In a re-occurence of a similar stalking episode from last year this editor is following my edits and doing his best to undo anything I've done with a special interest in an article I've done a lot of work on. His/Her contribution history is proof enough. Although some of his edits are righteous his main aim seems to be to annoy me. --WebHamster 00:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on List of lead guitarists and similiar, the other editor is right. You keep adding non-notable names to those lists and articles. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at his contribs and tell me that they aren't targetted at me. When I first saw his edits I just did a blanket undo. It was afterwards that I realised that some legitimate edits had been undone, which I referred to above. Any person who sees his contribs and doesn't see the stalking must be blind. --WebHamster 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is full of WP:HOUND and this clearly is a case, yes. Still he's right at least on the articles I've seen. Not to mention the warning templates you posted on his page. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now here is a most revealing edit by your chum Mr Screen (talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All articles surrounding the "not really notable band " The Hamsters are badly written and reek of WP:OWN and WP:COI from sole contributor User:WebHamster. I implore you to look at the edits and accept my WP:AGF that I am acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster needs to explain how ] satisfies WP:AGF. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BSOD, it is incredibly hard to assume good faith when you make edits like these. — neuro 01:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just how credulous do you think your readers are? The article on The Hamsters wasn't even created by WebHamster, as its history clearly shows. Meanwhile, would you care to explain (preferably in thirty words or fewer, or in sonnet form) how one should "accept an assume good faith" (which even syntactically is a blunder), or assume any good faith from the perp of this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good durable control (talk · contribs) might be a sockpuppet of BSOD, since User:WebHamster/fucking had no edits for a year, and then suddenly after BSOD's vandalism two edits occured reverting the article to the offending content. Yes, it's stale, I realise, but it still is not acceptable, and makes it hard to assume good faith (although, admittedly, not impossible). — neuro 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluescreenofdef for reference. Is there maybe a connection to User:Elspeth Monro? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 01:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have any sockpuppets, however I must say it is hard to engage in reasonable talkpage discussion when you are confronted with replies like , and then immediatey brought to an admin noticeboard. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like both of you have some civility issues. Regardless of who started what and when, you should always remain civil and assume good faith. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not a robot. I do not show civility or assume good faith automatically under any circumstance. It's patently clear that this user's edits are not done as a result of good faith and are specifically done to annoy the hell out of me. Now you may like to be civil to someone in those circumstances, I do not. Likewise I don't say "please desist" to the mutt who's chewing my leg. I tell it to fuck off and give it a kick. Now, as far as I am aware this is the English version of Misplaced Pages, not the Stepford version? --WebHamster 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to not assume good faith, at least stay calm (which you aren't, at the moment). — neuro 02:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When some youngster pipes up with the over-used mantra of AGF and WP:CIVIL and then uses it to lecture me then that is not a prescription for my calmness. It stokes an already warm boiler. --WebHamster 02:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My edits do not have anything to do with you. They are to improve the encyclopedia and improve all "Hamsters" related articles. Please engage in civil talkpage discussion and treat every edit on its merits. Do no assume everything is all about you. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the band you referred to as "non notable garbage" would it? Plenty of NPOV editing going on there then. Perhaps you'd like to bullshit us enlighten us with the reason you chose to use your expansive editing skills on The Hamsters article first after such a long absence, especially given your activity last year? Add to that the fact that it's a band you know nothing about, know nothing of their material and know nothing of what they do. Yet here you are deciding that's the article you want to, errr, improve. Given your propensity for using WP shortcuts, here's another one for you: WP:DUCK. --WebHamster 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluescreenofdef writes to WebHamster: My edits do not have anything to do with you. Reluctant though I am to play armchair psychiatrist, and unwilling as I am to call Bluescreenofdef a liar, I can only infer from this edit that Bluescreenofdef is deranged. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BSoD continues to remove sockpuppet tags from suspected sockpuppet User pages, and continues to remove references to the Hamsters from articles. There needs to be a resolution to this concern. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

he also called the other user a "fucking idiot" and he doesn't even have a warning. an admin needs to step in here. untwirl(talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppet case has been closed as "stale". What I didn't see first, it was February 2008 and not this year. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done, some expert on the field should confirm if diffs like this are legit or not. Mediation? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall I didn't put that in the RTH article, though I can't swear to that as it must have been a long time ago. But as an expert on The Hamsters I can say categorically that the bass player's pseudonym came directly from the radio show as the band, though mainly the guitarist are big fans of the show. As the diff you gave was in the "cultural effect" section I can't see what the problem is. "Ms Zsa Zsa Poltergeist" is indeed a character from the show as any RTH fan could attest. Further to that if one puts "ms zsa zsa poltergeist" into Google... --WebHamster 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, should you want an expert on the show, try The British Comedy website (see "The Escaped War Criminal" section) which is a reputable, reliable and independent source for all things British radio comedy related. --WebHamster 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you added to the article . It is part of your long running conflict of interest to insert you non notable band into wikipedia for self promotional purposes. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Either prove these accusations of WP:COI or quit using it for your dodgy reversions. I referenced that paragraph yet you still spouted about consensus and COI yet you have proof of neither. If you have proof then I suggest you bring it up at WP:COIN. I am simply a fan of the band who obviously knows more about them than you do. Likewise you don't have a consensus on those edits, so quit with the accusations as if they give you power to do what you want. Now will some admin sort this out? One way or the other before this person gets his way and I get blocked for saying what I really think about him. --WebHamster 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation? I can't file a case for you, you must do it on your own. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want mediation I just want this fucker off my back! --WebHamster 23:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't be on User:WebHamster's back when editing the article The Hamsters unless he has either a WP:OWN issue or a (blatantly obvious) WP:COI issue. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So report it at WP:COIN, you can't though can you? You have no proof do you? Whereas you are just an editor with a grudge trying to game the system and throw around accusations. You seem to have more conflict of interest (it can be negative interest as well!) than me as your edit history can attest. Out of 13,000 edits I have done maybe 90+ on The Hamsters. I wonder what percentage of your contribution history can be shown to be Hamsters related? Now put up or shut up. Meanwhile can some admin either block him or me, either way this guy needs a wake up call. --WebHamster 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE See this diff and another piece of the puzzle seems to fall into place, given that the band's drummer's real name is Alan Parish. --WebHamster 03:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama probation issue

Twice this evening, a drive by editor Neophytesoftware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted a "POV" tag on the article, with an obvious conspiracy-theory angle as indicated in the edit summary, but without bothering to post anything to the talk page. Someone with more authority than I (i.e. more than "none") needs to say something to that character about the probation on the article and about frivolous tags. This article has been under scrutiny for months now, and the supposed "bias", having to do with Rev. Wright, birth certificate, etc., are already covered at length in other articles. Baseball Bugs 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious WP:BLP attack in edit summary. Although edit summaries are not specifically mentioned in WP:BLP, I think we can all assume that it is inappropriate. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest a stern warning from an administrative figure - that article is under probation for a reason, and 'terrorist ties' is definitely a WP:BLP vio. — neuro 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has now had a polite probation notice posted on his page. Also, the user has been inactive for nearly 2 years and suddenly turns up with this drive-by "shooting". There's something fishy going on. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, WND did an article on the WP entry and the Drudge Report linked to it, so expect a spike in activity over there. --64.85.217.74 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say, admins here might find this relvant: Kangasaurus (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, that would explain the sudden surge in drive-by activity. They're abusing wikipedia in order to generate a "news" story. Baseball Bugs 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. That makes sense. — neuro 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are separate articles that talk all about the stuff that is alleged by that WND rag to have been "scrubbed". They conveniently left that fact out. But considering their advocacy, it's pretty obvious they're on the looney fringe themselves. Baseball Bugs 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So disagreeing with YOUR point of view puts you on the 'looney fringe'?!? Perhaps following Wiki rules "According to Misplaced Pages rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." There have been many including court cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.115.111 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Bugs is a sign of being a crank. And we have something called WP:WEIGHT to consider. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention every single one of them has failed. Obama has never even had to address this in any form. It has very little, if any impact on him. --70.24.182.79 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See report on AN Guettarda (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Point of View junk edits" mentioned at the end of the WND article was my revert. This is actually the 2nd time that WND has commented on an edit of mine. Awesome. We're probably going to need a full protect shortly, this is a rabid and vocal minority that has just been given today's marching orders. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the page to request article protection, or I would have done so already. :( Baseball Bugs 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I say let more sleeper socks come out of the woodwork - maybe we can catch them all and see where their IP address is coming from. There's a strong suggestion that the folks at World Net Daily are behind some of this. I can forgive a partisan organization's ignorance of Misplaced Pages reliable sources and neutrality rules. WorldNetDaily and its editors do not practice neutrality themselves, or much of a truth test at all - they say whatever scores a point for their cause. But this piece seems deliberately misleading. If it's true that they have been "monitoring" Misplaced Pages, it would be obvious (and should have been disclosed) that Jerusalem21, the Misplaced Pages editor Klein leads off with and who was supposedly pounced on by the whitewashing Obama-lovers, is an SPA and suspected sockpuppet, whose entire sparse but long career on Misplaced Pages until causing disruption at Barack Obama, was to edit the Aaron Klein article. Even before the incident the editors commenting on Jerusalem21's talk page were placing COI tags and assuming Jerusalem21 is connected in some way to Klein. "Monitoring" indeed. Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was just about to post at WP:RFPP, but if you want to let these idiots expose themselves (pun intended), then I'll defer to your judgment. :) Baseball Bugs 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt it was anything but a coincidence, but a couple days ago, after Ann Coulter posted a story about Keith Olbermann, several accounts came out of the woodwork that hadn't edited in years. Same thing here. Are they sleeper socks, or are we at the stage where everyone has a Misplaced Pages account, and when their favourite columnist calls forth his minions, they pick up their old account that they haven't used in years? Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The next time one pops up, maybe we could ask the account if they could get us Ann Coulter's autograph or something. Baseball Bugs 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's obviously more than one person. They could be novice or infrequent editors coming out of the woodwork because something got their goat, they could a coordinated meat / sock attack, and/or it could be a deliberate manipulation by someone connected with the author of the article. The past year's experience on the Obama article was that the majority of disruptive POV editors crying whitewash/censorship/terrorist/scandal turned out to be socks of a handful of puppetmasters, some of whom had been blocked/banned before. Jerusalem21 was quacking from inside the encyclopedia. The World Net Daily article about Jerusalem21 quacks from the outside. Plus there are new accounts, SPAs, and accounts that haven't edited in months or years all showing up on the exact same bogus claims raised in the article. If shenanigans are going on it's helpful to let it play out for a bit so we can connect the dots. But if it continues we may have to protect the article. But we can't reasonably full protect the talk page, and much of the weirdness is going on there. Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we could fix the article so it includes mention of notable controversies that have been covered extensively by independent sources and improve the article so it provides links to the appropriate articles covering these issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it disturbingly impossible for someone to claim to be unbiased when referring to those with whom they disagree as the "looney fringe" "idiots" or "socks" (sock puppets). Do you really think these terms convey the idea of "neutrality"? Tlwitness 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yawn, try again. I guess this is another account to add to the list... seicer | talk | contribs 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another matching sock.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think this fellow intends to contribute productively and civily once his block expires: . Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, and he'll have to wait 17 hours longer for that. Since you nobly overlooked his personal attack on you, I dealt with it by extending the block from 31 to 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation here... Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Make a tub of popcorn and head over to the article's talk page. But pay careful attention to the rv's on the talk page, or you might miss some of the best comments. Did you know that unless you've seen someone's original birth certificate, you don't know where they were born? What does that remind me of? Of yeah - that good old creationist retort to evolutionary claims: Where you there? Did you see it happen? Guettarda (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kind of the Baron Münchhausen retort - "Vas you dere, Charlie?" And the flip side of Criswell narrating Plan 9 from Outer Space: "Can you prove it didn't happen?" Baseball Bugs 06:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary 3RR exception for article patrol?

Wondering if that is a good idea. At least, please consider giving warnings and only blocking if an editor persists after being asked to stop, if what they are doing is good faith attempts to keep the article and talk page stable.Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing one here prescriptively... hold on for just a moment.Wikidemon (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An aggressively misguided editor, Expertfp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just filed a 3RR report on me which I've deleted per WP:IAR so as to avoid wikidrama. Technically I think the editor's 5 diffs only show 1 reversion on my part. The rest is nonsense, and another editor has already called it "crazy", but I would like to get a ruling and some guidance on this. Not whether the 3RR report has any merit, but whether it's okay to be doing talk page patrol. I've been on article / talk page control for many hours, holding down the fort, organizing various talk page comments, etc. If you want me to go away and keep the peace without me, fine. I won't do this if the opinion among administrators is that I should not be aggressively patrolling the Obama talk page. Thx. Wikidemon (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh. When the Mark Foley scandal broke I went well over 3RR trying to keep crap out. No one seemed to complain. Not sure the situation is that different here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RFCU filed

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Barrack Obama. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by Axmann8

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For some reason, he chose this night to start violating established reliable sources and consensus and much discussion, to push the idea that Obama is not the first African-American President. He has violated 3RR as well as probation, and refuses to retract. Another blockhammer, someone? Baseball Bugs 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was coming here to report same user for obviosu trolling, wiki-lawyering, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours. Mfield (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He was once indef-blocked (briefly) and was given a second chance. Has he used up his second chance yet? Baseball Bugs 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And his unblock request makes it perfectly clear that he intends to continue pushing the conspiracy theory stuff in defiance of consensus, and presumably in defiance of article probation. Baseball Bugs 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that but the last block was a standard indefinite for legal threats which were retracted and he had nothing else. Had this been another legal threat then I would have thought no second chances but this is different in nature and . If he continues once his block lifts though which seems likely (hardly a good argument for being unblocked) then he is going to find good faith harder to come by I suspect, I for one will certainly be watching him closely. Mfield (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mfield, the legal threat was against me after I warned Axmann8 about edit warring on Obama's discussion page. --Bobblehead 05:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, I don't feel happy about changing the block to an indef at this point, having given him the benefit of the doubt. But I think he has a fair amount of attention now and he is certainly burning bridges faster than he should with that in mind. Mfield (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request, and he has reverted it. —kurykh 05:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again. Appears to be fishing for an admin who will unblock him. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting that rant slamming everyone he can think of is not likely to get him an early unblock. After the first one was refused he wrote a second one that was basically the same as the first one. If he keeps this up, he might be among the few tagged for 3RR on his own talk page. Baseball Bugs 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming "I have the right to do whatsoever I wish" is hardly clueful either, or telling the declining admin they have "corrupt leftist liberal trash fogging up their mind". Man he sure can dig fast. Mfield (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He really shouldn't be blocked indefinately. He's a newcomer, and has made many constructive edits previously. As I'm his adopter, I'll be sure to look over more of his edits. -download | sign! 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He will be blocked indefinitely (not by me) if he continues on his crusade for truth, justice, and the American way. </snark> —kurykh 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by Kfedup

Kfedup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Four, three, two, one, liftoff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

done Mfield (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

The stuff is spreading. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Protection

I am leaning towards full protection of the article until this dies down. A look at the history shows a lot of editing warring. Unless opposition is voiced here I am going to protect it in one hour. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One potential issue with full protection is that it might push edits to the daughter articles all the more, and there are likely to be fewer eyes watching them. Not saying I'm opposed to protection, just that it may cause additional problems. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching several daughter articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one. PhGustaf (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support this. In the last 15 hours, there have been 50 revisions to that page, including 26 reversions explicitly stated as such in their edit summary (not counting the reversion of the grammar fix at 1502). There has been exactly zero blatant vandalism in this time. J.delanoy_adds 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see protection for the article's Talk/FAQ page. This isn't a place for random comment; it should be subject to the same consensus constraints as the man page. It's attracted at least one soapboxer so far. PhGustaf (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Protecting a high-traffic protected articles talk page should not be done except in response to actual vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there is blatant vandalism, the article should not be protected. These are content disputes and possible policy violation corrections, not vandalism. -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjd0060 is referring to the talk page, not the article itself. Protection policy specifically authorizes protection for content disputes resulting in editing warring. However, I am not going to protect the article right now as things seem to have quieted down. I will check back every hour or so to see if this changes. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put full protection on Barack Obama? They are edit warring over an NPOV tag now.;) --Bobblehead 16:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am watching it. There have only been 4 edits in the last hour and a half. KnightLago (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Excellent point. I was more looking at the count of the edits rather than the timing. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --Bobblehead 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Things picked back up quickly and I have fully protected the article until things die down. I am going to notify the communications committee. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the protection (overlooked this subsection). I've doled out enough blocks, filed enough RFCU's, and given notices about the probation that I should have recognized something more should have been done earlier. seicer | talk | contribs 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I went with the full protection template over the small so the "this is not an endorsement..." language was there. It has since been changed. Is there a preference for high traffic articles? KnightLago (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the communications committee and also changed the template back to full in order to have the explanation. KnightLago (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note this Foxnews.com story which riffs on the WND business, mentions the current full protection, and also links directly to the Obama talkpage. --guyzero | talk 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, everything dealing with Obama either has or is degenerating into a massive clusterfuck and, frankly, outside sources really aren't helping us out here, unless by 'helping' you mean 'making our job multiple times harder by attarcting drive-bys'. HalfShadow 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And cracked accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Glad to see the Wingnut→Drudge→Fox News cycle is still working. Now, question is, will the "→Everyone else" portion of the cycle kick in. --Bobblehead 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're missing the "→Olbermann/Maddow" part before the "→Everyone else". -Jeremy 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not missing the Olbermann/Maddow part, I'm just lumping them in with the everyone else. --Bobblehead 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• From my transatlantic impression of Olbermann, that's not entirely wise. When the most powerful right-wing lobby in the US launches a stinger at Misplaced Pages, it's not prudent to side with the closest left-wing equivalent. Common sense and reliable sourcing is plenty sufficient justification for the status quo that is being attacked. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox News has picked up the "story" now and plastered it on their front page: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone is following it, but the supposed story is not exactly what it seems. I'm going to do an SSP on Jerusalem21 and cohorts shortly. I'll post back here when that is set up.Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock report

I went ahead and filed a sockpupet investigation on Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the editor who was according to the Aaron Klein article that started this mess blocked by Misplaced Pages administrators for submitting sourced info. As you can tell if you poke around people have long suspected that this editor is in fact Aaron Klein, and has been sockpuppeting. A couple issues there.

• First, other than Jerusalem21 none of these editors have been active for a year or more - Jerusalem21 may or may not be subject to banning / long-term blocking as a disruptive hoax account. But as for sockpuppetry that may be stale. Does anyone have any advice there? I haven't notified the accounts yet. If the report is unlikely to go anywhere I'll just withdraw the report instead of making a go of it.
• Second, the earlier report on multiple editors was declined as premature. That may be, but it's almost certain that there is some serious sockpuppetry going on now in the Obama article. Mostly a hunch and there are some alternate explanations, but the editing patterns, insults, tactics are familiar and last time it did turn out to be a sock farm. If this issue brings a new flood of problem editors to the encyclopedia and we can't tell who is real and who is not, we are in for some long-term trouble. The other regular editors and I are unlikely to be in a mood to rehash what happened last fall there. Okay, thanks.

- Wikidemon (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, when WND and Aaron Klein were asked their relationship with Jerusalem21, instead of answering, they removed all references to the User name in their "article" and replaced it with "one Misplaced Pages user – acting as part of WND's investigation". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Jeusalem21 be banned. Sock or no, he is not here to build an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If who then was a gentlement has got that quote right (don't doubt him but a link would be nice) then WND has admitted to a major conflict of interest involving the whole premise of their story -- whether or not the Jerusalem account is klein, they're saying it was someone working with them, who appears to have deliberately run up against 3rr with the express purpose of getting blocked and then deceptively whining about it elsewhere. If socking is unproven, i suggest a broadly construed politics editing ban on the COI basis. ALso, a minor point. I keep reading about the Jerusalem account being "banned" but i see only a 72 hour edit warring block in the log. That appears to be another inaccuracy in their reporting.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect he will never edit again from this account. If we block or ban him, we at lease cause him some inconvenience in setting up a "new" account, and maybe we'll catch him again.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very tempted to block him myself per the "major disruption" clause in WP:INDEF, but that may well be locking the barn door after the horse is long gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link: . Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even so, unless there is objection, I'm going to block for "conduct inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interfering with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." per WP:BLOCK--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some updates

Aaron Klein has apparenty admitted to "supervising" the edits. I would wait for corroboration but the purported threatening letter / admission reprinted on Valleywag looks credible - not a reliable source for article editing purposes of course, but a good clue as to what is going on. Wikidemon (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also please see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Aaron Klein for a discussion I started there, suggesting that Jimbo may want to consider banning Klein, the individual, from Misplaced Pages. Given the sock report that means he may have been supervising the edit warring over his own article for some time. Please be aware that any action taken against Jerusalem21 or Klein would just be grist for the mill for Klein, and for the on and off-wiki malcontents who consider Misplaced Pages a liberal conspiracy. It's not my decision but I would suggest that dealing with a problem is ultimately better than capitulating to people who don't want to solve it.Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess he might take a ban as a badge of honor. But don't know if that is a sufficient reason not to act.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Likwidshoe

Likwidshoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This individual made a personal attack (and WP:SOAP) here and was reverted by an anon here. He then proceeded to attack the anon in this edit summary. He has thrice reverted the anon and me (, , ) by readding the WP:PA and WP:SOAP violation. Once more and, of course, he'll have violated 3RR as well, but the invicility (particularly in relation to an article on article probabtion) should probably be noted beforehand. Note that he has been blocked for incivility before. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New version of the PA/SOAP added here with a snarky edit summary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nastiness and disruption continues. I've left a second civility warning, left a notice of this AN/I report, and also an article probation notice. The editor appears incorrigible but we'll see. Can we please get a block if they continue disrupting the Obama talk page? We can't afford to go soft on that page. They've been blocked before for incivility and they know the drill. Wikidemon (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About the claim of a "a second civility 'warning'", I never got the first.

I won't touch your precious Obama "talk" page anymore. I am apparently not of the correct opinion to have opinions and any disagreements will be crushed with a "second civility warning" that followed a phantom one. Add in the promises of blocks for some kind of continued disruption (two comments total there) and we find that the claim of "an encyclopedia that anybody can edit" to be a bit of a sad joke. All of this stemming from a "talk" page of all pages.

BTW, whatever happened to the Wikipedian who invented AN/I? He left, didn't he? Said that he created a "monster" or something to that effect and along those lines? Looks like he was right.

Closing note: thanks for proving Misplaced Pages's detractors right. It didn't take much before you guys fell right into that partisan censoring line. You guys are pretty shameless about it. Likwidshoe (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed, regardless of personal opinion. Assuming bias because we don't want people verbally abusing one another is a bit over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claim of never getting the first civility warning is not true: . Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but you then responded to the civility warning 'you never got' four times. *cough* HalfShadow 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to add "responded to the civility warning ... with increasing levels of additional incivility..." (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm wondering if it would be considered rude to ask him if he knows where he is right now... HalfShadow 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Freep?

I've been warned that I might get "Freeped", as indicated at www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2202207/posts - Post 50. They apparently think I'm an admin or something. Woo-hoo! I would ask that my friends, enemies, and who-careses would NOT REVERT whatever they might post on my talk page (if anything), so that it will hopefully all be in one place and maybe make it easier to round up these mosquitoes. Thank's, y'all. :) Baseball Bugs 06:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you change your mind, semi-protection is yours if you ask for it. And actually, I figured you were an admin... Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's the same person or not, but you were also been mentioned in a Newbusters comment. Switzpaw (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Freep crew.. I always wondered why they took a name that was so stylistically similar to creep.... SirFozzie (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Celebrity status! "I wrote this, and it was delted by an Admin named 'Baseball Bugs'." Not only I'm an Admin now, but I "delted" something. I don't know what that means, but it sounds dangerous. Baseball Bugs 06:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, the best part of that post isn't "delted", it's the sig quote by "Ronald Reaga". Don't piss them off, they'll misspell things. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the reference to "Reaga". Right much pathetic. Baseball Bugs 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neophyte wants to e-mail Jimbo and have me "de-sysopped". Well, that shouldn't take much effort. :) Baseball Bugs 07:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So far just one blanker; and one attacker (and that was a repeater). It's nice to know the level of fear and respect we command among the drive-bys. 0:) Baseball Bugs 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, "Free Republic" is one of the first things I thought of when this tedious troll showed up on my talk page (see User_talk:Antandrus#Why_is_Wikipedia_afraid_of_opposing_viewpoints.3F). It's the style -- the let's argue politics even though it's completely irrelevant to the issue, the constant harangue, the will-not-let-go manner. I finally just had to walk away from my computer. Good grief. Come to think of it, I wrote number 16 just for this. There is still an angry thread in their 2005 archives about my deletion of a page they tried to create called "Misplaced Pages liberal bias" (or some variation on that name, I forget). Antandrus (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, your mistake was to write "Pretend I'm a robot..." at which point the Anon IP pretended that he was a robot & began to repeat his point over & over, caught in an infinite loop. Or a race condition. Only thing one can do in that situation is reboot. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got a point. Drop the shields, let them have their way for a day, and let their self-righteous thunder dissipate. I'll keep that in mind next time one of these assaults comes along. I wonder if anyone has told these mushrooms that the election campaign is over, and they lost? Or would that fact be labeled as "liberal bias" also? Baseball Bugs 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully more blogs pick up on this information in that day. Won't matter to the Freepers, but some of the chan boards might want to name a new master troller... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm enjoying work avoidance reading your observations, Antandrus, and it seems like #37 (which made me spew my tea, thank-you-very-much) is particularly applicable here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Howcum nobody ever mistakes me for an admin? Dammit, I want my fifteen minutes of fame! HalfShadow 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I mistook you for an admiral the other day, if that helps. I was probably thinking of a half nelson for some reason. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To show the level of respect for, and interest in, this website in the greater internet world, despite my user ID being mentioned over there, I got a grand total of 1 page blanking and 1 negative comment. It's nice to know how much influence one has. :) Baseball Bugs 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Anything I can do? Topic ban, blocking, snarky note, illusions to your Illuminati membership...? Rklawton (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say, "Tell them I'm a liberal" (i.e. a communist, the way they use that word), but they already know that. Tell them I know all 4 verses to The Star-Spangled Banner by heart, and then they'll know I'm a commie, because no real American would bother to learn the other 3 verses. My favorite is the line about the blood of the enemies washing out their own "foul footsteps' pollution". I'd like to hear Celine Dione sing that line at the Super Bowl someday. :) Baseball Bugs 14:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, she's from Quebec, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham is still fresh in their minds, and the allegory would be a-propos for her to get emotional about. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Half-truths are more fun. I'll just quote you as saying you "like... Celine Dione". Rklawton (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm born and raised in Baltimore, of COURSE I know all 4 verses of the Star-Spangled Banner. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Including the "O's!" part. Baseball Bugs 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It took me YEARS to realize that wasn't in the anthem...Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not? Maybe that's why I get such funny looks when I sing it that way. Or maybe it's because the point is lost on them at Wrigley Field. Baseball Bugs 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I should be elected to Congress. I didn't know the anthem had four verses, and I sure as heck don't know all the words to the first verse. And the tune? God help you if I try to sing it. Rklawton (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I only sing it in the car with all the windows rolled up. Much has been said about our national anthem, and I like best what Richard Armour wrote: "When, by the dawn's early light, the British heard it sung, they fled in terror." Baseball Bugs 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because originally it was a drinking song: those high notes come easy when you're suitably lubricated in the tavern. "I'll instruct you like me to Intwine/The Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine." In the original the high notes aren't sustained as long, either. (If a cop pulls you over for singing it, I'm not sure I can help you.) Antandrus (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. And maybe if the Brits and the Yanks had spent more time drinking and less time fighting, we'd have been better off. But it's possible to hit the high notes when stone cold sober. Of course, it takes the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir (men and women) to cover the range. Baseball Bugs 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It still is a drinking song. After the last two words ("play ball!"), the beer vendors come out in the stands and everyone starts drinking. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a little known fact that a young Abner Doubleday was taking dictation from Francis "Off" Key on that occasion. Baseball Bugs 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that the tune did not become the national anthem until 1931 (during Prohibition). There's a delightful irony. Antandrus (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yer nuts if you think that's when the drinking starts. Rklawton (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, starts back up. They don't sell beer during the anthem and it's a mighty long song. A gal gets thirsty during all that singing. ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That fits with what I said just below. It turned out to be a good way to promote beer sales. And throat lozenges. Baseball Bugs 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

However, maybe that was part of the reason they ended Prohibition. Baseball Bugs 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't drink beer; I make it a habit not to drink things that enter and leave me looking exactly the same. HalfShadow 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old joke about how American beer is similar to having sex in a canoe ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And hence the old saying, "You don't buy beer, you only rent it." That reminds me of a story I read in Sports Illustrated years ago, which I suspect was apocryphal. A beer company sent a sample of their product to a lab for analysis. Unfortunately, the lable fell off and the techs took their best shot at it, with this report: "Your horse has diabetes." Two for the price of one! Which is why I tend to stay away from Rolling Rock. Hey, three for the price of one! Baseball Bugs 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

I started a thread on data and citation manipulation to which this admin referred to as "stirring the shit", and asked me why I wouldn't "stop stirring the shit". no comment.--Bizso (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have no comment on it, why do you start another thread on it? I maintain that "stirring the shit" fits your behaviour rather well, and I think I'll soon formally impose that editing restriction on you that was discussed the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that I am stirring the shit? Please explain this and why you are protecting certain users although you should be neutral. It's funny that someone got banned for 3 days for mentioning an inconvenient fact in the Obama article, but on the other hand if someone falsifies sources, then you just call them "sloppy editing"? --Bizso (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, given this is about a thread on WP:AN cross posting isn't helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also not a PA. WP:WQA is that a way. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

...and as one of the regulars at WQA, I have to say this: being accused of "stirring the shit" is certainly not a public attack, nor uncivil. It's a description of an action (unless, of course, we're talking an actual physical/homosexual-based derogatory usage - which it clearly is not in this situation). Indeed, you could have been accused of "stirring up a hornet's nest" - also, not uncivil. But please, do open this at WQA so I can say the same thing :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't condoning the view that FutPer's statement was actionable, merely pointing out the appropiate venue. I'm hardly FutPer's greatest fan but I wouldn't even glare at him over this alleged incident. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not generally the appropriate venue ... but once it's here, it generally gets dealt with here (especially with related potentially threads above). This would be why I commented as if it was in WQA above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well in this case, I say that Fut Pref is clearly protecting his certain users, by blurring and wiping the shit around them so that it becomes really hard to make a clear consistent and unbiased judgment on these cases. I made no personal attacks. Halleluja--Bizso (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna change my mind about that ANI ban proposal a few days earlier... Admiral Norton 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman_(2nd_nomination)

This Afd is bizarre. The first AfD was closed after a few hours by a non-admin, leading to this second AfD. This second AfD has now been closed early, by a non-admin. I have no idea why we couldn't let it run for the regulation five days, but let that pass. Could an admin (one used to closing awkward AfDs would be best, I think) look over the AfD and agree or disagree with the closing and the decision? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see much point in having an AfD for someone who is mentioned in the media virtually every day. Better to wait until media attention to her dies down before trying to nominate the article about her for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What you've got there basically is one editor who absolutely can't stand the fact that this baby factory has an article here. He objects on the grounds that there's already an article about the octuplets. I would argue the octuplets article is the "not notable" one, because they haven't done anything except to be born. Baseball Bugs 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I personally think the woman in question is an messed-up idiot, and the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life, the sad fact is that this issue overally does merit some encyclopedic entry because of the same reasons I just gave. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, it may not be right but you can't say that only one editor questions this bio, several voted delete. Non admins shouldn't really close early or close contentious AfDs, I think per WP:NAC, which I know is just a guideline but makes sense. It should be reopened as the close was not in accordance with standard practice, the snowball clause or guidelines. Having said that, it would eventually have been an obvious keep, but why not wait till the end so no-one can say it's not been handled in the standard fashion. Sticky Parkin 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

At the AfD, some editors want two articles, some editors want them to be merged, some editors want no articles at all. A contentious AfD with 30+ contributors should be closed with more explanation than 'keep'. Non-admins shouldn't be anywhere near the closure (IMHO). One problem with these AfDs is the appearance of trying to stifle debate: firstly by closing AfD/1 after less than twelve hours here, then trying to get AfD/2 closed in equally quick time here, then appealing to this page to get AfD/2 closed early (see above), finally getting another non-admin closure. If there is consensus for anything, then fair enough. But let's discuss it, find consensus, and close the debate properly. (MHO is no consensus, but whatever.) Mr Stephen (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I initiated the first AFD on BLP policy, albeit a section of policy which has been poorly enforced and may very well not be policy at all. I don't believe that a NAC was inappropriate in that case, since at that point it was not particularly contentious (i.e. WP:SNOW) and I as nominator had withdrawn it. I was not involved in the second AFD and have no opinion there. SDY (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The first AfD's close complies with WP:Speedy keep, clause 1. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking of BLP, we should probably be more careful about slinging around phrases like "baby factory", "messed-up idiot" and the ethics board comment. Exxolon (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was careful to state that it was my personal opinion. If it was anywhere near an article, there would be an issue, as it would be WP:OR. I'll never be called to provide testimony at said ethics board, so it's not an issue. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Making it clear it's a personal opinion helps, but BLP does apply outside non-article space. It applies on ALL pages. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what admin action is really required here. If you don't like the article being kept WP:DRV if always availablt to contest that. Disclaimer: I opined that the article is a keeper given the significant coverage of her. It would be interesting if WP:DRV came out differently (don't hold your breath), as we'd have a much higher bar to get rid of some articles on marginally notable (under the current regime) subjects....but I digress. Should this be marked "resolved"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Would an admin simply endorse/overturn/reopen the AfD? DRV shouldn't be necessary, as this NAC is clearly outside the limits suggested by the relevant guideline and its supporting essay. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —striking per information provided by MBisanz Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Seddon (talk · contribs) is an admin, see WP:FORMER, he just currently does not have the sysop flag by his own choice. MBisanz 04:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No wonder we have problems with BLPs

I am gravely concerned when a thread supposedly started to discuss concerns about article deletion promptly turned into an opportunity to bash the subject of the article: "baby factory", "messed-up idiot", "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life". This is unacceptable. The editors who have made such comments should consider themselves warned, and I hope they will give thought to striking such commentary. Very disappointing. Risker (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand your possible concern, fromWP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. None of my statements are being passed off as biographical material about a living person. If you would like, I could go and find properly sourced versions of those statements (they've been printed in a number of the papers I've written for - and many others), but that would be completely contrary with what I was trying to achieve with the original statement, wouldn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(NB: I say the above out of total respect, and not attempting to be flippant. I readily take criticism, but appreciate things being kept in proper context. I was, indeed, supporting the inclusion of an article about a controversial individual (and their doctor) who both have performed highly controversial actions - I placed personal statements that have indeed also been made by sourcable/notable professionals. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

If this is what you consider context, there is a bigger problem. This is the noticeboard for people requesting administrator assistance, in this case about a dispute relating to certain discussions. The place for you to add your personal opinion about the discussion is at the discussion, not on this noticeboard. And stating that someone is a "messed-up idiot", or that "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life" is most certainly a biographical commentary. If you put that in an article without attribution, as you have on this page, there's a relatively good chance you would have been blocked, let alone warned. Your personal opinion about these individuals is completely irrelevant to this or any other discussion page, the article, or the encyclopedia - as is mine. Risker (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, an ARBcom has spoken. The phrase "lunatics running the asylum" comes to mind. Fear not, I'll be dutifully reporting that phrase to the BLP noticeboard ASAP. Badger Drink (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh!?! Shot info (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly who coined the phrase or when they coined it, but I'm worried that it may refer to living lunatics. Badger Drink (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This from a User whose User page has once been deleted as an attack page and once deleted for vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Secthayrabe & User:Secthaycaan: continued page creation vandalism.

Continued from this previous AN/I post:

User:Secthayrabe repeatedly recreated Nabil Rastini until it was salted, at which point he started doing variants such as Nabil' Rastini & Nabil A Rastini. I gave him an only warning for inappropriate pages. The extremely similarly named account, User:Secthaycaan, has recreated Nabil' Rastani. (I initially considered this a vandalism issue, but AIV told me to come here.) Jomasecu  _contribs 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Secthayrabe's talk page says he has retired; but he still has User:Secthayrabe/Nabil Rastani in his user space. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, both users' pages say retired, yet they continue to edit. Their recent contribs are almost entirely related to Nabil Rastini. Jomasecu  _contribs 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Secthaycaan has been continuing Secthayrabe's pattern of page-creation vandalism. See his talk page for all the CSD notices. I suggest blocking both accounts and account creation to prevent further disruption. Jomasecu  _contribs 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Secthaycaan has created Nabil' Rastani again. Is there a more appropriate place to bring this problem? It seems clear to me that this user does not intend to contribute positively. Jomasecu  _contribs 19:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Relatively huge spike in random-IP vandalism

In a couple of cases it's random IP bombing, but most of it seems to be coming from specific IPs. Also, each IP seems to be targeting a specific article. Has someone left a gate open or something? HalfShadow 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

is it spring break already? --Ludwigs2 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs using Misplaced Pages as a storage location.

This diff shows an IP tucking away a character file into an article, no doubt for later recovery. This is not the first time, either see this as well. I'd like to request that both be oversighted out, as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace; this is not the purpose of WP. ThuranX (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's already fairly commonplace. HalfShadow 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From my experience, Oversight will not deal with such edits, Thuran. Sorry. -Jeremy 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn shame. Such edits ought to be deleted to discourage them entirely. On the other hand, good to know we can all abuse the site ad nauseum from now on. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins can, with some effort, nuke the revision out of the publicly visible history (deleted revisions of page, etc). However, is that even justified? Is just deleting it out of the active page good enough here? Yeah, it's not completely gone, but it's fairly gone, someone has to know about histories to go find it now.

I'm open to the answer being "It needs to go away harder" but that should be explained and justified if you think it is... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

stray question....what is that sort of thing used for? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a HeroMachine save "file". I just happen to have the software and I've loaded his character onto my computer. Looks like some sort of Asian Sith Lord.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the other one is some assassiny knife wielder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for filling my head with yet one more piece of irrelevent garbage. --Ludwigs2 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest I can't see the point of considering oversight for this specific form of vandalism. Add together "Misplaced Pages is on the Internet", "Misplaced Pages is freely editable" and "I am a complete numpty who will happily use freely editable resources on the Internet for my own purposes" and this sort of thing will happen, as will people using talkpages as a message board, people thinking an article on their dog/band/girlfriend/cake recipe must appear on here. It's no different to people seeing "L1z suz c0k" on a page and saying to themselves "aha! i could create a page like that too", and nobody (surely) is considering oversight for all vandalism "as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace". WP:RBI, applies, doesn't it, just as for any persistent vandalism? Tonywalton  01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC, servers were acting up, ryulong said a lot of what I'd tried to say) For those unclear about this, this string represents the save data for a character for an internet game of some sort. The difference between this an 'joo allz zuk kawk' is that this editor is seeking to squirrel away actual usable data in our edit histories, which he can recover and use later. This is far more a WP:NOTMYSPACE violation, or WP:NOTYOURHARDDRIVE, perhaps. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be abused as an off-site storage site. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other possibilities. See Numbers station. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is doubting the fact that what the text is used for, I can provide an image of the output. :P And, yeah, this is a vio of notmyspace or notharddrive because this can be saved in a freaking .txt—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the sticky nature of oversight (interaction with WMF policy, real world copyright issues, local policy, and dramaz) its highly unlikley a drastic measure will be taken. I would support however, a single revision deletion of that edit - although we need to actually get that featured installed for us non-OS admins.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be done, I've done it on occasion- I thought it best if people elsewhere weren't able to see the diffs (ED related rubbish). Just delete the page, and then restore all revisions apart from those that you don't want to be seen. It's a bit of a hack, but it can be done. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what User:NawlinWiki was doing incessantly a few months back that caused the whole site to freeze up and watchlists to backlog by thousands of seconds? No thanks, we have an encylopaedia to write. Skomorokh 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Popo le Chien

reposted from WP:AIV Hello,

Could someone please block Arammozuob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Auclairde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and semi-protect Misplaced Pages:Notability_(numbers) for a little while?
Both accounts are likely sockpuppets of Boubaker et al.: a couple of regular edits and then going straight into editing notability criteria. See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Boubaker_polynomials_(3rd_nomination) for a better understanding of the whole story. Thx, Popo le Chien 20:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Auclairde and semiprotected Misplaced Pages:Notability (numbers). Arammozuob's immediate interest in Notability (numbers) is surprising but he has yet to make any Boubaker-type edits. For previous background, in addition to the AfD discussion that was mentioned, see:

EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the other one as well.  Confirmed as the Boubaker polynomials vandal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Popo le Chien 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Popo le Chien is an old WP:FR vandal who is declaring expressively (in his blog page that he came to WP:EN to delete a page just per Hatered, Vengence anfd Racism...

He is declaring to his band (Users Jean_Clémént_Martin, jean-Roger_Tixier_Toutain, Nicolas_GUILMAIN Gilles_ and the others) that he WON on WIKEPEDIA:EN !!!

Please be aware, the user Arammozuob is not an Arab Country issued IP, so how can it be a sockpuppets of Boubaker?? Please, WP:EN will notice taht this user has been blocked instatously at the demand of POPO le chien?????, with no mention of valuable reason ...

further

Please unblock these users and let Racism away from WP:EN.Bradbeker (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Bradbeker (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof of racism, please, or go away. All I see is a checkuser confirming that there's skulduggery going on. -Jeremy 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Shari Lewis called. She wants her sock puppets back. MuZemike 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bradbeker quacks and is unblocked. Even sounds like Boubaker. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know why I am mentioned in the edit summary? Apparently his disputed edit was "approved by Mazca" among others. I have no recollection of ever being involved in this article or dispute in any way. ~ mazca 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Bradbeker (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting... it has been approved by a bot as well. Chamal 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like on one occasion, using Huggle, I happened to revert some blatant vandalism to that exact contentious section during a previous period it had been inserted. Hence, apparently I approve of it. From his list of names, apparently the vandal in question also agrees with it despite removing it. Nice to know. :D ~ mazca 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recipe Spam

Rklawton (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried reporting this at WikiProject Spam, but there has been no response. It seems a user is creating new accounts and repeatedly spamming a recipe (usually with an edit summary like "added recipe") to random pages. Warning is of no use, as only a small number of vandalism edits are made before each account is abandoned. Examples follow:

• LeftMorall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GuideHeadss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Virtual Reactionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kitchener753 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheirSmilee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GiveGrayy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Voluptuosity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raspberryshandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AboveLoann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GoingAreass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orangeyouglad830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ubersardonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WithHairr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimeExact3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimePanell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scalestartt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EndedDailyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The tallest man in Togo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• How do Pigs eat? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagatelle (talk • contribs) Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not even a very good recipe. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; it tastes like chicken. Which is sort of unusual, since it's a banana bread variant. HalfShadow 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Add *History Demon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. Also, the recipe is the one from the Banana bread article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recipes? Spam? Banana bread? I'm about to go into pun-overload. At least there's no article recreation requiring that the article be "salted". More seriously, could a sock puppet investigation or checkuser get the underlying IP blocked? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 11:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD canvassing?

I just noticed the following and am not sure if there's anything to it: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. If that's okay, then okay, no big deal (hence, why I am not accusing the specific user in the title of this section), but wasn't sure if as that editor did, we're allowed to contact so many editors. Best, --A Nobody 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been contacted about AfD's before (some airport I don't remember) where a user contacted all people who had participated in a prior debate on a similar topic. It's not really a problem unless they are only recruiting people from one side of the debate, they may simply be ensuring that there is some consistency in the debates about similar deletions. SDY (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. My feeling is that all article writers should be contacted as well. Best, --A Nobody 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the flag is raised specifically because those who !voted keep in that previous AFD were not notified, no? MuZemike 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...never mind. Those notification were handed out to the keep !voters as shown and ; they were not included above. MuZemike 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the etc. was to suggest that there were more than just those I listed as I figured I probably missed some as the edit summaries were unclear. Would it be appropriate to post a similar message on the talk page of anyone who worked on the articles in question? Best, --A Nobody 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious block

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

User_talk:ScienceApologist was just blocked for making three spelling corrections and link fix: , , and . As no fringe science content was involved, this looks like needless drama. I hope someone with good sense puts a stop to it and cautions the Admins involved to use better judgement in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying he edited fringe articles while he is banned from editing fringe articles and got blocked for evading his ban? Brothejr (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. His topic ban is as states:

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

By editing the page in question he violated the above. Tiptoety 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The block was dubious and ridiculous. QuackGuru (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Or not. SA has made it clear he will not abide by the ArbCom sanctions imposed on him. Indeed, he announced that he would be making edits like this as a form of 'civil disobedience.' The thing about civil disobedience is that you tend to get arrested anyway. Context here. //roux   01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How does correcting spelling and a link have anything to do with quackery? This is absurd, and I say that as a fan of quackery. Now we have to have a long drawn out discussion because somebody got trigger happy over spelling corrections? This is absurd to the extreme. And Seicers personal attack below is a much more substantial violation of our guidelines, but will be let stand. This is a joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see he has a newly installed meatpuppet, as indicated by the request. The case was decided upon at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, and there was a clarification that was listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Clarification of restriction on User:ScienceApologist. As noted here, continued abuse by editing fringe articles, even if it is for spelling corrections, will lead to an outright permanent topic ban. These blocks cannot be overturned by administrators, and can only be appealed to ArbCom. As they just ruled on the clarification and agreed with the amendment noted above, it is highly unlikely they will even accept case or look further into it. No administrator intervention is required. seicer | talk | contribs 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer's personal attacks and disruptive edits today are disturbing . I thought he was retired? Please try to keep in mind that we're here to improve the encyclopedia not make personal attacks and rants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer, accusing people of being puppets merely because they side with someone you don't like is inappropriate behavior for an admin. You also appear to not understand what a meatpuppet is. I hope this isn't indicative of your normal behavior. kwami (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed an example of someone looking for an excuse. There was no change of content at all. Was the topic ban intended to prevent all improvement of the encyclopedia, or to prevent change of relevant content by SA? I believe it was the latter. If he is abiding by the spirit of the ban by not changing relevant content, and using his time to abide by the spirit of Misplaced Pages by fixing minor errors without changing content, what is the purpose of this block? Is it to prove that punishment is the name of the game? I totally support the concept behind the ban, and I have never defended SA's style, but this is ridiculous. This is the type of thing a child incapable of understanding the reasons behind complex matters would do. It's just focusing on the letter and forgetting the spirit. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This board and its respondents don't have the authority to overrule an ArbCom imposed topic ban. Its enforcement is plainly within the text of the remedy, and has essentially been ratified by the Committee in any case. Refer to WP:RFAR for further action. Avruch 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Admins should set a good example and be expected to use common sense, not shoot blindly in the dark and close discussions when they can't provide well-reasoned responses. BTW, the admin who made the block can self-revert as an act of good faith. That might restore some measure of trust in this process. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious close of thread

An editor has quickly closed a new thread when there is strong disagreement and the issue remains unresolved. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, starting a new thread immediately below in an attempt to disrupt the administrators' noticeboard results in either closure or migration to a related topic. There is nothing that can be done, sans an appeal to ArbCom which is unlikely to even take place. seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I followed the instructions -- Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. and you then improperly edited my comments by moving them into a closed section, thus essentially blocking the participation of the community in this matter. Are admins immune from community scrutiny, or do they have a right to ignore it? This is really embarrassing. I'd be embarrassed to be an admin at this moment. It would appear that you have more at stake in this matter than the blocking admin. Interesting. You have previously been called out for your protection of quackery and fringe topics and their editors here. Is this a continuation of your strategy? Let's face it, you closed the discussion too early, at a point when it was obviously not resolved. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically a good block. I'd make those edits by proxy if asked...so I'm not really sure what the block serves.... --Onorem♠Dil 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Technically", yes. But not in spirit. It stinks. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on Quackuru. The thread clearly states (and seicer even put it in the closing remarks) where the issue needs to be taken if you wish to pursue it further. If you aren't satisfied with how things stand, take it to WP:RFAR. This is not the place, as has been explained already. Aleta 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer's remark can be ignored, since he doesn't make the rules. The blocking admin has the right to change their mind and save their honor. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer can also save some semblance of honor by reopening the thread that obviously was not resolved. The tag he placed at the top of that thread is a bald faced lie. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that I must repeat myself? ARBCOM passed a motion that administrators cannot overturn or reverse action taken in pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, unless there is written authorization of ARBCOM or that there is clear community consensus to do so. This is specific to users, passed in a motion in January 2009. seicer | talk | contribs 02:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't refer to self-reverting, only to one admin reverting another, IOW to prevent wheelwarring. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And he has no inclination to overturn. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence that you are giving him a chance to talk. This is your battle, and you have taken over. That's a shame. And you have indeed misused and misquoted an ArbCom ruling to justify your actions here. Shameful. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no significant harm at this point from letting users continue to discuss on this board, especially in the interest of stopping the forest fire and centralizing the discussion. That having been said, there isn't any gain either. We are not interested in Misplaced Pages becoming a battleground over ScienceApologist, his edits, or his cause celebre.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a clear community consensus that typo fixing is OK? I don't agree with many of SAs edits, but this block is stupid. --Onorem♠Dil 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the basic issue here. Please get a decision on this. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree that blocking for spelling corrections is disruptive, unwarranted, and creates unnecessary drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'd agree too, if that was why ScienceApologist was blocked for. It was not. Any attempt to frame the debate this way is simply setting up a strawman to be knocked down— he was blocked for willfully and deliberately violating a topic ban that was even clarified a few days ago. He did so after having been warned in no equivocal terms that he would be blocked if he did. — Coren  03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Coren, this is about three spelling corrections and a link fix. If SA spends the next six months or even one month correcting spelling and making non-controversial edits that would be fabulous. There was no need for this block. THere was no dispute. This wasn't a grey area. This was spelling and a link fix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Whether the block is proper or not, Seicer's early marking of "resolved" archiving the thread is inappropriate since a couple of editors began to point out on his "persona attacks" and absurd accusation. That act seems like he wants to wrap up or divert the "new" topic. However, that kind of his incivility is nothing new.--Caspian blue 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You should review the history. I didn't initially archive the thread, but only applied the resolved tag since no administrator action is required. seicer | talk | contribs 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I fix my comment accordingly. (the meaning is not that much changed though)--Caspian blue 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I marked it as resolved because it was inappropriate to post it in this board as no administrator action was required. The OP should have brought this up to the blocking administrator, who was not even informed of this thread until I notified him. seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
        • You know I did not comment on the merit of the block.--Caspian blue 03:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of SA in the sense that I believe almost all of his edits have been improvements, and overall he's been a great asset to Misplaced Pages, but he's clearly been fishing for a block and I can't see any reasonable way to avoid giving him one. Looie496 (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Rfar#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFringe_science--Tznkai (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, this isn't about spelling corrections. SA is quite clearly attempting to de-legitimize ArbCom, a democratically elected body charged with enforcing WP-wide policy. I see little reason to reward this behavior. Close this thread, please. Ronnotel (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Offer to SA

I disagree with most of your edits from a pov perspective, but feel free to leave me a note if you'd like simple things corrected like you edited today. I'll make clearly productive edits by proxy if you need to avoid silly sanctions that are unrelated to generic fixes. --Onorem♠Dil 03:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent offer, Onorem. As SA's mentor I've been waiting for a response from him about today's events. Normally I wouldn't advocate proxy editing, but for simple spelling corrections and things like that your proposal looks like a very good way to move forward. Durova 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, proxy editing is something explicitly contemplated by the arbitration ruling, which permits SA to participate on the talk page.

SA's behavior here is like the little kid who gets told don't step one foot outside of his room, and then does just that to test the parents. He's entitled to engage in civil disobedience, but WP:POINT is WP:POINT, and part of civil disobedience is accepting the resulting punishment. THF (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Adil your

I think this guy needs a block frankly. He was unblocked recently and carried on reverting against consensus again. His sources are ridiculous and in my opinion his edits aren't much more useful than vandalism, eg Khemkaran using defencejournal.com - the ref article is nonsense and non-RS written in a childish tone, laughing off conventional history etc. The same on the others, citing the pak govt as truth on wars involving pakistan. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for disruptive editing and edit warring. Tried to explain about consensus editing on his user talk page. I'm OK with another admin lessening the block if Adil your seems to understand and acknowledge that disruptive editing and edit warring aren't acceptable behavior, but if you do so please be prepared to reimpose if they revert to this behavior again... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick block review requested

I indef blocked Wikinìgger (talk · contribs) per the obviously profane username. A moment later I realized that the account vandalized my talk page here. Not a big deal, but it might be considered inappropriate of me to block a user who vandalized my userspace, so I'd like a quick confirmation from another admin. Thanks, –Juliancolton 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Username alone deserves an indef. Endorsed. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

good block. You don't need to second guess yourself when it's this obvious. Ronnotel (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I just prefer to err on the side of caution. :) Thanks for the input. –Juliancolton 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's he going to do, start an ANI thread about it? Jtrainor (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very surprised we do not have a username filter that disallows that as a username at the point of user creation. Mfield (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The third 'I' looks weird; he probably used that to sneak past the filters. HalfShadow 04:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, I assumed it was dirt on my screen, should have known better as I came across the same trick the other day, plus I was dealing with the request just below that is closely related. Maybe extending the filter to catch the accented Is would be smart, as there are a few of them. Mfield (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And the dotless "i" (ı) as well, and the number "1" as either "i" or "l", like spam filters do to prevent ads for Ro1ex watches and Vıagra, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive and unnecessary talk page?

Is this talk page really necessary? The account is blocked and the userpage deleted. And if a speedy delete template or MfD would have been more appropriate than here please let me know. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted and salted. Mfield (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:THF posing as an Admin

Are non-admins allowed to mark "resolved" WP:COI issues as per here

I wouldn't have thought just anyone would be allowed to do this. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference to Misplaced Pages:COIN#User:WebHamster_and_article_Round_the_Horne.

Per WP:MULTI, "If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link." I don't see a requirement of adminship needed to do that. If anyone besides the disruptive editor who made 22 edits to COIN finds my shutting down that mess problematic, when it was entirely redundant of a pending mediation, and consisted of the two editors in that mediation squabbling, feel free to revert me. THF (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was right in the middle of posting diff's for evidence when it was closed. I asked THF to reopen it here, however he ignored this request and then promptly changed his closing "reasoning" making it impossible to revert. Can some random non-admin editor really come in and close a discussion while someone is in the middle of posting their evidence? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it's a wiki. Their decision to close can also be overturned, by a consensus of editors who, too, need not be administrators. Skomorokh 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So..I can reopen it and continue to post my evidence? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Given WP:MULTI and WP:HOUND and WP:TLDR and WP:COOL, I don't recommend reopening a COIN discussion dealing with the same subject as a pending mediation on the possibility that your 23rd edit to the section will be more persuasive than the first 22, but that would be up to an administrator whether that sort of disruption is worth a preventative block as the only means to get you to drop the WP:STICK. THF (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was more interested in a third party opinion. Considering you closed the WP:COI section while I was in the middle of posting diff's, I have noted your position quite clearly. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You state that you were in the middle of posting evidence. I have to ask why you did not post such evidence when you were creating the thread.— Dædαlus 06:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that the "evidence" of COI that BSOD made a dozen posts on my talk page and at ANI about before undoing the thread closure to make his 23rd post was File:Zcolne1.jpg--in other words, the editor with whom he has been squabbling with attended a concert. I feel like I've been trolled. THF (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey again

Please see User talk:Ultramegasuperstar. He blocked this user for sockpuppetry, with no further reasons. --Bollywood-Turk (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet. Good block. Kafziel 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And Bollywood-Turk (talk · contribs) isn't the new user his contributions suggest, so... dougweller (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Especially given YellowMonkey has CheckUser, I'm inclined to trust any sockpuppet blocks from him. Suggest this thread simply be closed. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless the poster meant that since YM is protecting WP from socks, again, he deserves a barnstar. In which case I say, yes, I support, do it. ;) KillerChihuahua 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got to admire, however, how the unblock reasons shift from There is no way, that I'm a sockpuppet. This is my only nick here, and there will be no other to Sockpuppets are not illegal. "I don't sock, oh, wait, I do, but it's OK!" This flag once was red_deeds 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 4.227.106.12

4.227.106.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) repetitive nonsense vandalism to BabyFirstTV article such as changing the date of it being founded from 2003 (the correct date with a reference from the channel's official website) to 1982 (false). Same vandalism has twice been reverted. Why vandalize an article about a channel made for babies, I'll never know, but its ridiculous. Please block them. I already reported them on WP:AIV but they told me to come here. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is probably kind of pointless in this case. While the user has made, what, five, six acts of vandalism to the page, he edits in very short stints and then reappears later under a different IP. The issue of sufficient warning aside, blocks are meant to prevent disruption, and, well, a block probably wouldn't prevent anything in this case. If he returns, it will probably be in several hours or days under a different IP. So just stay vigilant, and revert/warn/ignore. If he does pass four warnings, feel free to return to AIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• 4.227.109.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP vandalism, possible WP:sock puppet of 4.227.106.12, vandalism of BabyFirstTV. Both IP's are changing the year the network was founded from 2003 (clearly stated on the channel's official site and referenced with an inline citation) to 1982 (obviously untrue, no reference cited) without explanation. Please block both IP's.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought i'd like to point out that TomCat has had a history of edits that include edit-warring, personal attacks, jumping to conclusion before getting all the facts, and making claims that people are sockpuppets without proof. Plus merging and redirecting pages without starting discussion. And i may or may not be out of line, but i know a semi or fully disruptive user when i see one. The Cool Kat (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never done any of that and I ask you to WP:AGF before making accusations like that. I make constructive edits to dozens of articles a day and I'm a member of WP:CVU. I would appreciate it if you stopped this blatant WP:harrassment.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not harrassing you, and you have done all of that: merging Toon Disney into Disney XD without discussing and it wasn't untill after a few users reverted you started a discussion . And i never said you vandalpzing pages, disruptive edits can be more than vandalism. And secondly i'm sorry if it seems i'm harrassing you but your edits are very suspicious. And the block for edit-warring and harrassment raises an eyebrow and before you go check my block log i admit that i've been edit-warring too in Feburary but is stopped that after i gained rollback rights. The Cool Kat (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're the one not getting all of the facts. I stopped the merge war 3 days ago and discussed it in on the board. You are clearlyhounding me which IS a form of harrassment. If you continue to do so I will request you get permanently blocked.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you got the facts all wrong. I wasn't really blocked. The tell tale sign was the "block" said "for an eternity". It was really a long term WP:sock puppet vandal pretending to be an administrator who was in turn REALLY permanently blocked for vandalizing my page by a REAL administrator. I HAVE NEVER BEEN BLOCKED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bolding, caps, yelling and arguing are not helping here. The case is in full view of the admins - the links are available to all - and the immediate post above merely detracts from your case as a whole. I'd recommend a few deep breaths. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just took a close look ... how many times did you re-merge articles after the first reversion? You were bold, it was reverted, it became time to discuss immediately. I'm trying to find one good reason why your actions were not themselves actioned ... that said, this quite possibly has no relationship to the complaint filed (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the person is clearly hounding me and has been since Saturday because she's mad at me because of the TD / DXD debate. Well I haven't touched the article in 3 days, and I contributed to the discussion instead, which is still unresolved btw. and I don't appreciate this harrassment and all of these false accusations. Look at their contributions for proof.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(You might be the one failing to provide a little WP:AGF here with regards to the Disney stuff. You probably also did little to help your argument by continually re-merging after it was reverted once. You're obviously not being hounded)

With respect to the IP address issues - the incidence of vandalism from a couple of IP addresses is quite small - so little that nobody is going to rangeblock a swath of IP addresses and cause problems for valid editors. IP addresses are a tricky thing, and have to be handled carefully. Thousands of IP addresses will not be blocked to stop a half-dozen well spread out incidents of minor vandalism, so I am not sure exactly what additional action you think can or will be taken.

So, short form: based on the above, what action are you still looking for here? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the past. The important thing is I STOPPED re-merging 3 days ago and haven't done it since. I also contributed to the discussion. You're just singling out one small incident that has since stopped. You're making me out to be a bad editor when I'm not. So anyways if you can't block the IP's, fine. End of discussion. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Look TomCat, I know you're having a bad day...don't take it out on neutral people who are simply trying to help. The reason the issue about reverting was inside brackets was because for this incident, it's actually unrelated and I wanted to mention it as a closing thing to that part of the discussion, rather than leaving it hanging. You don't need to be overly snarky here please...I simply wanted to know what action you needed based on my IP discussion above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Break it up, break it up, PLEASE!!!

Talk:Goguryeo controversies - these users have gotten out of control. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The behaviour you're complaining about, while certainly problematic, appears to be about two weeks old. I've added the page to my watchlist, and will intervene if problems continue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

scriptural reasoning article

I am writing about the article 'Scriptural reasoning'. I am happy to admit I am an officer of the Scriptural Reasoning Society. I am not 'scripturalreasoning' but am part of the same society and we all know about the history and editing conflict. I made a single edit on this article a long time ago. I have not done so since because of the conflicts and I do not have time nor sufficiently interested.

But I am concerned that 'thelongview' seems to have added a lot of references to himself and people from the organisation which he is part of or works for, and his editing seems biased towards the Society for Scriptural Reasoning. Two other editors 'mahigton' and 'laysha101' arrived at the exactly same time last November and they have all admitted they know each other. This all seems dodgy.

Other admins have noted that this article has been a conflict between the two organizations and suggested that it should be edited by people who are not linked to either organization, and don't use it to promote either organization. There are hardly any references from people who aren't directly involved in scriptural reasoning. Thanks. --Kurteasy (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Scriptural reasoning for ease of editors. KillerChihuahua 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a really good reason for this article to exist and not just be a redirect to Exegesis? Just because multiple people join the same two words together doesn't really mean we need an article about it. For example, "my stupid parents" gets plenty of g-hits, but that's obviously not an article topic. --B (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Scriptural reasoning is not exegesis... I'm not convinced about its notability, but a redirect to exegesis would be profoundly misleading. ] 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought "scriptual reasoning" was just another synonym for prooftext. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also see this recent discussion here at AN/I regarding Scripturalreasoning.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell Scriptural reasoning is a (relatively) new interfaith practice. A more accurate description may be "interfaith discussions concerning Abrahamic scripture". We've got an obvious COI problem, but it doesn't seem unmanageable. Cambridge University's interfaith programme seems to be involved, but I'm not sure if the notability is inherited. All that having been said, what exactly, if anything, are admins needed for?--Tznkai (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A search for scriptural reasoning on wiki reveals that the lead scholars have their own articles, some of which may have been autobiographies, but this appears to be an editors needed problem, not an admin intervention required problem.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Tznkai. The article certainly needs to be improved, and more editors are needed. Most scriptural reasoning activity worldwide takes place under the aegis of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, so most editors familiar with the practice will be affiliated in some way with it. There is an expanding literature on the topic, and over time I would expect a corresponding increase in numbers of editors able to form independent judgements. Thelongview (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thelongview, in the Google-searching I did a couple of days ago, I got the impression that everything relating to the Scriptural Reasoning Society was probably generated by a single person. I presume you know something about this -- can you shed any light? (No personal identities, please, though.) Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Contact Administrator

Can someone tell me where I can contact an administrator? Sorry I`m new here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickbugun (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just place {{Adminhelp}} on your talk page and one will be along shortly. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Alternately, you may just ask your question here if it absolutely requires immediate attention. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Collect and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren

Block review requested

I've just blocked Rambam rashi (talk · contribs) for a week for changing to another variant of English contra WP:ENGVAR after warning and previous blocks. The user clearly knows better than to carry on after being blocked. But I would like a review and advice, and in particular, he's done a redirect because he didn't like the spelling and I'm not sure how to undo it as it isn't just one redirect. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He hadn't been warned recently but he had been warned a bunch before and blocked once for it. I would recommend you leave a more verbose personalized message as well - the template is not that great an explanation.

I've reverted some bits of the spree he did in the last few days - I will try and unwind the redirects. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Second block for the same offense, I would hope he's aware by now. There was a detailed post earlier on his talk page. KillerChihuahua 20:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page rules

After a story broke regarding Misplaced Pages's Barack Obama article, an editor posted a link to it on the Obama talk. The story had to with the editing process for the article and related content issues. The edit was reverted a couple times and a warning issued. I'm wondering what other editors think about whether posting the link was appropriate and whether the reactions were appropriate? Thank you for your civil and considered responses. If this was discussed previously I apologize, I was not privy to the discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I withdraw my comment. I see that the article was already linked and discussed on the page. My mistake. Although I do think the aggresive reaction and personal attacks leveled against visitors puts Misplaced Pages in a negative light.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:FimusTauri

FimusTauri (talk · contribs) is engaging in long term disruptive editing. The issue resolves around what he perceives to be a "pro-myth" lobby group. He has started discussions on article talk pages (notably Talk:Noah's Ark - see the archives), WT:NPOV/FAQ (see here), The Village Pump (see here), new policy pages (see Misplaced Pages:Ambiguous Words), selective canvassing (see here for one instance), and now WikiProject talk pages (see here). They're the ones I've noted in my interactions with FimusTauri, though I haven't gone through his edit history too thoroughly so there may be more.

I have previously asked FimusTauri to lay off of the forum shopping here and here, carefully explaining the details including why I'm making the request, offering wikilinks and letting him know it is a blockable offence. Another editor has noted it here. The latest posting at the WikiProject talk page I noted above offers a threat of more forum shopping if he doesn't get the response he wants.

His persistence has exasperated many editors, including myself, so I'm bringing the issue here. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You say he is involved in disruptive editing, but you haven't posted any diffs to article space. Can you back that up? Or is it simply that his talk page choices are a problem? --Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I read through Misplaced Pages:Canvassing again before posting this, and based on that reading, I thought disruptive editing was the correct term to describe the problem. He has very few article space edits, in fact, the account is only a few months old whose almost sole purpose is what I linked above. Ben (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards