Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:56, 18 April 2008

• 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

Giano II

Moved to subpage at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Signed w/o timestamp to prevent archiving. MaxSem

Bstone vs IZAK

On 23 Feb 08, User Bstone (talk · contribs) opened a RfC against me, User IZAK (talk · contribs), at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 based on his dislike of comments at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 20#Deletion of synagogue articles on Feb 15, after he (Bstone) had nominated a number of synagogue articles/stubs for deletion, but which were saved after User:IZAK improved them enough. Neither the improvement of the articles he had nominated for deletion nor waiting for the motions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2, where the vast majority of editors including a number of admins support me, that he had started and had not been brought to closure (it's still open), on 1 April Bstone proceeded to complain at ANI but was rejected there as well. Still not satisfied he then went on to launch a RfA on 2 April which was rejected by the ArbCom. Ignoring my request on 10 April that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 be brought to closure first, on 14 April Bstone stone applied for a RfM which was also rejected and being unable to accept that either, he proceeds to question the admin involved. As of April 15, he has stated he intends to head to the MedCab not taking "no" or "stop" for an answer. At this time, seeing that Bstone (1) refuses to accept the decisions of the ArbCom and (2) the rejection of the Mediation Committee (3) has no regard for discussions and advice at ANI and (4) ignores the motions and function of RfA, (failed actions 1 to 4 all initiated by Bstone himself) and (5) he refuses to respond to my requests to talk to me directly in a meaningful way , one can only conclude that User:Bstone is violating WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER and WP:HARASS, aka WP:STALK and a number of other policies that he cites against others, such as WP:AGF and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and that he should be warned to stop his pattern of unrelenting calculated attacks against IZAK and/or blocked for his violations of these policies, for his unbecoming stubborn and rude conduct, and for his unwillingness to accept the decisions of the ArbCom, ANI, the rejection by the Mediation Committee of his trumped up cases against IZAK, and for his ignoring of the still open RfC. Thank you for your help in this regard. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a mis-description here. Bstone is not the only editor to have found your behaviour troubling at times - see the RfCs for details. Even your supporters have asked you to reflect on the criticism. Plus the person who instigates an RfC is not permitted to close it (even if they wanted to) - that happens when the discussion is deemed by the community to be exhausted. Probably it could now be closed, but I suspect attempts to close it in the initial days, when discussion was still ongoing, and concerns still being expressed, have probably backfired here in making any attempt to close it look inappropriate.--Doc 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: Two wrongs do not make a right and I will gladly discuss anything about myslef with anyone, but that does not mean Bstone has a "right" to pursue a vendetta (what else is it?) against me or anyone if he sees that his calls are being rejected by the ArbCom, by the Mediation Committe and right here at ANI. I was not asking Bstone to close the RfC, but he just skipped over it even claiming he "forgot" about it. Let a neutral uninvolved admin decide, and let people take their time. Whatever was being discusssed and negotiated at the RfC should have remained there, and we were arriving at concrete agreements at the time, something that Bstone also overlooked in his failed quest to attack me at ArbCom, mediation Committe and here at ANI. My main point is that I was expecting movement and discussion at the RfC, or ideally direct discussions on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM, when instead Bstone went on to instigate other failed actions against me, and it is for that misbehavior of his that I call for sanctions against him. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking for mediation between parties is hardly against a party, indeed it shows a willingness to find a resolution. No?--Doc 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: I agree, I was all for it, but I asked that he pause for the RfC to be brought to closure finally because that too was a major piece of mediation and negotiation involving quite a few interested parties, but he skipped over that, as he skipped over many things in his quest to attack me. I was not the one that closed the RfM, I was not even involved in setting it up, and if it had been accepted I would do my good share, but if an admin and member of the mediation committee rejects Bstone's request, then Bstone must accept that decision, rather than go fighting it. He evidently has trouble with rejection and unless he gets his own way he seems to feel that he must continue to attack me in yet another forum. So how long will that go on and how many times must Bstone be rejected before he stops disrupting the community with his frivolous actions? Even "civil" disruption is disruption! Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My criticism of you in the past is that you see everything as a battle and then accuse people of "attacking you". Looking at the RfM, the Medcom did not suggest that Bstone drop it, indeed they suggested he pursued other avenues of dispute resolution including arbitration. Isn't that what he did? I really can't see what you want admins to do now, block him?--Doc 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: I didn't know you knew every detail of my "past" on Misplaced Pages, almost five and a half years of it, that you were so expert to judge my reactions. I admit to having an acerbic pen, but it is no more than that, not everyone can speak in one tone 24/7, sometimes we write more and sometimes less, my output is ten thousand times more than Bstone on Misplaced Pages. Anyhow, looking at one or two points in isolation seems perhaps like nothing, but Bstone has now tried to attack me DIRECTLY at least FOUR times: Via a RfC, at ANI, a RfA and now RfM and EACH time he loses his bid and is told that he has no case at the present time. Now taken together what would YOU call that if not a series of calculated and unrelenting attacks, all in reponse to discussions at articles Bstone nominates for deletion. The man cannot take even a minor disagreement and feels that everything I say in regard to "him" is a "violation" of "WP:CIVIL" or "WP:AGF" when people at ANI thought he was actually joking, take a look at what they said: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#IZAK not assuming good faith and the ArbCom told him "Bye Bye" see and he still goes on and on, and then you turn around and say that I am wrong to feel "attacked" -- really now? I may be tough, but I have feelings too. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the arbcom quite dismissed him as "bye bye", it looks like they hoped that arbitration and sanctions would prove unnecessary at this point - and that some other resolution might be found to the complaints Bstone brought. I think the hope was that further sanctions against you might prove unnecessary. I think that was the hope of the RfC too: that you'd listen to the critics, modify your tone accordingly, and that would hopefully be all that was necessary. I'm afraid I didn't follow events to see if that happened on not.--Doc 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is completely mindboggling. I was specifically told by ArbCom that the case was premature and we had not exhausted attempts at mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite told me if I filed a request with the Mediation Committee to assist IZAK and I with the issues we have been having it would be speedily accepted. Since when is asking for mediation in order to help two editors work out their differences grounds for a complaints on ANI? I was told by administrators and arbitors to ask for mediation and I did. My head is spinning and I am really wondering how I can continue being part of the project when IZAK continues his unending attacks. Bstone (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Ryan offered to mediate informally rather than through the mediation comittee. Try contacting him directly. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan specifically stated that it would be speedily accepted by the Mediation Committee. Yet they have rejected it. It seems Ryan is on vacation right now so might not respond to this issue. So, what's next? Can this thread please be closed and archived? Bstone (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the MedCom or for Ryan, but the case that was rejected seems like a perfectly normal rejection. A bare list of user conduct issues is not an acceptable foundation for mediation of any sort. MedCab, MedCom and other forms of mediation are not a stick with which to beat an opponent. They are groups and individuals that offer outside assistance in reaching an agreement. "User X violated Y&Z policies and they need to be told they're wrong," is not going to be helpful in mediation, and cannot be the basis of a mediation. A user demanding to be proven right, even when content issues are involved, is often a point of note and concern for a mediator. When it's a simple list of accusations lacking context and missing any real description of the dispute, it's almost a textbook example of a case to be rejected. A mediation request with any hope of being fruitful must at the very least describe the dispute. Being a neutral as possible in the description and providing some context are also extremely helpful. Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Understand, I filed the Mediation case because Ryan told me to, said it would be speedily accepted, ArbCom was pointing me to Mediation Committee, etc. As such I had no idea it would be rejected. Furthermore, since when it asking for mediation between two parties grounds for a complaint? IZAK should instead be working with me in finding a mediator to assist in helping us work out our professional and personal conflicts. I seriously want to resolve this dispute. Does he? Bstone (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Ryan encouraged you to file a case, but I doubt it was a blank check. If you truly wish to seek mediation and settle the dispute, simply asserting the other party is wrong with a list of policy violation accusations is most certainly not the way to go. You've been around and active long enough to know better. I don't condone that way IZAK has approached things, but your approach is not helpful or productive either. You both need to start addressing the issues in dispute and avoid making broad accusations towards each other. Vassyana (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel inclined to comment here, as the Committee member who rejected the RfM. There was virtually zero material in the way of prior attempts at constructive discussion and dispute resolution, short of some very heated discussion that wasn't heading anywhere fast. Most importantly, I felt, the filing party had not considered filing for informal mediation with the MedCab, which indicated to me that formal mediation was not warranted at such an early stage in the dispute's life-cycle. Whilst I will not make any comment with regards to the questions of incivility on the part of certain parties, I will say that this dispute's resolution seems to have been hampered by some bad blood between the parties in question, and that begs the question of whether or not administrator intervention is necessary, both to prevent further disruption as a direct result of this "bad blood"'s manifestation, and to aid the resolution of this dispute, by eliminating a major sticking point of it (the ill-feelings). Anthøny 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony and Vassyana: Notice how unrelenting Bstone is in his attacks against me and how he totally does not register what you are saying and how he disregards what does not suit him and only wishes that things go his way, even after all the measures he has tried have failed and admin after admin and editor after editor do not agree with his opinions. He needs a much stronger wake up call to pay attention to the professional opinions of other serious editors and admins. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best if these editors avoided each other, and avoided commenting about each other. Jayjg 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Jayjg: That is easier said than done because this entire trail of discussions goes back to early February when Bstone started to work towards deletion of synagogue and Jewish school articles articles/stubs, and even after I improved and saved them from deletion, he does not acknowledge that good work but only seeks ways, all in the name of "WP:CIVIL" and "WP:AGF" to launch new attacks and criticism of my efforts to counter his misguided nominations of Judaic articles for deletion. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the editor. I couldn't agree more. Bstone (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Bstone, if that were true, you would have long ago given up your quest to attack me with all you failed efforts against me at ANI, the ArbCom, Mediation Committee, and the unclosed RfC. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Jayjg's suggestion. Misplaced Pages is a big place and there's plenty of room for IZAK and Bstone to work without "bumping into" one another. — ] (] · ]) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think some admin should archive this thread as soon as possible. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yahel Guhan: I understand your well-meaning words, but Bstone is now into his third month of a vendetta to undermine and derail me on Misplaced Pages, and in the process he has violated many policies such as WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND (and more) by ignoring rulings of the ArbCom, the Mediation Committee, advice at ANI and leaving a RfC that he started in limbo because it has not gone his way, and each time he has approached admins asking them to explain and justify their actions wasting everyone's time in the process, and he needs to be blocked or warned to stop his wasted and wasteful elongated WP:EDITWAR as he attempts to nominate articles about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion (with the last one cited here Bstone even went to Deletion Review to get an article re-deleted after it was kept but he was turned down, and naturally he cannot stand being rejected so he proceeds to the next battleground, and the next, and the next...) but I saved most of those articles. So that is what it is -- a huge drawn out edit war with Bstone resorting to all these outside appeals like RfCs, RfAs, RfMs and appeals at ANI and now he plans to waste the MedCab's time when he disagrees with my opposing comments at AfDs, since in recent times he has nominated quite a few articles/stubs about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion, something that I opposed him on very strongly and which caused him to rage at me until now albeit in a "civil" way ("civil" rage is still rage) and he has also troubled many editors associated with WP:JUDAISM and not just me. Thanks for caring, but cutting the discussion short will not solve anything. I have called for Bstone to talk to me directly in a meaningful way on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM but he refuses to do so, and on the contrary he maintains his own "watchlist" of me listing my past "transgressions" at User:Bstone/rfcuizak (is that legal?) as he pays no attention to his own multiple violations of Misplaced Pages's policies as they pile up. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note:This issue has been accepted by the Mediation Committee for formal mediation per my request. Waiting on IZAK to accept formal mediation, however hopefully that will happen shortly. I kindly request this thread by archived so the mediation can proceed. Bstone (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Response to the "Note": I would be happy to start at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal but I cannot see the justice of an "on again, off again, on again" case at RfM at this time when the older, very thorough and comprehensive RfC was simply shut down, and it had a lot of work and views put into it and it was just trashed, without any consultation with the many editors and admins and those who had worked hard to come up with a working solution for both Bstone and myself, and the other editors who get left out in the cold by calculation it seems. At this point it has become something of a flying circus with Bstone running from pillar to post, opening a RfC case, "forgetting" about it, and then presto in one instant, after almost two months, it's shut, he went to the ArbCom and they refused to take on the case, they never gave anyone a "mandate to mediate" on their behalf least of all an excuse to somehow claim that the ArbCom case is pending, which it is not, they can speak for themselves if need be, then Bstone opened a RfM that was rejected and after he went to this admin and that it was re-opened again, which makes no sense, when in any case Bstone had already agreed to go to MedCab which is the basic thing he should have done from the get-go. Please see User talk:IZAK#Request for mediation not accepted for the full comments. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am at a loss as how to proceed. Right now the only thing preventing IZAK and I from formally working toward a resolution to our differences is his refusal to accept formal mediation. This is very disheartening. Suggestions? Please help. Bstone (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone: Wrong again. I am not opposed to formal mediation at all, what I am opposed to is formal mediation out of sequence and you should not be granted the arbitrary rights to decide when to launch RfCs, RfAs, RfMs, filings at ANI at will, and when you are refused simply start another venue for your actions. You are violating Misplaced Pages's policies, especially WP:POINT, in your quest to fight me and you should be blocked, that is my view, see more below at "RfC proposed verdicts ignored." You too need to understand and follow process, especially due process and not jump hither and thither helter-skelter, in the process violating Misplaced Pages's basic functioning, and you must see to it that you first try to resolve matters with me directly, and not as you have done constantly seeking punitive actions against me (hardly an incentive to mediate with anyone) simply because I vehemently disagreed with you, and you have not done that in a meaningful way either on your or my talk page first or at the talk page of WP:JUDAISM where talks began, nor have you tried the MedCab either which would be the next LOGICAL stop but you have skipped that too, as you ran off to launch your barrage of the RfC, RfA, RfMx2, ANI, and your multiple appeals on the talk pages of admins who are only randomly involved with either you or me and who know little about the core issues relating to the original differences between us that arose when you launched a series of nominations to delete articles/stubs about synagogues and schools which even when I improved them, you never acknowledged, only waiting to seek the next place to lodge complaints (more like attacks couched in ever-so-civil parlance, but "civil" attacks are still attacks) against me because things did not go your way. So EVERYONE needs to get a sense that you are indeed interested in having a true meeting of the minds with me rather than lieing in wait for the next forum so that you can recount your retinue of complaints/attacks against me while you very conveniently overlook your own multiple violations along the way. IZAK (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC proposed verdicts ignored

This is an official complaint against the premature closing of the RfC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 by User:WJBscribe (although he meant well) by simply "asking" User:Bstone if it's ok claiming that "can close the RfC, stating that mediation is being pursued instead. Would that be acceptable?" and Bstone gladly accepting. Why not, it's an easy way to get rid of lots of editors words against him) and then "done" with one quick click in the name of hoped for "mediation" -- not a bad thing if done fairly. HOWEVER this is done at the expense of the EARLIER and most THOROUGH hard work and efforts at true conflict resolution and mediation that had unfolded at the RfC involving almost FIFTY editors, including many admins and in effect trashing FOUR proposed intermediate verdicts at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2#RfC Status update, one very THREATENING proposed intermediate verdict by Bstone against me and handily rejected by the majority and THREE remaining proposed intermediate verdicts, and mostly agreed to by me, that Bstone just ran away from and instead when he saw he was not going to get his way, simply "forgot" about the input of about FIFTY editors -- quite mind-boggling, and then he went off to raise the heat with his RfA which the ArbCom handily turned down. Sure, "disembodied OBJECTIVE and NPOV mediation" sounds like a great thing and no sane person goes against it, but to simply dump the efforts and serious attemtpts and working out a meeting of the minds between Bstone and myself is the greatest travesty and a violation of due process as well as an insult to and slap in the face of all those who gave of their time and input to resolve things somewhat. This is just a sign of how out of control Bstone's behavior has become, because by now he has involved so many committees and so many admins and not all of them even know what the others have said or suggested so that Bstone takes advantage of Misplaced Pages's labyrinthian governing structure and loosely connected communications system between admins and committees such as we see here that those involved at the orginal RfC are not informed by admins working at RfM and how a failed RfA by Stone leads to first a rejcted RfM and then re-accepted after he involves a group of disconncted admins that then becomes an invitation to proceed with more talks with other admins who know little about the first, middle or last part of the proceedings. This entire sordid escapade is starting to take on Dickensonian dimensions of Bleak House with admins and committees coming and going and relying upon Bstone for agreeing to this or that but not knowing the source and structure and present state of his campaign and my responses to it, since he started these motions in the first place, in the process crushing true efforts as seen at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 that was shut down on the say-so of only one admin at RfM who means well by wanting mediation when the whole picture is so messed up to start with. For the record, all the times I requested that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 be brought to CLOSURE was not a request that it just be shut down and ignored, my fervent hope and request was that whatever was discussed and put togther over TWO MONTHS of discussions be brought to some sort of conclusion through implementation but not just slamming the door on it as if it were a meaningless rubble. ANI is therefore requested to take a long hard look at the BROAD PICTURE and at what is really going here and seek out the input and views of all those who had originally participtaed there as well as take a long hard look at Bstone's acts of WP:REICHSTAG and violations of WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and more, deserving a warning and block and that he not hide behind out-of-order and misdirected suggestions of and for mediation (as a means to launch his already planned attacks outlined at User:Bstone/rfcuizak) when so many serious core issues and discussions are either being ignored and violated and should be addressed first in all justice. Thank you, and at this time, it is truly almost Passover. Happy Holidays. IZAK (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to get a little tired of what part of this disagreement I have seen. Bstone started an RfC about IZAK. That RfC had not been edited for about a week when I closed it. Bstone wished to pursue mediation instead and, although the Mediation Committee does not normally handle conduct disputes, Ryan Postlethwaite offered to handle the case. Bstone filed a Request for Mediation which was rejected by AGK on the grounds that it was largely a content dispute. He then reversed this action on realising that Ryan was interested in offering to mediate the case. I contacted IZAK and he pointed out the ongoing RfC. Given that mediation cannot happen in parallel to other methods of dispute resolution, I agreed the RfC needed to be closed and pointed out this obstacle to Bstone. Bstone was happy for the RfC to be closed - he was the filing party and looking at it I'm not sure it was ever properly certified. It seemed appropriate to close the RfC on the basis that the complainant now sought to resolve their issues through mediation instead. The RfC had a pretty clear consensus of editors that it should be closed without action. A closed RfC remains archived and viewable to anybody, but such adversarial proceedings need to be brought to a stop if mediation is to have a chance.

IZAK needs to decide whether he is willing to accept Ryan's offer to mediate this case. All he has to do is indicate "yes" or "no" on the Request for Mediation. If mediation is not accepted and people feel that the RfC should be reopened, that can be done. One of the reasons ArbCom declined to hear this matter was that other avenues of dispute resolution had not been explored. If the parties cannot agree to go down those routes, ArbCom may need to look at this one again. WjBscribe 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to religious holiday I will be away for the next 3 days, until Monday night after dark. As for IZAK's issues above, all I can say is I tremendously hope he agrees to mediation so we can work out our personal and professional issues. This is my greatest hope. Bstone (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

user removing poll results

On the talk page of Afghanistan a poll was opened for whether to include the term Afghani in the demonym list of the info-box or not. The poll is very straight forward and two users already voted. But user: Carl.bunderson keeps crossing out the poll and its results because he does not like the results and is opening a new poll which is very different from this one. His poll also asks for Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.

The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Misplaced Pages or something.

I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.

You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the other way also includes a poll on Afghanistani demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.

Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Central Asia, I disagree that the old poll was fair; its wording struck me as push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change in favour of his own version. cab (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting Anon Issue

Unfortunately, an issue presented in an earlier incident (and again here) (filed less than 48 hours ago) has re-presented itself. In the earlier complaint, a request for help was sent to address the removal of an IP banner and conversations/complaints from an anon user's UserTalk page by the anon himself. As the admns who responded supported the IP banner's continued placement in the anon's page, the matter seemed resolved efficiently. The last comment on the anon users talk page was the notification of a one-week block by JzG (talk · contribs) for being a "Disruptive and disputatious editor". At that point, the old IP address went silent.
As per new comments in the Fitna, it would appear that the same anon has in fact shed the prior IP address where the IP banner and commentary (and week-long block) were located to continue editing in defiance of both the prior AN/I decision and the block as 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs).
I have since updated the IP banner and discussions from the prior IP address to the current IP shell, but have brought the matter of the usage of the anon IP to duck the block here, while notifying the blocking admin. What should happen now? - Arcayne () 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne makes a false accusation. Arcayne placed the text on my user page. The text contains a time stamp of 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My current IP address has been with me since at least 14:07, 16 April 2008. I have never interacted with this editor, nor been informed of any pending actions against me involving him. I have never been afforded the opportunity to defend myself - nor are we aware of which posts containing the issue were assigned to that IP and if they belong to me. 75.58.39.201 (talk)

With apology, I don't think any false accusation has been made. I think its pretty common practice to watchlist one's own user/usertalk page, even if you are an anon. This means the comment from the blocking admn would be in your watchlist. Additionally, the admin's block appears to be addressing your - and no one else's - edits using that IP address, noting the DIff/Time of the block and your edits. You were blocked, and continued to edit through another IP address that was unknown and unaffected by the admin's block. - Arcayne () 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon logins have no "watchlist" capability. Also, those ip's resolve to different states, why do you assume it's the same user? Jpmonroe (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The anon's posting behavior and style is identical in both IPs in that they both defend the same statements. Both IPs edit in precisely the same articles (1,And they coss-post the same information ([http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Fitna_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=206010498 1. 2) between these same articles. Lastly, where the older IP ends without further edit, the newer IP begins less than an hour later. If these are two different editors, then even other editors are assuming they are the same individual. As a prior RfCU was filed with the initial consideration that this was a sockfarm, the anon admitted that all of the IPs within the range of the request were his. As well, the prior AN/I complaint concerned the removal of an IP banner, as the anon moved from one IP address to another. In that instance, the anon never claimed that the IPs were not his.

Lastly, I moved his IP banner and prior discussions to his new IP, which contained the notice that he had been blocked. However, the anon continued to edit, even after posting here (1, 2, 3). - Arcayne () 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne - can you explain how your post was altered in this diff as you claim? As anyone can see from the diff, nothing from the beginning of the section to your signature is altered - though I can't tell if the unsigned comment that is removed (not altered) is yours. --Random832 (contribs) 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WHile that particular post and issue is immaterial to this complaint (it was in fact what prompted the prior complaint by the anon), by bracketing my text, his edit made it seem that my post had arrived after a consensus had been achieved, offering the position that my post was in aggreement with the resolution. - Arcayne () 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but in the post that Arcayne is referring to that has been linked by Random832, everything in red type is my writing (including the unsigned text on the left of screen). It is at the end of a section and it is signed. I marked my question as resolved per the specific instructions of the board. This is the following post by Arcayne. I am shocked by the boldness of claiming things so casually which are so demonstrably not so. You will notice he removes my entire post. Every Word and leaves me this Warning: do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy. Arcayne 75.58.44.23 (talk)

Ksuwildcats10's user page

I just blanked almost 15,500 bytes of information at Ksuwildcats10 (talk · contribs)'s user page. He had previously been warned that the amount and type of information he had there was a violation of WP:USER and WP:NOT standards. He was given several weeks to clean it up but never made any attempt to. Because of that, I have parsed it down to one line. The page was a totally unnecessary list of his personal achievements and news about his life (from the death of his cousin to the time he was interviewed as a student with concerns about security).

I post this here for review and thoughts about what is and is not appropriate for this (and other) user pages. Metros (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it defamatory? Did it attack other users? Did it contain BLP violations or copyright infringements? Did it advocate violence or criminal activity? DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary blanking of a benign user page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well per Misplaced Pages:NOT#BLOG, this appears to be a pretty blatant policy violation. It's a resume with an excessive amount of personal information and it offers, essentially, blog-like accounts of his life. When you're talking about 15,500 bytes of personal information, I'd call that excessive. Metros (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly detailed biographical user page written in the 3rd person with a bit of blogginess and CVishness, maybe overlong with more personal info than one might want to see but I don't see anything untowards about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Ksuwildcats was using the page as an ad hoc way to promote himself, and as his personal resume. I had contact with him when he first registered a profile, it seemed he was trying to create a wikipedia page for himself and his high school band director, in addition he went through numerous warnings about adding information about him self to El Paso, Texas, Great Bend, Kansas, and Great Bend High School. He has also used inappropriate markup on his user page such as Category:Judges, the Judge infobox, and sources his page like a real article from his own person website. I'm not totally supporting Metros actions, but ksuwildcats clearly does not understand WP:NOT and was clearly warned that his blog like page was in violation.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Resume-like"? Yes. "CV-like"? Yes. "Article-like"? Very much so. "Blog-like"? No way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's back:) Merkin's mum 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only say blog-like because every-time something of questionable notability happened to him, he would update his page and create a new section on for instant how he was interviewed for a local television's spot about a new dormitory.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted now. Next time, I'd suggest taking anything remotely controversial to MFD and it'll be gone soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The user's penultimate edit seems to have been to metros' talk page, asking to be left alone. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica at It Again

User:Edito*Magica was reported to AN/I back in February because of his continuing editing warring over various episode lists in which he was trying to force the episodes into a bad format that does not follow the consensus of format established by the television project and its many featured episode lists, including removing anything from the lead he feels is "redundant" to the main article (see also Misplaced Pages talk:Lead section#Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say.) or to the article itself and using a single color for the individual season headers. It was an ugly mess in which he insulted multiple editors and ignored multiple editors, including an admin, telling him to stop his edit warring and making such changes because they were wrong, and his filing a relitory ANI claimMisplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive368#User:Collectonian. He seemed to avoid a block by finally backing down and seeming to yield to consensus after the articles were both protected and more editors told him repeatedly that he was wrong.Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive369#Edito*Magica

However, yesterday I came across two more episode lists, less watched than the first, in which he was doing the same thing: List of 2point4 children episodes and List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. With the later, he gave lip service to discussing changing the colors at Talk:List of One Foot in the Grave episodes#Colours but changed them quickly after posting his message, allowing no discussion to occur at all. I tagged both article for having multiple issues, including not following established formatting standards, lacking references, needing a better leader, and tagging for expert help from the Television project as I didn't want to deal with him myself again. I posted so to the TV project page, as both have FL potential, and someone from the project has already volunteered to clean up the List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. However Edito*Magica quickly went and reverted the tagging (and the undoing of his changing the colors before discussion occurred, leaving a message on my talk page declaring he will remove the tags because the lists don't need references, and that no one disagreed with him on the color scheme (of course not, he did the changes three MINUTES after posting the message! How could anyone have time to disagree or agree??? I gave him one warning for removing the tags on both articles, but after his last constant attacks and the disagreeable experience of dealing with him, I've decided its better to go ahead and bring this here now before yet another editor war begins.

Edito*Magica has repeatedly shown himself to be unwilling to work in an environment of multiple editors, regularly arguing with anyone who disagrees with his ideas, even though those ideas go against established Misplaced Pages guidelines and project standards. He has also shown that he will not change his stripes and will continue such inappropriate behavior on any episode list he decides to mess up, and that he will edit war over them until he either gets his way or the page is protected and he moves on to others. I feel stronger action needs to be taken against him at this time to better drive home the message that his way of editing is not appropriate, and that he can not continue to try to push his wrong attempts to "correct" the appearance of episode lists just because HE alone doesn't like them, when consensus says it is the proper format as shown in featured episode lists. Collectonian (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As an update: once again an admin has warned Edito to stop, but he first reverted the list under an IP, then logged in an reverted his inappropriate changes again. As the admin also asked me not to get into a revert war, I'm leaving it as is for now and will let someone else deal with him. However, this editors continous refusal to acknowledge, must less follow, consensus, and his blatant and repeated ignoring of warnings from administrators should not continued to be ignored. Collectonian (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

From his messages on my talk page, he is just going to continue disallowing anyone to clean up episode lists for shows he likes. Is no one going to do anything, yet again? Collectonian (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete tags on my user page

User:DHeyward the former Tom Harrison added speedy delete tags to my user page.

He actually is one of the "deletionist bullies" which I have had edit wars with. Recently him and Mongo were calling me a troll and my contributions "crap" on his user page.

Like the majority of self-anoted copyright enforcers on wikipedia, Tom probably doesn't know one bit of copyright law, and it is pretty clear he is attempting to harrass me.

But to difuse this argument, I am going to move my quotes to another wiki.

P.S. He will inevitably bring up my response, in which case I say:

Many admins have said the same thing repeatedly (Mongo and JzG come to mind). Which DHeyward vigourously defended. DHeyward, please call a RfC, which I will ignore and refuse to particapate in just like JzG, and nothing will come of the RfC, as nothing came of JzG's RfC.

I am so tired of the blatant hypcricy and bullying on wikipedia. I feel sick to my stomache that I have to often resort to the same low ball tactics as others here.

Trav (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually DHeyward is correct, he is not Tom Harrison--he is Tbeatty (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). I think the confusion was that Tom Harrison was the one who moved the account name, which moved all this contributions, and talk page history--but NOT his rather extensive block log. Its a good way to get rid of a block log, though. I should consider that kind of name change. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put a speedy tag on your user page, I put a copyvio tag on your page after you cut and pasted material from a copyrighted source. You responded rather uncivilly for the second time today and after a warning. This warning for this edit (unrelated to me). And then your edit summary directed at me after you fixed your copy vios is here. I brought your civility to Wikiquette here where they can't block you but hopefully a third party might be able to discuss your obvious anger problems with you rationally. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I am not Tom harrison. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it shouldn't have been there but the tags specifically say they shouldn't be used unless there's no good version. Why didn't you just ask him to remove it, or something? --Haemo (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by your response dear Haemo, particularly the first sentence, based on our rich past history, you must obviously be critizing me, not DHeyward.

DHeyward, as I explained on the Wikiquette, I apologize for reacting how I did. Two wrongs (or several dozen "wrongs" in this case) don't make a right. I strongly support wikipolicy on civility, I just wish it would be more evenly enforced.

It maybe noted that the first warning was from another deletionist who wanted to delete the same article which DHeyward wants to delete.

I could contact several supporters here, as DHeyward group has been convincingly accused of before (which I think may have lead to his name change in the first place), to comment on this WP:ANI, but I won't.

The alledged copyvios are now offwiki. Inclusionist (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Apology" not accepted. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're confused because I was criticizing DHeyward's placement of the tags, not you. I'm disappointed by your reaction here, since it was an assumption of bad faith over a single disagreement on an ArbCom case. Apparently JzG and MONGO aren't the only people who perceive conspiracies against them around every corner. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The tags say to revert to the last version. I didn't want to remove material from his user page. I put the tags to bring it to his attention and then to an admins if he wasn't there to respond. This what the instructions said to do. Is there a different tag? It wasn't listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested you ask him instead. The correct way to "bring it to his attention" is not slapping speedy deletion tags on it. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't slap a speedy tag, I put the copyvio tag. What is wrong with that tag for bringing it to his attention? that's the tag that the copyvio page says to use. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever4ything is wrong with "yagging it to bring it to his attention" that is not the way we operate. Next time either revert to a pre copyvio version, talk to him about it or preferably both. Viridae 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging it is exactly the way we operate because it will bring it to the communities attention if he goes offline or whatever. I will not revert his User page so that's out of the question. This was a simple cleanup with a simple tag. If you don't like tags, bring it to the Village Pump for discussion about removing all the tags we use for everything from cleanup to AfD to Sockpuppets. But making up stuff about how we operate to justify someone saying "Fuck You" in an edit summary is not acceptable. As desired, he saw the violation, deleted the tag and deleted the material. Where exactly is "Fuck You" justified? --DHeyward (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Travb you've been oversighted before for outing. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, your accusations of a cabal or group is ludicrous. Check the admin who gave you the warning and then check my block log and try to maintain the facade you are trying to project that we are in cahoots to thwart you. The problem is that you don't respect consensus or the process that is used to reach it. You are incivil and as your above strikeouts indicate, often incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dheyward, meet the talk page; it can be your friend. But seriously, that's what we use when issues like this come up with established contributors, not slapping a bunch of copyvio templates on a their user page. And you wonder why he's not taking it well? Shell 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no I don't wonder why he's not taking it well, it's part of his overall pattern of contribution. He acted the same way when an admin asked him earlier in the day to be civil on his talk page. Which standard template would make you respond "Fuck You" in an edit summary? Hopefully the answer to that rhetorical question is "None". I didn't bring this here so I'm not sure exactly what he wants. He deleted the offending material which is all I wanted (without the on and off wiki attacks and stalking). It also appears that he's now in some sort of blocking wheel war for constant disruptive editing. --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time, use the talk page - its what its there for. Viridae 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time, I'll use whatever is appropriate whether it's tags or comments or ANI or whatever. This time it was tags. --DHeyward (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the combative responses? I understand reacting badly to Travb, but here you've got two outside opinions that you didn't handle that situation the best way possible. Please consider that it might be more appropriate in that situation to use the talk page as we've suggested. Shell 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't combative at all. I've considered it. I considered it prior to using the tags. I will consider it in the future. Why do you seem to ignore the "Fuck You" edit summary he used as a response? Travb is currently blocked for an unrelated incident which is his normal MO and enabling these editors as Viridae tried to do yesterday before more level headed admins intervened is counterproductive. I would much rather prefer to contribute to articles then spend my time answering ANI's started by editors the likes of Travb. --DHeyward (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking you to consider using the user talk page when dealing with established editors in the future has nothing to do with another person's behavior. The edit summary is of course out of line, but I'm sure you didn't need to hear that; since that was a response to your template, its not as if that made you choose the less civil route (rise above?). Regardless of who started the thread, its just a friendly reminder that its nicer not to template regular users. Shell 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Racial slurs by User:90.193.39.251/User:90.193.39.91

This IP has been firing numerous racial slurs (in edit summaries) at User:Til Eulenspiegel and I (as well as vandalising a user page). Not only are the slurs highly offensive, but also, Til Eugenspiel and I have never claimed to be members of the groups he's attacking, groups which have no relevance to the articles it's occuring on (a Mexican-American singer and Ancient Sumer).--Yolgnu (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice has blocked both IPs mentioned (24 and 48 hours, respectively); as there seems to be a chance the user may return on other IP(s), I've semi-protected Sumer, Thalía, and Arab, all for three days. Feel free to report any further problems as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tankred

Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes): - the "forum": is a leading national newspaper in Hungary) What else evidence needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, this report has been placed by you at AIV, AN, and now here. This is called forum-shopping, please stop. One report at ANI is sufficient. --Elonka 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous request is totally misleading and its previous version has already been removed from WP:AIV as trolling. The IP has posted it at AIV again few minutes after the first removal and it was removed again by a different admin. So, the IP posted it at WP:AN. This is the fourth time the IP tries their luck. Is it a new kind of a lottery? Tankred (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

user:Tankred Harassment, mass edit warring, using user page as an attack page, using WikiProject to promote harassment, organize edit wars, user is (three times blocked for edit warring see block log) ,

using WikiProject Slovakia to organize edit wars and promote harassment of Hungarian editors,

"Moreover, there is a small, but very active group of Hungarian editors..." "Who wants to deal with them?" ()

Asks others to edit war for him, or get involved in specific disputes

“If you want to correct the name feel free” “I do not have energy left after all the recent troubles with some of our Hungarian friends.” ()

Thanks others for getting involved in his disputes encourages blind reverts in relation to the same dispute

“Ruziklan and The Dominator, thank you for being good citizens.” “…in the future, please just revert it. It is the matter of few seconds. You do not need to invest your valuable time and energy in communication with an author” “()

Uses WikiProject to attack fellow editors, uncivility, “For me, that enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ()

Uses his own user page to attack others both with named attacks and general attacks,

“these fanatics trying to degrade non-Hungarian nations in the cyberspace.” “I wish I was more interested in writing about Iceland or any other country that is not part of the imaginary Greater Hungary.” “enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ( Includes outright falsehoods to bolster his attack “User:PANONIAN have left for the exact same reasons.” Regarding Kosovo’s declaration of independence this user wrote” ”Serbia finally gained its independence on February 17, there is hope for better future in Serbia now. Anyway, my work in Misplaced Pages is over, I have other thing to do in life”

Mass removal, crusade against Hungarian names, , , , , , (just a few examples literally hundreds of examples can be found in his contribs)

Mass edit warring against users on his “hit list”, named enemies on his user page () (refer to his contribs since 31 March almost every single edit is a revert of a “named” Hungarian editor).

Ignoring administrator warnings/actions. After being warned not to use "misleading statements" by an administrator, posts the same misleading statement to a different admin user DDima, and two different noticeboards after that for a total of four tries. Tankred later removed the administrators warning () together with warning him about not to use false/deceptive edit summaries calling non-vandal edits vandalism(). When an administrator removed parts of his user page that made it “an attack page against specific editors”() Tankred simply reposted the attacks with the comment “alll right, no names” using diff links instead to identify his targets. Attacks placed on a user page deny the opportunity for comment and reaction or even pointing out outright falsehoods. Tankred also attacked editors not named on his user page but of Hungarian ethnicity saying for example “But why not to join your co-ethnics in their campaign” () to a Hungarian editor. Considering all of the above especially the efforts to influence others through using WikiProject Slovakia a collaborative effort to encourage to harass, revert or indeed “deal with” () Hungarian users and also using his user page in a similar hateful manner I ask the community to consider strong measures to ensure that this can not go on indefinetly. We do not need editors who not only see Misplaced Pages as an ethnic battleground but actively promote hatred, conflict and encourage others to join in. The negative impact on the project is enormous and is already badly felt. At the very least open encouragement should be dealt with and the situation closely monitored for further campaigning activity. Hobartimus (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you start a WP:RFC/USER, provide the above evidence there and allow others to provide feedback as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This report is misquoting my different statements (some of them withdrawn by myself from my user page) from different periods outside their context and replacing significant parts of my words by "...". Hobartimus has been editwarring against User:MarkBA, User:Tulkolahten, User:Svetovid, User:Markussep, User:Ruziklan, and me for several months. I guess this is his latest move against us. Tankred (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"move against us"? So you list a few users and suddenly you become "us"? I don't see any diffs above from any of these users, this complaint is solely about you and your ehtnic campaigning containing statements about "dealing with" "Hungarian editors". Hobartimus (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above complaints appear to be an overflow of a larger dispute involving multiple Hungarian and Slovakian editors, on a variety of pages. In order to try and centralize discussions (and try a new dispute resolution technique per WP:WORKGROUP), I have started a page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If there are no objections, I will move the above complaints to that page, and this particular complicated thread can be taken off ANI. --Elonka 07:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred says A, and does (and thinks) B. The perfect example is on his userpage:. He writes (states) "all right no names" - and posts multiple personal and general attacks against Hungarian users, with names :). Perfect example. He posted tons of misleading edit summaries wich I reported on WP:ANI, but all he got was a warning. I reported many times his edit warring and his misuse of wikipedia policies, using them as a weapon in disputes. WP:NCGN nowhere states what he tries to make you believe. It even has an example of the very same thing at Gdansk/Danzig how to deal with such things. Tankred as described above, is a notorius edit warrer, blocked multiple times for edit warring, he recruits users for edit warring, and when he runs out of reverts he goes IP. Same summaries, same pages, same reverts, everything is sooooo the same that eventually it quacks so loud that I hardly hear my own thoughts :) If its MarkBA, than they should be investigated, if they are the same person, or could be close friends. I found another IP since:, from the very same place, internet provider, etc. "removing chauvinistic vandalism". Tankred's standards of "hate speech" perfectly mets with what he himself wrote on his userpage and was removed by Elonka and multiple other editors in multiple times for some obvious reason. Tankred broke the 3RR there btw, and...see the link for stating A, doing B again:.

Tankred also misinterprets edits, and actions of other users (last comments)

Tankred's claims, statements and whatever he writes should and must MUST be treated with high suspicion and distrust. Says A, or he even acts like A, then immediately switches back to B. Also doing WP:DRAMA by "retiring" (for 2 days:) and such. Do not believe him, he is a great manipulator. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process between us is ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Why are you posting the same stuff here? Tankred (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be mostly dealing with content but yes, a large discussion is taking place there. Hobartimus (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Can someone review this threat to see if any action should be taken? Dreadstar † 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Call the local police immediately, and notify the WMF. Give the local police clear instructions on how to find the article on wikipedia, and how to find the edit in the history. Do not call their emergency line. Specific hit lists are probably the second highest level of trouble of this sort we can see... (per BEANS, i say no more.) ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's disturbing. Hopefully this will turn out to be an empty threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. --clpo13_(talk) 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've located a phone number for the closest police station. Has anybody called yet? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the phone. John Reaves 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just getting ready to call the LA County Sheriff's department. You got it John? Dreadstar † 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page, because for some reason the user wasn't blocked on sight. Hersfold 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) edited at 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC), apologies for last comment

Would it be worth locking the original poster's talk page? (Per WP:VIOLENCE, so that nothing gets posted?) --Bfigura 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been (not by me) Hersfold 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John beat me to it. Any details, John? Taking this seriously and reporting it to the police is in accordance with WP:TOV. John, if they give you a case number, a name of the officer you spoke with or something you may want to post it here just so there is a record of it. I did this when I called the police in the Plano HS case. Thanks, John, for making the call. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently in contact with a detective and we're attempting to work with the ISP. John Reaves 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, John. You have made me proud. You may want to give a brain dump of who you spoke to and such just for history and transparency sake. I did this with Plano HS, just so it could be entered into the log and anyone (including the detective I was working with) would see a visual history. Good work. Bstone (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone must have gotten through to them: Nice work John...RxS (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope plenty of people have bookmarked this entry to point to later when others ask what WP does when this happens. Also, it'd be nice to hear if the police & ISP get anywhere with tracking the threatmaker down. BBC story about UK school boy threatening the president Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV, which is the latest effort to detail how to respond to these sort of things, it only an essay. In my opinion is should at least be a guideline. I invite you to come over and chime in on the talk page. Bstone (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to update the situation, after searches were done on students yesterday, the school was closed (LA Times) today, and the alleged editor of the threats has been arrested. We did a good job everyone and I'm glad we got on top of this, whether harm was to come to somebody or not. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested oversight since some possible students at the school were named in the threats. I missed a diff in the E-Mail, and subsequently that revision, which also named those mentioned in the original threat, still remains. I'm sending a second E-Mail to Oversight. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work Wikipedians, especially Dreadstar, for bringing it here, and John Reaves, for acting on it. As a former public school teacher, all threats are serious threats. The moment one is brushed off as "not serious" is the moment that CNN reports the number of bodies in x classrooms. I'm thrilled with our quick response. Absolutely thrilled. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This would make a great story for the Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost. However, I was surprised how many errors were in the LA Times article. It said that the district's article was vandalised, but it was actually the High School page itself. Also, it did not mention any involvement by Wikipedians who reported the incident, and it listed 33 families insetead of the 23 listed in the threat. It also did not mention a third threat posted by an anon which led to the arrest by IP adress. Also, it seems unlikely that the incident went all the way from being reported to the press to being posted to asking Misplaced Pages "officials" to remove it, when it was removed almost instantly. Also, you'd be surprised how many people call our contributors "officials". This would definately make an interesting story for the Signpost, as an entire high school was closed due to a Misplaced Pages threat and the perpetrator arrested over that. Could someone provide the Signpost suggestion page with more info? Thanks. ~AH1 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Steiner redlich

This user is making a mess of the Sviatoslav Richter page. In spite of the recent attempts of several users to engage him in discussion on the talk page, he merely deletes cited material and inserts his own opinions. He was previously blocked for two days, then was up to his old tricks after the block was liftedTHD3 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the users mentioned by THD3 and I entirely second his opinion. Steiner Redlich's attitude has been consistently disruptive and disrespectful of Misplaced Pages rules. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney

(IP incivility removed) otherwise the rest of the thread doesn't make sense Black Kite 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...I have to say..he is threatening users. Before I forget The East ender comment The Admin Comment. Summery. Rgoodermote  12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, if he's retired bit pointless to issue blocks really. Just ignore it, any actions taken now would be just adding drama where none was needed. If he comes back or has a cool off period the all the better. 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see any of those as threats, per se. The one about EastEnders fans is definitely rude, but not block-worthy unless directed at a particular editor and he's been warned to lay off previously. In any case, if something has pushed him to retire, I would imagine a bit of strong language is not surprising. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you think is not threatening so be it. But that checkuser comment makes me not want to give him checkuser privileges any time soon or ever and I can't give it to him anyways. Rgoodermote  13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is...is this the first time he has retired? Rgoodermote  13:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Again it doesn't really matter, if he hasn't retired and it's a case of throwing the toys out of the cot then by adding unnecessary blocks or paying it attention we are fueling the wiki-drama. If there are no personal attacks, no disruption to the project then he can have one every Friday at 4:15 pm for all it matters. If he has genuinly retired he's not going to see anything anyway, so again irrelevant. 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, isn't that just marvellous - an IP that comes to hysterically demand blocks and complain about a prolific editor making incivil comments, whilst also being incredibly incivil themselves. I wonder which editor hiding behind an IP this is? I can make some fairly good guesses, though. Black Kite 13:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case... I am User:Rgoodermote 72.224.127.117 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I am going to walk away from this entire thing. Rgoodermote  13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this all about? An editor is blowing off steam, maybe he was rude to the poor fans of eastenders but you cant really blame him for that, and so what if he retires every second day. The IP must be worried about Hackney claiming he will start another checkuser case. Created today with 4 edits two of them here and he knows all about User:Vintagekits. BigDunc (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we be looking here for identity of ip just curious. BigDunc (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as yet another sock of banned User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Black Kite 13:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All I see here is a very angry Hackney saying he might track down sockpuppets and I agree, if he wants to retire once a day, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't blame him, to be honest. There is too long a record of excellent contributors being driven away by tendentious editing and sockwittery at the moment. Edit: and how ironic that the sock names me as a "fellow traveller", given that I have blocked numerous Irish editors in the past, including bringing the first SSP case against Vintagekits - some people eh. Black Kite 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ONIH has been an excellent editor of very polished articles, most of them related to Irish Republicanism (where others have preferred to edit war), and as a result he has been on th edge of many disputes. Sometimes his conduct has not been ideal, but those times have been rare, and he can set those moments against a records of solid contributions which most editors would envy.

ONIH has been talking of retiring for months, so his final departure, while sad, isn't a great surprise. I was disappointed that my good luck note on his departure was promptly removed from his talk page, but that's his privelige.

However, in the last few days, his temper has been very frayed, and he has been repeatedly uncivil and profane. His latest contribs to his own talk page show a list of completely unacceptable edit summaries, and a very agressive and uncivil style on talk pages:

• "total and utter bollocks".

I agree that since he has retired, there is no point adding to the drama, and his talk page has now been protected. I do think it's a great pity when a good editor throws a tantrum on the way out the door, but best just to leave it at that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping it's just temporary (his retirement). PS- The profane 'edit summaries' (which I've also been a victim of) are disappointing, however. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedians importing disputes

Could people review what is happening with Dutch Wikipedians trying to add and remove content from the English Misplaced Pages? Those removing content seem to think that consensus at the Dutch Misplaced Pages can be imported here. What should be done in cases like this. See the following:

• Notability tag Vereniging Basisinkomen
• Prod tag (reason = not notable, removed from Dutch wikipedia as well)
• Prod contested (with unhelpful edit summary saying it was vandalism by a one-purpose account)
• Prod tag re-added
• Removed by Fram who correctly said: "if a Prod is contested (by removing the template), you may not put it back on. Leave it alone, discuss it, or start an WP:AFD"

This dispute seems to be spreading:

• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Guido den Broeder vs. others
• Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament#Books
• 3RR report
• Archived AN discussion

Guido den Broeder may have a conflict of interest here, but I am concerned about the activities of the Dutch Wikipedians who are following him here. They are reverting him and trying to impose an external consensus here (formed at the Dutch Misplaced Pages apparently, though I can't confirm that). What should be done about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What should be done is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. There's no policy that allows external consensus to be imported from anywhere-- as far as the English wikipedia is concerned, it's the same thing as posting on an external forum to gain support for something here. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Fram hit the nail on the head, there's no problems with the Dutch guys wishing to chase the COI and spam aspect down. But just because it has been through the channels on nl.wikipedia, doesn't mean it doesn't have to go through it again here. The prods have been contested so they should go through AfD and the case argued there. 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(thanks). In general, my (not unbiased) view on this is that we have two problems: the first is a group of Dutch editors who are bringing their conflict with Guido den Broeder to the English Misplaced Pages. By doing it in such a way (as a group effort), it comes close to harassment. The second is Guido den Broeder, who, despite his denials, has serious COI problems in much of his editing, and doesn't seem to be able to take criticism from anyone. He is under severe ArbCom restrictions on the Dutch Misplaced Pages for exactly this problem, he has had a mentor for six months, and that mentorship has just been extended, and he is currently blocked for two weeks there. This should have no influence on what he can and can't do here, but it gives an idea of the background. I think that both sides of the conflict need some serious warnings from uninvolved admins, one for importing their conflicts and for harassing anyone, and the other to stop all possible COI edits. Fram (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Notifybot

has run amuck and is tagging images as orphaned when they are clearly not. For example Image:ChanduTheMagician.jpg is clearly still reciprocally linked to Chandu the Magician (radio). can someone please shut it off and fix it? Thank you. Now how do we untag the images? EraserGirl (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the image isn't being used, as evident from the empty "File links" section on the Image description page. There is a problem with the infobox at Chandu the Magician (radio) though, and I can't get the image displayed properly. Once that is fixed, the image will be no longer orphaned, and the deletion tag can be removed. Somebody else will have to look at it though, I can't figure it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was just missing an imagesize (fixed). Might want to look into the template to avoid such mishaps in the future though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the deletion tag from the image. All done here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive had the same issue, but someone had changed a template which is what caused BCBot to tag some images as orphaned. (just a heads up). β 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple established users have seemingly left Misplaced Pages this week

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have noticed an unfortunate trend this week of many established editors (Giano II, Kwsn, MONGO, Pixelface, etc.) having left Misplaced Pages. Anyway, I thought I might share this news here so that if anyone wants to leave these users a nice message or thank them for their contributions, they might do so. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, User:Maxim has left us too. :( Tiptoety 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also User talk:One Night In Hackney (who has previous doing this, but appears quite serious about it this time) Black Kite 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this week just off or something? I take Misplaced Pages seriously and all, but I have way more personal matters to actually get stressed out about than a volunteer project regardless of how interested I am in it. Is it really so difficult for people to cooperate and when they cannot agree to disagree without getting so frustrated? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that IRC i see mentioned in several threads there, maybe the unaccountable nature of that medium has something to do with it. 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is a severe problem, and it partly has to do with some cultural issues that we need to address on Misplaced Pages. We need to be a more supportive community with each other, even those we disagree with. What tends to happen is people who give a lot of time, effort and consideration to how they work on Misplaced Pages are disparaged when they don't handle attacks, stalking (in my case) or perceived underappreciation. Then we have people who give very little content (but a lot of Talk page argumentation) and disparage those editors even further (Case in point: Misplaced Pages:Don't Feed the Divas). Often, those who have done or given little, and may even be considered a net negative to the project, resent those whose work has enhanced it (technical, content, artistic, graphic, research, Wikignomes, vandal fighters) and whose voices are listened to more than those who...do very little. It creates a bad environment. There's an attitude that, "We can always find another one of you." That simply isn't the case with many contributors. That doesn't mean they should be given carte blanche, but in some cases, people who are attacked or feeling overwhelmed sometimes need the community to take a look at their situation and provide some help or support. We really need to focus on community more, and less on deriding each other. --David Shankbone 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)So Giano leaves, and the admin who blocked him left. Mongo leaves, and the admin who blocked him might well leave if ArbCom takes a case "scrutinising" his block. ONIH has left - and he can take a lot! - and Pixelface left after being "vandal templated" by Will, who's been nominating random things for deletion as well. Can we all take a step back and recognise that we need to do something to reduce the amount of pile-on frakking drama in this place? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, because I am surely an evil deletionist who doesn't want to improve the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was merely pointing out that that sort of thing encourages too much drama. Look, we're too big and have too many people with entrenched interests now to do crazy bold things like nominate State Terrorism and the US and Mark Foley Scandal or whatever for deletion without a reasonable discussion about whether its a good idea first. Ditto, templating a regular with whom you've just had an ArbCom case. What I was trying to say is that reducing this sort of stressful drama is a priority, and, yes, I was singling you out - I apologise for that - as someone whose recent actions have definitely not helped. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to make discussion is the stupidest thing ever. Sceptre 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was polite, and worded so as to reduce any atmosphere of tension. However, may I humbly submit that since you have recently done several things that haven't worked out too well, you might want to actually get a bit of a reality-check before doing anything drama-inducing. I hasten to add that this thread isn't about you. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Succinct and pretty much what I was thinking. I swear, this place has more drama than the furry fandom, and believe me, that ain't a compliment. A look at the issues above, though, are rather concerning: the Giano situation is unpleasant - from both sides of the coin - and the MONGO deal is certainly upsetting in how it came about and how it was handled. I've no idea what the other situations really are, but all in all this does indicate that we need some sanity to return to the place in a big hurry. My concern is that right now our best routes for handling incidents are discussions here or at RfC that can turn into long, drawn-out bitchfests with more noise than signal, ArbCom, which some folks have declared as ineffectual and bureaucratic (or, in some cases, as corrupt - which is kind of sad in itself), and ... well, that's about it. How do we best deal with drama? Do we enact some other kind of message board for community discussion that's aimed at a positive approach? Will that even work in a collaborative editing environment? Lots of questions, but until we find some answers to them we're probably going to keep seeing this kind of thing happen. Sad, but true. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, that is well-said. I've often thought we should have a counterpart to WP:BITE which held that established contributors are no more worthy of being "bitten" than newbies. On the one hand, they should know a bit better... on the other, they're known quantities, and there really is a process of burnout that happens in dealing with a seemingly endless string of petty incidents of the sort that are so common on Misplaced Pages. In any case, though, messages of support for users who have left are best delivered by email or off-wiki. At least one of these users, Giano, has apparently asked specifically that people not post to his talk page for now. In general, a long line of "please come back" posts on a departed user's talk page probably plays into the same sort of drama that led them leave in the first place. Give them some space, and send a message of support by email. I'm sure it will still be appreciated. MastCell  18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't have an issue with "Please come back" on Talk pages, especially since it alerts people that the person has left. But regardless of your method (on or off Wiki) letting people know they have support when they are under fire is an important aspect of our collaboration here. --David Shankbone 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I sent a message to Mongo a few days ago and he responded fairly quickly, indicating in the message that he was fairly serious about leaving. I do note that WP:MILHIST has a stress hotline. Maybe we could try to institute something similar for wikipedia in general, although it'd probably be a bear trying to make it known or useful. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• As a volunteer project, we will have people leaving on a regular basis. Those who know them well may want to contact these people by private means, but as a general community we should just wish them well and let them go in peace. See also meatball:GoodBye. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a very good view. Rudget 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No it's not, it's a poor view. It says, "If you want to go, go." There are people who work on this project who neither seek nor expect gratitude or thanks. But when they feel under attack, they feel unappreciated. Like it or not, leaving Misplaced Pages is typically the only way people realize that others, in fact, like them and what they did. Many people leave exactly because of that attitude. --David Shankbone 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that, independent of individual situations, we should look for overall patterns and try to remedy the bad ones. A more functional dispute resolution system would be a great improvement in this regard. But, once someone has taken the step to walk away, rather than trying to get into their head, I think it's more respectful to just say "Your contributions are appreciated, and you're welcome back any time. Thanks for lending a hand." This will reassure those who have left in good faith, without validating any who may have stormed out in a passive aggressive display. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I disagree. People who tell someone to not leave aren't doing it to people they don't know. They say it people who they do know, typically see they are going through a rough time, etc. We aren't detached robots, and Misplaced Pages is a stressful place to work for just about all of us. So, I disagree wholeheartedly with your approach, but we each deal with people departing from the project differently. But if enough people get fed up and leave, and you suddenly find yourself without people who create bots, take hard-to-get photos, create challenging maps from scratch, research and write interesting articles, etc. you may have found yourself saying, "Wow, I wish I had told those people how much I wish they would stay instead of letting them passively letting them go..." What you articulate, this idea we are all replaceable, is the cultural problem I have talked about. There simply are some people who I see as key to the functioning and pricelessness of this project. There are others who I don't think anyone would miss. It's important differentiate the two, and recognize that sometimes all it takes to retain one is to give them a little heartfelt appreciation. That really isn't a lot to ask of any of us. --David Shankbone 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Add User:Crimsone to that list, as a result of this discussion, above. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:04, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Toss in User:The Evil Spartan and User:Ed Poor. MBisanz 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to seem cold or anything, but how is this an incident for the Admin noticeboard? People exercising their right to leave is not something that "requires the intervention of administrators." They all left for different reasons, and no admin action is required. This seems like something that belongs over at the Village Pump or something.Collectonian (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind moving this over to AN, but there are some admin issues I think insofar as some of these users did "special" tasks like handling mass-tagged image deletions or creating unique templates. Like I've said, we really need to work on our redundancy issues re: this sorta thing. MBisanz 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AN, AN/I...does it really matter? The fact is a discussion is taking place, and here looks like just as fine a place as any. Tiptoety 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to post something in this thread, but then saw that Carl/CBM said pretty much exactly the same thing, word for word, and link.  :) So, ditto. --Elonka 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That many people have left? sheesh.. I didn' tknow about half of those. Wizardman 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In well-run organizations, you do your best to hold on to your most productive workers. You give them the support they need and shield them from stuff that gets in the way of their work. New people are supported too, but if it becomes clear that things aren't working out you make the split as quickly and cleanly as possible. At Misplaced Pages we do the opposite: we worship the unproven newcomer and bend over backward to accommodate those whose impact is net-negative, ignoring the damage that this does to our best editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree there. We seem to take quantity-over-quality approach when it comes to keeping people here. We also reason that seasoned editors should be more difficult to offend, so we aren't quite as careful in dealing with them, and when they do take offense we blame them for not knowing better. "He's been here a while, he should know this by now", so there's no need to handle the situation delicately.

Or if you want to be completely honest, the people who are as experienced as us are seen as equals, so "bowing" to them hurts our pride. Conversely there's no shame in accommodating a newbie. All that does is make us feel like helpful mentors. There's a lot of ego at play. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:24, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Annotated bibliographies

There's been a number of "Annotated bibliographies" created in the last two days:

U.S. Defense Budget Trends over the past 50 Years: An Annotated Bibliography (talk) {afd}

High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography (talk) {afd}

Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography (talk) {afd}

Taxation of Carried Interest: An Annotated Bibliography (talk) {afd}

Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography (talk) {afd}

They have all been created by different authors but follow a similar pattern. These seem an unusual article format and my interest was piqued when I noticed there were at least these five. They are problematic because they fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, and each one has been at least PRODded by various other editors. There's no evidence of anything untoward going on here; it could be a coincidence, or if there is a link it could be a school project. But I thought I might flag it up for people to keep an eye on. Ros0709 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Each of the five is currently on AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ros0709 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree these are problematic. I once considered making such a list for mathematical logic texts, but decided against it because the criteria for inclusion are so broad as to violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Any annotation is likely to be original research, unless we have published reviews of the articles to refer to. But I think the WP:NOT issue is more central. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is another created in the same time-frame and following the same pattern:

1. The effectiveness of neurofeedback as a treatment for Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder : An annotated bibliography

I have also taken this one to AFD. Ros0709 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Those really look like something created for a school project devised by a person who doesn't really understand what Misplaced Pages is. Just delete and leave a note to the authors that if they need the content they can request to get it userfied. - Bobet 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

All six were created within a few days, and for all six, this was the first and only creation. One placed a link in an existing article, and none responded on their talk pages. I agree that this looks like a school project. I also don't see any of the usual POV pushing or promotional overtones here, rather it was probably devised by, as Bobet suggested, someone not familiar with WP. I think that once the AfDs close and the articles are deleted (almost for sure), we should leave something more than the usual note on their talk pages, per WP:BITE. Even better, userfy with a note. — Becksguy (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Another two are appearing in search results now:

1. Middle Eastern Governments: An Annotated Bibliography
2. The Convergence of IAS with GAAP: An Annotated Bibliography

Already PRODded; I'll also take them to AfD. Ros0709 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Almost all of these have been created by separate WP:SPAs. What effort to engage with these authors has taken place? Have any responded? --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also:

1. Annotated Bibliography: The Future of International Accounting Standards

User:RHaworth has explicitly asked the authors of three of the articles if this is a school project here and a question about whether two of the articles were linked was asked . No responses were given. Ros0709 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Block review (William M. Connolley of Travb)

I have read here previously that there is a rule about an admin blocking a user they are in an edit conflict with. As such I am asking for someone to review a block on the grounds the admin was in fact in an edit war with the user he blocked. The user in question is Travb, the article is Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, yes that article, the admin in question is user:William M. Connolley.

• user:William M. Connolley some time ago arrived on the article in question and fully protected it from edits:
• He then proceeds to remove much of the content while the article is edit protected: much of the content was under discussion on the article talk page. In either case the admin should not protect a page then go forth editing it against consensus.
• Additional content removal can be seen here I am not arguing for or against the content, this edit is to simply show William was involved in the article.
• Numerous people have reverted Williams edits that were made under the full protection state: Including RedPenOfDoom who makes a "protest 1RR" BernardL who also makes a 1RR in protest of the editing of the article while it was protected.

Not only does this show William was involved in editing the article, making him and Travb at opposite ends of a content dispute, but he edited the article while it was fully protected which is another no, no since the content was not being removed due to BLP or an act of WP:OFFICE. The block in question can be seen here: clearly by an admin who should not have made it, and specifically for Travb's edit here: which was not a particularly nice edit summary, however as I recall in the recent case of another admin, this was grounds as some put it for the removal of admin rights, and at least for review as the other side argued. I therefore am asking for some admins to chime in if it is ok to block users you are clearly in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Such fun, but thanks for IWS for letting me know. This article has a long and controversial history, recently exacerbated by abusive socks. Fortunately, the worst of these are now blocked . Travb was restoring the edits of this blocked sock and this lead to the article being protected (well, Travb ran off to req-for-prot to get it protected. Sadly for Travb, it got reverted yet again before protection). But the article doesn't (now) need protection, it needs disruptive editors kept away. So I've blocked Travb and unprotected the article (note that the article was protected on what is nominally my preferred version) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the discussion as I was not fully sure of the rules, however you did not address the concern presented which is blocking users you are in a content dispute with. Is this permitted? If not do you regret breaking the rule? Just so other are aware, I am not asking for Travb to be unblocked, I am asking for a clarification to the rule. I was under the impression that BLP violations were the only cases except for "oversight" that allowed for an admin to block someone he was edit warring with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't always so, IWS; trolls and impersonation accounts can be blocked by the user they're trolling or imping (at least from my experience). -Jéské 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case the user is neither, they are a long time editor of the article, they made a revert to a version which William did not agree with, which William honestly admits, and were blocked afterwards. The article as far as I know had a sock issue, however I do not believe any of them have been linked to Travb. If William knows otherwise please let me know, if its true that he has not been linked to any such accounts, I would ask William clarifies what others are misinterpreting as an allegation against Travb. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment on the issue of your involvement in the article, editing it while its protected, and blocking an editor on that article whose content opinion opposes yours? Avruch 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• (cur) (last) 20:24, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "State terrorism and the United States": experiment ) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:19, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (150,213 bytes) (→Hypocrisy about state terrorism: restore ref; rm the) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 07:34, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (150,047 bytes) (→Hypocrisy about state terrorism: trim W; rm creds. See talk) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:09, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (152,684 bytes) (→Europe (1945-1989): what is this to do with state terrorism?) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:06, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (158,288 bytes) (→Background: fix ref?) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:01, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (158,287 bytes) (rm defn section - there is an entire article about it, we should not do the details here) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:13, 9 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (164,875 bytes) (protected) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:12, 9 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "State terrorism and the United States": the usual ) (undo)

• The above is generally discouraged, and for good reason. Based on your activity in this article, are you sure you should be protecting it and blocking people without asking for an outside admin? Avruch 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ON the basis of that evidence I have unblocked Trab. WMC was in no way in hell an uninvolved admin. Viridae 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I look forward to your help keeping the article sane. Perhaps you'd like to restore the banned socks edits yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Find some way to do it that doesn't involve using your admin tools to bolster your side of the dispute. Viridae 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what happened and your characterization is somewhat presumptive. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Case on point: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchim62. Avruch 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd invite any uninvolved admin to block Travb (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) on the merits of his contributions in the last 24 hours. Nothing but disruptions and personal attacks. Even if you think WMC might have been the wrong one to do it, but it was a righteous block. I'd invite the unblocking admin to review the merits of the reasons and reblock or explain why he shouldn't be blcoked. Then you can be uninvolved and still help the project instead of just being a bureaucratic enabler. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person, good block. I've reblocked for 23h (the original 24 minus the one hour already blocked). — Coren  23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would still be interested in an explanation by User:William M. Connolley as to why he made POV major edits to an article after he protected it. This is certainly not advisable, if not unacceptable. Black Kite 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually another user that was blocked that William was in an edit war with, again a violation of the blocking policy. This was overturned without it coming to AN/I with user:Supergreenred also around the same article in question. The user was later blocked however for being a sockpuppet. I am starting to think perhaps this article is causing a conflict in Williams ability to act as an admin objectively. I notice above there is an Arbcom hearing for removing admin ability, while I do not think this is needed as the problem is revolving around one article, can an Arbcom hearing be called simply to ask William not be permitted to edit this article further? I think perhaps it will help all, the editors who are having these tools used against them as a heavy hand, and William who seems to put himself in a bad situation by continuing to remove and add protection at his sole discretion and block users who he is in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was clearly legit-- Travb was edit warring and reverting to the preferred versions of sockpuppets. Perhaps this specific admin shouldn't have done it, but the block certainly was well-deserved. Jtrainor (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue is whether the admin used admin powers in unacceptable ways.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I noted specifically I was not asking for the block to be removed. It seems it is the second instance of blocking someone he was in an edit war with on this particular article, as well as now two instances of misusing tools to either protect, or remove protection from an article he was engaged in content disputes over. What I am not wondering if there is a way to institute an article block to prevent further actions. Much of the damage could possibly have already been done, I personally stepped away from the article prior to these incidents, however how is anyone to oppose William's opinions knowing the articles content is subject to his approval or receives, or has an editing block removed, and editors reverting him face a block. Especially considering the reverting was done by a large swath of users and only those opposing Williams views have faced any penalty. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been a horrendous battleground for a long time; a locus point for extensive socking, incivility, terribly POV editing, and whatnot. Like others of its class, including Views of Lyndon LaRouche and List of events named massacres, it needed extraordinary admin attention, and WMC stepped up. His actions seem commensurate with the level of TLC this wonderful article needed. - Merzbow (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It is a very narrow set of users. I'd also add that User:William M. Connolley is hardly a right wing ideologue or an apologist for American foreign policy. The fact that the core set of people are complaining about his edits and deletions speak to how far gone the article is. It, and its spinoffs, are perhaps the WORST articles in Misplaced Pages. Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The massive deletions occurred prior to any discussion and editors protested through reverts and other means--and these were long term established editors, most of whom are protesting these actions. The mass deletions were done by force, using admin tools, and without consensus. The Japan section was removed simply because the editor personally doens't think its "state terrorism." Its as if WP rules and policies are being ignored here, consensus is being ignored, and now you are reinventing reality. As far as what someone's politics are, that is irrelevant. What the admins Political Party affiliations are irrelevant. What is relevant is using your political views as a basis to POV push here, evidence by the desire to blank sourced information because one doesn't personally agree with the views.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the POV use of administrator tools in this content dispute. Clearly this is the issue, and no one disputes that this is a factual occurrence. An involved admin in a content dispute jumps in to help out one side only, and punishing the other. He does this through very heavy handed means: editing through protection to suite his views, and blocking only one side of those edit warring. And doing this multiple times. These are the facts--no matter who is right on the POV question. This kind of abuse of the tools sets a terrible standard. Correction for abuse of the tools in such a repeated and blatant fashion is simple: remove of the tools. This will stop this problem. Again the facts: the admin protects the article, makes massive changes--through protection--without allowing for consensus or discussion first, and then blocks a number of editors who opposed him, and reverts again. So who is being the disruptive one? Who is violating core policies? Who is abusing their admin tools? And what do we do about it when it happens? I think this may be a case for de-sysoping.

I will also point out that large amounts of legitimate content that was added through consensus among many established editors, and through compromise, was simply blanked without discussion, to to mention without consensus. When we have consensus for massive changes like that, then it would be fine. Until then it was correct to restore the material, as Trav tried to do. Yes, he edit warred by reverting 3 times, but guess what? An editor on the other side of the fence of the content dispute did the same thing, reverting 3 times. And only ONE party was blocked--the one the admin disagrees with in the content dispute. That is wrong on a number of levels, but it clear only one side of the POV dispute that is being punished, and not a single one of the editors deleting the material is blocked despite their edit warring, and despite them doing so against consensus. This is sending a chilling effect to all other editors, and this bullying though use of admin powers to effect content disputes is not only against policy, but sets a terrible example that should not go unchecked.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was 100% good. This thread is a waste of everyone's time. Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The block is reasonable. The editing through protection is problematical, especically when you see "Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now." For what it's worth, my enquiry as to why Connolley had edited through protection received the following reply; ": I *think* that you're trouble making. If you have some other purpose, do please explain more" ()... so much for assuming good faith. Black Kite 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_by_an_administrator.2C_redux_from_above this new ANI thread. Black Kite 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as a note, Travb is NOT a long time editor of the article. He showed up out of the blue and began reverting to the same version as several sockpuppets that were subsequently blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong as his edits go as far back as December of 2007, , I would say that satisfies long time. I can check for ones further back but I think your mischaracterization has been proven wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Travb might be the single most longtime editor of the article, though he absented himself from it for quite some time. His edits seem to go back to August of 2006. He has 148 edits to the article itself and 856 to the talk page per wannabe kate. That's a fairly easy thing to check out, and it's better to do that first before accusing someone of showing up "out of the blue" and acting like sockpuppets. Part of what makes the article inhospitable is the constant accusations and bad faith from both sides.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He never passed 3RR also, he was on his 3rd when he was blocked. Just wanted to note that. Further Dance With The Devil who reverted Travb 3 times, was not blocked for disruptive editing, the only difference is one was supporting Williams edit,s the other was not. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Where has this mess got to? I would still be interested in an explanation by User:William M. Connolley as to why he made POV edits to an article after he protected it. - I didn't. Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now - WTF has this got to do with me? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have refactored my comment from "why he made POV edits" to "why he made major edits". Black Kite 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The other line was my sad attempt at humour pointing out the radical views of some of the other contributors. Apologies if it didn't come across as I intended. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on Alexander the Great

For almost a week now, User:PelasgicMoon has been trying to go against consensus and change the intro to that article. Numerous users have weighed in, all against him, but he persists. He uses fringe sources and deliberately skews and misquotes those that are not. He asked admins for help, and they told him off. Then he posted a request for comment, and uninvolved editors disagreed with him, but still nothing. I tried to talk him on is talk page, but still nothing. He just ignores everyone and posts the same material over and over like broken record. The final straw came when he re-posted some misquoted sources that had been posted by banned User:Dodona and which i removed. He has so far escaped sanction because he is careful not to breach civility and keeps to the talk page, but his behavior is quite disruptive. He has filled pages and pages with his rants, infuriating other users and ignoring a rock-solid consensus. I have a feeling he will NEVER stop, because just as soon as some users tire of him and ignore him, new users join in and the cycle starts anew. He has even been warned per WP:ARBMAC and still nothing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

just a precisation, before banning me i suggest to read my posts. (and it's not true all editors disagreed with me, see PhoenixWiki). Thanks. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? I find this pretty far from this one from your IP in your talkpage. If anything, it can be interpreted as a consideration that WP's content has to be manipulated because of the fear of trolls constantly coming and disrupting. Note that Phoenix is saying that they were "practically one race". NikoSilver 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right, Phoenix did not agree at all with PM. Rather he disagreed later on, but here again PM is twisting what someone is saying, just like he did with those sources. In fact, the only one who agrees with PM is his banned friend Dodona (the anonymous IP mentioned above). --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And ethnic trash-talk now by the same person ] --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

it's jsut what i think, a greek pushing team, it's my opinion, i hope i am free to say what i think. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "team". just people who disagree with you. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Shooting/Death Threat

This edit really concerns me. What is the proper course of action?¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV covers it in this case. Tiptoety 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I believe WP:DNFTT is a better answer. It's been reverted, the IP has been blocked. Friday (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

When does a threat need to be taken seriously then? The IP (ran through GeoBytes) originates only a few miles from the location of the school which the threat has been made against. Tiptoety 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just look a tad higher on this page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a relevant news report that already indicates this high school has been made aware of this death threat. However, this seems like a serious threat regardless of authorities "combing the lockers of the school" (according to the article). Should the Hacienda Heights police be notified?¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (oh didn't know this threat has been made throughout the day and is being handled)

I think this is a clear cut example of when threats need to be reported to the police, that is their job is it not, and by the news story they obviously took it seriously. I dont like the whole "their blocked, lets move on" thing. Sure they can do no more damage to Misplaced Pages, but what about in real life? Tiptoety 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The news story Persian Poet Gal posted says that the school will be closed Friday, 4/18 (when the threat said something would happen). Hopefully this is all resolved. --clpo13_(talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

IPs are still readding this threat. I cannot watch this article that closely at the moment and may not be able to catch readditions, so if RC patrollers could watchlist this I greatly appreciate it.¤~Persian Poet Gal 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I put in RPP request for the article. Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just went ahead and protected it for the rest of the day. The authorities have already been contacted now it is just time to deny the threat makers the satisfaction of seeing their edits placed on wikipedia. Tiptoety 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if those threats should be removed from the edit history. It purportedly has the names of real minors. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes in any other case, but I think the police need this to stay available to them for evidence purposes. I know that I have reported some threats to the police before and they wanted the diffs to stay available to them for later use if needed. Tiptoety 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The police to find it very helpful to be able to reference the history. When I reporting a threat to a high school in Texas I sent the diffs to the detective while on the phone with him. He was very concerned about it and thankful that he was able to have the threat right in front of him. Bstone (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Sorry to bring this here, but the username board specifically encourages not to bring a name there if it doesn't require immediate blocking. Is User:Steve4:20 an appropriate name for somebody who mainly edits on Nazi-influenced bands? I would suggest it may be inflammatory and divisive, but am unsure, and do not wish to get into a fight about it. Brilliantine (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While I may know nothing of "Nazi related bands", just by looking at the username, I don't see anything blatant enough to warrant reporting. NanohaA'sYuri 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to "4:20"? Tiptoety 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That was what i noticed, as in a certain person's birth date. May be nothing, just wondering. Brilliantine (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well the first step would be to discuss it with the user in question, they may have no idea that is his birthday. Tiptoety 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hate to make assumptions, but based on that user's contributions... To be honest, I have no real desire to stray into that kind of territory, especially not when I'm tired and a bit snappy. Brilliantine (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing offensive about the name. If the person's edits are offensive, that may be a reason to block, but the name isn't. --Carnildo (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I think the correct place to take this if you wanted to have further investigated would be WP:RFC/NAME. Tiptoety 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was apot thing at first, esp. since the other would be 20:4... day month year, euuropean style... ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that too, and that makes my point. We really are not sure what the users intentions where when he created the account. We just have to WP:AGF. Tiptoety 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I know what 4:20 means :) Time for a quick puff. Check the user's Dec 11 contributions. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Username "violations" are a quick and easy way to block people, especially newbies, if you don't like their edits. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but is there even a violation in this case? Tiptoety 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, and it doesn't seem to matter to the people dishing out username blocks. That's why I used scare quotes. Many people are blocked for vios that aren't really vios. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I came here to ask what people thought rather than listing it on one of those pages. Brilliantine (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's made a few edits to 420 (cannabis culture), of which these edits are relevant to this discussion. I don't know if "420" itself is as offensive as other ways he could indicate his political leanings (for example, have a look at the titles of the songs of these bands), but IMHO Brillantine correctly understands how thsi editor means for these numbers to be understood. -- llywrch (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Although, I should have brought this up sooner, could someone more knowledgeable on the foundations' policies take a look at this . NanohaA'sYuri 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me. I am not sure what they want us to do. Tiptoety 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how that diff is supposedly deleted, yet I can see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.129.57 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You just needed to purge your cache, it is most defiantly deleted now though. Tiptoety 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

This was here a few days ago, but I'm wondering if any outside admins are willing to check out the situation at this article. I'm no fan of the movie or its viewpoint, but the article has some very blatant WP:NPOV and WP:SYN problems, immediately in advance of its first public showing tomorrow. A steady stream of editors has arrived to complain, but with all the noise it's become quite difficult to deal with. I think people would like to avoid protecting the article, but if a few admins or others might look in with focused and specific ways to help, it might do a good deal for the article over the next few days. Mackan79 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79 seems unable to accept the requirements of NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and has made accusations of WP:SYN on content sourced from the National Center for Science Education used as a secondary source from a mainstream viewpoint. Additional eyes will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79 has also brought some very good points to the table. A formal peer review of the article would be most helpful. Angry Christian (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not many in comparison to those that ignore WP:NPOV Undue Weight. Odd nature (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed, my concern is particularly with the first overview section here, discussed here, which has significant WP:SYN problems as well as strongly opinionated language ("The film openly sets out," "The film ignores," "Stein tries to dismiss," etc.) The WP:SYN issue relates to sections that are sourced only to articles about intelligent design, but predating or not discussing this film. Some editors say this is necessary to present the predominant view on a type of pseudoscience (a characterization I don't dispute), while I and various others are trying to clarify that this is an article about the film, not about ID, which means so satisfy WP:SYN we need sources that discuss the movie. I think it can be appreciated if people read the section at issue, linked above and again here. Mackan79 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the sort of disingenuousnesses in Mackan's comment more than a little hard to leave unrebutted. He's been been trying for days to remove the majority viewpoint from the article, ignoring the consensus of established regular editors from Wikiproject Intelligent Design like Dave Souza and FM. The "steady stream of editors" he mentions have been ID promoters by-and-large, and are the only ones there who've supported Mackan's proposed changes; so what does that tell you? Odd nature (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It tells me that the vast majority of editors who think ID is a pseudoscience and should be thoroughly debunked - but are nevertheless interested in applying Misplaced Pages policy - are scared off the page by persistent incivility and accusations of bias and whitewashing. This needs to be cleaned up, with civility parole if necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of bias cooking in that article, and it probably needs a top down overhaul. It currently reads like an attack piece on ID, instead of simply presenting the unbiased facts about the film, and the film's reception. Based on the FOX News review, just an unbiased reporting will show what a load of steaming dookie the movie is, so remove all the attacking and smears that can't be readily supported and shown to be relevant. ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us one example of such a "smear" then? Odd nature (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You've already been given them. ThuranX (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify that Odd nature appears to be one of the more problematic editors on the page. His first comment to me was here, where he told me to "stop trying to whitewash the page" (based on no other interaction that I'm aware of). He repeated a similar comment here. He's the one who most recently replaced the current version here, also removing the NPOV tag placed by another editor here, but doesn't seem interested in discussing the problems on the talk page. I'd attempt to reinstate an improved version, but my concern is that Odd nature will continue to revert without discussion and that this will lead to page protection (just as the movie is about to be released) Mackan79 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a cursory pass at some of the most obvious problems, like some of the phrases cited above, some poor grammatical constructs, and the spreading of review material throughout the article to further knock it down. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the look and the revisions. I wonder if having reviewed the section you'd have an opinion on the version here by comparison (any other eyes would still be welcome). Mackan79 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As the primary author of the page, I have watched with some dismay but sense of inevitability as the page language has become more and more twisted and distorted. The English is tortured. There are all kinds of textural infelicities. This is what happens when you have the "encyclopedia everyone can edit" and it is on a topic that many are excited about (a controversial film opening tomorrow). We have had a large number of editors who have never been at the page before, and some who ostensibly have never been at Misplaced Pages before, on all sides of the issue, showing up to edit. And redit. And edit and edit again. Under these circumstances, it should be no surprise that the article is a load of stilted awkward prose. Of course it should be rewritten; I have said this repeatedly. I have done it twice already, top to bottom. And under this kind of editorial assault, doing it again at the moment is somewhat pointless; no edit has much chance of "sticking". All we can do is manage it a bit so it does not descend too rapidly into nonsense, but it is inevitable that it descend under this type of pressure. No one can guard it 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and even if we could, it would be highly inadvisable and contrary to the mission of Misplaced Pages. --Filll (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What can we do to get a formal peer review? Angry Christian (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The smartest thing to do is to wait until the movie closes, probably in a week or so. And then everyone loses interest. And we split off a couple of sections into side articles. And then when it is quiet, and much smaller, it can be rewritten.--Filll (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would give up on the article while so many people are coming to visit it. These are the important days currently, when by far the most readers are looking to Misplaced Pages as a resource for this film. Right now we are blatantly failing our core policies, with a number of editors on the page actively preventing compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; if those are non-negotiable, then we need some admins or others to step in and take a look. Mackan79 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:NOR. Too many editors, new to the article, want to give credence to the views of the film makers presented in primary sources without third party evaluation, and to push the majority scientific view off into other paragraphs or a separate section, blatantly contravening our core policies. . . dave souza, talk 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one am giving up on it. All my edits were reverted as POV pushing, even the ones where I clarified what 'it' and 'he' means, where they were unclear. When grammar is POV, it's not worth fighting it. OrangeMarlin can run that page however he wants. Don't cross the admins. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll (talk · contribs) has given the best advise. The film is at its most controversial today. Sort of like Snakes on a plane: remember that? Two weeks after release, no one did. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We can see what happens, but it isn't actually just today, and I'm fairly doubtful things will change. Like various things, it's something experienced editors would pretty much have to check out the article to see. Of course, most of these would probably know better than to get involved, but I guess that's a different story... Mackan79 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well most experienced editors actually know what NPOV is and so on.--Filll (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Not the ones who perpetually revert all edits not made by their coterie, even to the level of grammatical fixes. ThuranX (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if additional eyes will come, but it should be clarified that the issue here is not driveby editors, but a question of whether a film that promotes intelligent design should itself (the film, in an article about it) be treated as a fringe view, thus specifically removing the NPOV requirement that it be treated "fairly." For example, we currently have an overview that, instead of stating what is in the film, immediately jumps in the second and third sentences to what the film ignores, and stating that the film is confusing and inconsistent. This is being defended by long term editors of the page. I understand we could have a long mediation on the issue, but I think it is a clear enough misunderstanding of NPOV that a few more eyes could be helpful in resolving the issue while so many people are reading the page (the stream of reader complaints here is well more than I have seen on any other page). Mackan79 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a standard argument from proponents of WP:FRINGE views: "I do not like what the mainstream sources say, especially the criticisms, so we should ignore those and just go with the positive sources". Riiiiiight. But sorry, that is not WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a large part of what turned What the Bleep Do We Know into such a battleground. Once we all agreed to live by the painful restriction that only sources that actually mentioned the film were admissible, it got better. Still, that article seems to be under permanent protection, so I can't hold out much hope for this one stabilizing.Kww (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying needs to happen in terms of the sourcing here, Kww, but is being denied by Filll, Dave, and some others, apparently on the theory that anyone who suggests this is pushing a fringe view. Mackan79 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, as well as the many readers called in support, evidently want a POV balance that is not reflected in the reliable secondary sources I've looked at. The film first and foremost promotes pseudoscience, demanding that it be given a pass from actually having to produce a testable theory or any research work on the grounds that it's a matter of religious faith. Mainstream science and education organisations have provided detailed background on the disingenuous claims made in the film and in its promotion, and NPOV requires that we should not give undue weight or credence to the fringe view. All statements should be verifiable from reliable sources, and not based on the presuppositions of the editors or their political or religious views. .. dave souza, talk 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

First off: I am about as far from a fringe-believer or -apologist as one is ever likely to find. However, I find this an interesting conundrum; because the movie is in fact ABOUT something considered "fringe", it almost seems to me that "undue weight" works BACKWARDS from the norm in this situation--in other words, the constant insistence on scientific viewpoints, in an article about a movie which is ABOUT fringe-science, would be the "undue" in "undue weight". Wouldn't a compromise view be something to the effect of a caveat at the beginning, like "The movie states this. We know there's a whole 'nother viewpoint out there, which is commonly considered more scientifically viable; however, this article isn't about that, it's about _____________"....in other words, sort of a scientific equivalent of an "in-universe" tag that could be used here??? Just a thought....Gladys J Cortez 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gladys has this about right. The 'anti-fringe' folks seek to fight the fringe view itself on the article page, rather than simply report that the film is about a fringe view, and then discuss relevant issues, like out-of-context quote controversies, and critical response. They instead seek to expand reasonable anti-fringe NPOV policing, which is sorely needed in SOME PLACES, into a place where it is NOT needed. Links to 'intelligent Design' and 'Theory of Evolution' will provide more interested readers places to go to expand their understanding of both the science and the non-science, and the controversies and the nonsense. But to fight that war where instead we should be writing an article about a film and only what is germaine to that film, is a wrongheaded idea. ThuranX (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Gladys & ThuranX. Too much of the article (okay, of the version I looked at) is dedicated to refuting the movie; anyone who is informed about current American culture wars will know what to think from the first sentence (which states, in effect, educators are forbidden to teach Intelligent Design). I skipped several of the middle sections, & had all of my answers about the movie answered by reading from "Critical reaction" on. (FWIW, I've lost a lot of respect of Ben Stein after reading this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked another possible Soccermeko sock

• Update27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Asking for a block review on one of my own blocks. Someone double check me on this one. I think its pretty clear this was yet another Soccermeko sock, but someone go ahead and back me up on this one. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, they have just asked for an unblock. DO with it what you will. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I declined it as incivil and suggested that (s)he work on it to be a bit more temperate. Expect another one. -Jéské 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who says they are not a sockpuppet of Soccermeko on their userpage, as their FIRST EDIT, is a sockpuppet of Soccermeko. I remember that this person is not good about hiding themselves. Grandmasterka 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, not only to mention that their grammar (compare the unblock requests for Soccermeko with that of Update27) is SUBSTANTIALLY identical to each other. Either they are the same person, or they come from the same village where they don't know how to conjugate verbs correctly... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:HARASS and WP:PRIVACY violations by User:Babakexorramdin

I am writing at the recommendation made by User:Kirill Lokshin. I would like to attract the attention of ANI to WP:HARASS/WP:STALK and WP:PRIVACY violations by User:Babakexorramdin, attempting to publicize an identity and falsely associate me with a different physical person. On April 16th, after my addition of reference, User:Ali doostzadeh left the following edit comment:

• Good source. Just fixing the technicality based on the source Atabek provided and adding a little more detail

Following his edit, and referring to the same source, User:Babakexorramdin leaves this edit comment:

• good source by Javid, I agree

Similar attempt at falsely associating me with that same identity, used by User:Babakexorramdin, was also made earlier by now banned User:Artaxiad - , for which he was banned by User:Kirill Lokshin - .

Kirill Lokshin subsequently deleted from archives all of references to the full name of person falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Yet now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim after this by User:VartanM and another one by User:Fedayee here - harassment/privacy violations against me. My requests to ArbCom to stop this harassment were overlooked.

This gives only two conclusions, either Babakexorramdin, VartanM, and Fedayee are in communication off-wiki with User:Artaxiad to make the same false claim now deleted from Misplaced Pages, or ArbCom is somehow sharing information with these individual users, again on false assumptions of identity. In any case, I request the page reciting the name of person again and linking it to me be deleted from archives, this is plainly a violation of WP:PRIVACY. A person or persons responsible for these must be properly addressed according to WP:HARASS.

Meanwhile, I will also find and contact persons whose identities are being recited in these stalking attempts by above contributors to find out if they have been subject to harassment by Misplaced Pages contributors in real life. If additional information is required to substantiate the claims, please, contact me by email. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This report borders harassment itself (the continuous accusations by Atabek), this report, which drags me and Fedayee into this, appears to be the result of a content dispute Atabek had with us as well as a recent report of his disruptive behavior at Arbcom Noticeboard. Atabek seems to retaliate for the report about him and is trying to divert the attention. He is not following Kirill's recommendations, since Kirill suggested to be submitted to the Arbitration enforcement page and not directly involve the community, as you can see he did the complete opposite. He posted it here, the consequences of which could be that several admins who are not aware of Atabek's bogus reports could be misled by taking this as a genuine report.

What Atabek provides about me and Fedayee is months old, secondly it involved an arbitration case; thirdly there was no name or personal information provided. But as usual Atabek is making bogus claims. As for the allegation that the Arbcom members may have exchanged information with us or that Fedayee and I took the information from Artaxiad. Atabek should answer as to how he knows that what we wrote months ago about him has to do with anything Artaxiad may have provided here or privately or that it involves the same alleged identity. Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings. It’s not that those claims should have necessarily come from someone else or that the arbitration may have given those informations to us. It borders paranoia as neither I nor Fedayee or the dozen of editors including admins disclosed anything about Atabek's identity publicly. The two diffs that Atabek is using are taken out of context and are months old. It's clear that he's using those to have his foes blocked.

Every time his behavior is questioned, bogus accusations of harassment surface, someone has to put a stop to it. I will not be surprised if the accusations against Babakexorramdin are baseless as well. The user explained the rational of the edit summary here and requested explanations this didn’t change anything and this bogus report was filled soon afterwards. VartanM (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this what Misplaced Pages is for?:

• VartanM says: " Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings.
  • WP:HARASSMENT says: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself."

Now is VartanM's objective in Misplaced Pages to contribute to articles, or link identities to use it for further harassment? And note that VartanM is not an administrator with checkuser access and is not an arbitrator, who is supposed to access or analyze private information. He is simply disrupting the very purpose of Misplaced Pages. The identity connection is false, as I am not the named person. But both VartanM's confirmation of Babakexorramdin's recital above, as well as VartanM and Fedayee's intimidation with attempts to link me to a real-life identity, are blatant violations of WP:HARASSMENT. Now is ANI going to act on this, or this should be taken to Arbitration, is a subject of another discussion. I reported this on WP:ANI because Babakexorramdin was not a party to ArbCom hence his conduct, which is reported here, is not relevant to WP:AE. Atabek (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Juggernaut12

probably trying to get someone in trouble? revert userpage and block? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked for now, based on the way he keeps mentioning someone named "Adam" while vandalizing (as well as this edit) its pretty safe to assume that he is either trying to get someone in trouble, or harrassing an unidentified user (he does mention looking for "Adam" in other Wikis), in any case I see no intention to contribute constructively. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion refactoring on Talk:Philip K. Dick

Hi. I think this is the right place to go, but if not, please let me know. As usual, this problem grows out of a content dispute. User:Viriditas and I had a night of strong argumentation on Talk:Philip K. Dick over whether the category "Christian writer" should be restored to the article. Once it was clear the argument had run out of anything substantive to talk about that night, I backed out of it, because my comments were clearly getting Viriditas upset.

During the discussion, Viriditas added some section labels to it,,,,,this one with the edit summary "Fixing derailment of discussion" which I did not object to because they helped to navigate around what was a long colloquy. I did change the names of the sections to more accurately reflect the contents (for instance he put in "Response from Ed Fitzgerald" which I changed to "Dialogue: Ed Fitzgerald & Viriditas"),,, and later put in a marker to show where the conversation had originally been. Since then, the conversation between us has pretty much stopped, with only a few comments added, but Viriditas keeps refactoring it, taking my remarks from the places where they occured and putting them into a separate section - in effect, attempting to "ghettoize" them as being disruptive, irrelevant and not pertinent to the "real" conversation that he prefers to keep separate form my remarks. ,.

This afternoon, I undid his latest refactoring, restored what was there, and put his latest comment in the place it would have been otherwise in the conversation. I then started a new section on the page asking him to stop refactoring. His response was to refactor again,, change the section labels, and leave me a message accusing me of trolling.,, This is not the case, my comments were all either pertiment to the subject(s) under discussion (whether Dick is a Christian writer or not, and whether the Carrere biography of Dick is a reliable source), or directly in response to his comments to me.

Ironically, while Viriditas has accused me of having ownership issues with the Philip K. Dick article and of trying to control the conversation, at least four times during our discussion he has said directly to me "If I want your opinion I'll ask for it",,,,, and has attempted to bully me off the page, as if it was his talk page to control. Along the way he's been constantly condescending, asking me if I need some books in order to understand what he's saying, if I understand Misplaced Pages policy, referred to my relevant comments as "empty huffing and puffing" , called me a "little man" , accused me of inciviity and misbehavior, and of trying to force my views on others , and in general, has just been pretty unpleasant.

I fully understand that it "takes two to tango", that both Viriditas and I bear responsibility for the tenor of the argument, and I would not have brought it to anyone's attention if it weren't for the refactoring, and the blatant attempt to remove and downgrade my comments by "ghettoizing" them in a section away from the rest of the discussion. If an admin could look at the situation and, if appropriate, speak to Viriditas to ask him to stop refactoring the talk page that would be great, as would restoring his latest refactoring, which I have not touched.

As soon as I post this, I will put a notice on his talk page about this complaint. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did post a notice to Viriditas' talk page . It was removed with the edit summary "Get a life" . Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so about twelve hours have gone by since I posted this, without comment here. Two people have been by Philip K. Dick and removed categories, and one person removed a personal comment by Viriditas about me on the talk page. I can't tell, of course, if those actions were provoked by this complaint or not, and I'm a little confused about how to interpret the lack of response here. Does it mean I should take the complaint elsewhere? Does it mean I'm totally in the wrong and that I'm a real dick (pun intended) for bringing it up in the first place? Does it mean I should simply attend to undoing Viriditas' refactoring and restoring the comment thread myself, at the risk of starting an edit war? As it is now, the discussion seems very disjointed to me, because of his manipulation of it, and I'd prefer that it be put back into a more coherent order, but I'm reluctant to do so myself without some guidance from above. Anybody? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the lack of a response is because your account leaves me with the impression that this situation needs dispute resolution, not admin intervention; and that this board is dedicated to the latter but not to the former. Sorry. Sandstein (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear that my complaint had nothing to do with the content dispute, but with the refactoring of a talk page discussion by someone involved in in a dispute in the discussion. Unless I'm mistaken, that's something that Misplaced Pages would desire to be discouraged. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what admin intervention do you propose in reaction to this? Sandstein (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I would like the latest refactoring to be undone, so that I (a partisan in the discussion) don't do have to do it (or at least be told that it's OK for me to undo it), and I would like Viriditas to be informed that refactoring a discussion when you're involved in a dispute within it is not kosher. That's about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, undoing the latest manipulation of the discussion would mean reverting these two edits: , which would put things back to their previous state. The rest of Viriditas' edits in that same session did not have to do with that thread, and he did not add an additional comment to the thread at that time. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wholly inappropiate?

I realise I'm no angel myself sometimes, but isn't this completely uncalled for? Exxolon (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion, magnets and hot tubs don't do it for him, I guess. Here, he chides another editor for similar language, citing this post. Earlier he showed a sense of humour about himself, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have come up with a better response no matter how long I thought about it. Kudos to him. --Elliskev 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Exxonlon is correct. That response was not at all appropriate, even for someone who was likely trolling. Aleta 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Barringa. If his contribs aren't reverted, then "fuck off" is the only appropriate response.—eric 05:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was an inappropriate comment but the user was warned about it. I think ANI is a bit premature, considering that there's not a history of bad-faith edits. I suggest this be dropped for now. PeterSymonds | talk 10:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved...if that is ok. The user has been warned and it doesn't seem like an administrator is needed at the moment. Rgoodermote  14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:ShaolinDoTruth

I've blocked a user, but wanted to get additional opinion into my action as I was the original creator of the article that he was vandalizing. The user is User:ShaolinDoTruth. Shaolin-Do is one of the larger martial arts chains in the US and has a questionable history. Not only is his user handle a violation of policy, but User:ShaolinDoTruth is a SPA account whose only edits have been to attack the organization with unsourced biased original research. Prior to creating an account, he had a static IP where he has been making the same unsourced/poorly sourced edits. He repeatedly puts his original research on the talk page of Shaolin-do. In addition to being a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V his posts are a violation of WP:BLP as they are essentially claiming the style's grandmaster to be a fraud and a liar. I've warned the user on several occassions. His last endeavor was to post his diatribe on Shaolin-Do on his User Page believing that the user page was immune to any requirements of neutrality/original research/verifiability/BLP. I reverted that edit and indef blocked said user as a disruptive SPA.Balloonman (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange warning on user talk

RyRy5 might have bumped into you in the last week or 3. He is essentially a lively wikipedian, true at heart and learning day by day. I was a little concerned to come across this. As far as I know Ryan hasn't reported it to anyone but it is not the kind of thing we should ignore if we are trying to mentor and what he should not ignore. (or is it just cruft talk?) -- BpEps - t@lk 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

? I'm a bit confused by your comment / question... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was confused when I got the message. I thought that his explaination was convicing to me so I striked the vandal warning. Maybe the Administrators' noticeboard is a good place to discuss this, so please continue. Comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If that post is what this thread is about I do not see how it requires the attention of administrators. I deleted the page which that user had blanked and told Ryan about because it was clearly a hoax. So is this in regards to a different post?¤~Persian Poet Gal 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'll wait for others to decide.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what is wrong here. Tiptoety 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We're mainly disscussing this, I think. I will ask User:Bpeps to clarify what is wrong.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But what specifically about that? I am not seeing anything wrong. Tiptoety 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. Me and User:Persian Poet Gal have asked User:Bpeps to clarify. But I don't think he is online. We will just have to wait until further notice.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry User_talk:RyRy5#Your_recent_.22revision.22. Struck me as strange/bullying? Despite checking Ryan's edits, I just couldn't make sense. It just appeared like an editor "having a go". BpEps - t@lk 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I do not see anything that requires admin intervention here, why not just discuss it with RyRy5 on his talk page? Tiptoety 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Here's my guess at what happened: FargothRocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created Fargoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and made a few edits to it. CorinthMaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blanked the article without explaining why or without stating a reason. RyRy5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) then undid the edit and warned CorinthMaxwell not to blank pages. CorinthMaxwell then explained that the article was a hoax and that the author was creating it to prove a point on GameFAQs.com. So, as I understand it, FargothRocks created a nonsense page that deserved to be deleted in the first place, and CorinthMaxwell blanked it because he didn't know Misplaced Pages policy for speedy deletion. RyRy5 didn't do anything wrong. And now... you know... the rest of the story. --Elkman 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No admin action needed. Resolved. Tiptoety 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderfool socks

After his latest return, I have blocked Tokeen (talk · contribs), Sophiebristow (talk · contribs), and Montchav (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of Wonderfool based on strong CheckUser evidence and some corroborating behavior. The last of these, at least actually got quite a few edits. It might be worth it to review the contributions, as WF has been known to create hoaxes and articles that test the boundaries before. Dmcdevit·t 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

unable to edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chiropractic&curid=7738&diff=206394353&oldid=206322956

I revert popped up on my watchlist. I tried editing the article. The protection tag has been removed but I am still unable to edit the article. There is a glitch in the system or a Wikipedian edited the article while the page is protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is an admin allowed to revert an article while the page is protected? If not, the edit should be reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester was only restoring a big swath of sourced content, which would likely be taken as uncontroversial and helpful to the encyclopedia. In doing so, he mistakenly rm'd the small-prot icon. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester reverted the text that was the very reason the article was protected in the first place. The article is protected because of the reverts. Is Swatjester allowed to continue the edit war while the article is protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but whatever the PoV, it looks to me like he was restoring damage to sourced content. It's very rarely helpful to bulk-delete that much sourced text and wholly unhelpful to edit war over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comment did not address the issue. The edit was a revert while the article was protected. I think it should be reverted unless there is a specific policy that an admin can edit war after the article has been protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not an involved editor. I think calling this edit warring is too much of a stretch. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate Gwen Gale's point and believe QuackGuru is grossly overstating the issue, I reverted Swatjester's good-faith change. It's not difficult to miss the protection warning occasionally, particularly when using the undo function (people often just scroll down to change the edit summary and submit). Vassyana (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Vassyana&diff=prev&oldid=206522835 Read this comment. I think it was intentional the admin reverted while the article was protected. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it wasn't a mistake. You and I disagree as to whether it was ok for him to restore a big chunk of sourced text while the article was protected. Only so you know, I'm also ok with it having been taken out again after this got posted here and at RFP, I'd say both takes are reasonable (but I don't think your having called what he did edit warring was at all reasonable). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See this. I did not notice that it was protected at the time, but its protected status would not matter. The material is uncontroversial, well sourced, and OrangeMarlin's deliberate blanking of it was vandalism. ⇒SWATJester 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#Scope_of_practice_comments_by_Eubulides Read this section. It was not completely sourced text and there are many problems that have not been fixed. Anybody can put a ref after a sentence. When it is up to Misplaced Pages's standard it will be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I should note that with your extensive block history, including edit warring blocks on this particular article, you ought to be very careful about making demands such as "When it is up to Misplaced Pages's standard it will be restored". You are not the arbiter of that. It in fact does comply with all of our standards, whether you like it or not. That's the point of NPOV: it includes things such as criticism that may go against our own POVs. We present ALL sides of a view. Upon review, I've noted that the section you quote is merely one editors attempt to circumvent a well cited, well sourced opinion, with a single source of his own, to push the opposite POV. It does not actually mean anything. ⇒SWATJester 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone actually bothered to inform me of the AN/I section. ⇒SWATJester 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Scientology

This page is pretty much being used exclusively to post AfD notices. I'm wondering if this is proper, what with WP:CANVAS and all. It doesn't seem like the project is being used to collaborate on improving articles at all, but rather just to save them from getting deleted. Any thoughts? Equazcion •✗/C • 05:43, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

For easy reference, the AfD discussions referenced there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Vassyana (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly just Cirt doing something recommended—I don't see a problem with that. If the project isn't doing anything, you can tag it as {{historical}}. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Other users have in the past complained that adequate notice is not given for WP:AfDs relating to Scientology, so ample notice is given at WP:SCN/AFD and on the WikiProject's talk page. It does seem lately that the talkpage has only been used for Afd notices (not just by myself but others as well) - but if you look at the archives you will see that the project talk page has been quite active in the past, on numerous other topics of discussion. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, this isn't canvassing - it is just a notice that an AfD is happening, posted in one central location only with no other text about the article itself, and in a spot that individuals from various backgrounds/inclinations probably monitor - so as to make sure due notice is given about the AfD, and to gain input from individuals from all sides interested in the subject matter. It should also be noted that it is sometimes the AfD nominator doing the notifying, and sometimes not, so it isn't really a matter of trying to save an article from getting deleted/not deleted. Cirt (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that after posting this, that the notices were actually sometimes by the nominator (usually you). My concern was that the Scientology project might be an inherently biased place to post such notices, but I'm quickly seeing that that isn't really the case. Although I'll continue watching, because it seems not too many people have paid attention to that project in a while, so it's hard to tell right now who these notices are targeting. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:44, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The notices aren't meant for anyone in particular, that's why they are posted to a public WikiProject talk page and not a user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been a lot more activity in the past, but that tends to be the case with a lot of projects which comparatively small scopes: the main articles get created, pretty much made B-class, and then people move on. I wish there were more activity, particularly from people more involved with Scientology than I am, but that's the way it works sometimes. That project will always welcome a few more eyes, though. Whatever you think of the guy, moving his page to "L. Ron Butterfly" like was done yesterday and similar vandalism in the past is contemptible, and just, well, stupid. Butterfly, of all things? John Carter (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:209.244.43.12

• See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive399#Legal Threat and Persistent Posting at Closed AfD

WP:COIN had a thread regarding alleged COI editing on the Paul Iorio article; the article ended up on AfD, and User:209.244.43.12 demanded removal of one of the comments in the AfD under threat of a "possible libel suit" . The IP was blocked for 72 hours by MaxSem for legal threats. After that block expired, User:209.244.43.12 then posted to the already-marked-resolved COIN discussion, reiterating the threat . I blocked the IP for 2 weeks, and made sure that the the block message mentioned the info-en mailing list (the standard uw-blockn template doesn't, and you can't use uw-lblock with an IP since it presumes an indef block, and the time parser does not seem to work with it).

Someone with greater familiarity with the history of that AfD, the COIN discussion, and the previous mention here on ANI should probably review this. Thanks, MCB (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've sorted out the {{uw-lblock}} template now, default is indefinite with time parser now included. Will update doc this afternoon accordingly. 09:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks! --MCB (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by an administrator, redux from above

At this earlier thread on this board, here, I raised a query as to why an administrator User:William M. Connolley, had protected an article and then edited through the protection in a manner that (a) did not appear to be completely NPOV, and (b) did not appear to have talkpage consensus.

Thus, I dropped a note () onto his talkpage to ask why this had occurred. As noted above, his reply was that he "thought I was trouble making" (). This did not particularly assume good faith, but nevertheless I thus made the request clearer ().

Now, another administrator User:BozMo has popped up to reply to me on the same talk page, to disagree (which is fair enough) ... but look at that edit summary (). Since I am certainly not going to start using admin tools in retaliation for violations of WP:NPA, I would be interested to hear any thoughts on the issue. Please note that the shenanigans at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (with which I am uninvolved) are now unrelated to this issue. Black Kite 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure this is the right place for this but I had in parallel made this reply on your talk page to your request for immediate comment.:

Immediate is a bit strong but you did say "please". The edit summary was a reference to the inherent challenge of assuming good faith versus not feeding people when they troll. I never feed trolls and the intended implication was that I was agf giving you the benefit of the doubt about trolling and accepting the risk I might be feeding trolling. Perhaps this was unclear but I did include the word maybe. I hope you don't find the suggestion you might be trolling offensive but I suppose that since so many people use it differently I have to accept there was a risk you might. I was not wishing to offend or attack you but I would ask you to examine your behaviour. What is the point of your comment to WMC and why did you word it aggressively? These were a few days ago now. You could have raised the general issue of principle (which was an open question) but chose to go for the specifics. The "appear to be skewed" seemed rather polemic for the sake of it (I did review the deletions before I commented on AN/I) and WMC had not AFAICT been previously involved in the debate. This was discussed and JzG, John Smith and I all seemed to share a view on it. So, what is the positive outcome you are looking for? His edits were open to misinterpretation sure, but abuse of admin powers, no. --BozMo talk 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether WMC had abused his admin powers per WP:PROTECT (which subject I was trying to clear up, and I certainly don't believe it was in an aggressive manner, and the phrase "appear to be" made that clear, I think) is a completely different question now, as is whether WMC had not been previously involved. Yes, a few editors agreed with his edits, but a large number did not, and I see that the deletion and restoration of that section is still being edit-warred over now, which definitely suggests there was no consensus for it. It shouldn't be rocket science that you don't perform major surgery to an article through your own protection unless there's complete consensus, and being called a "troll" for calling attention to this (which I firmly believe is what your edit summary insinuated) is only likely to make the issue worse. I was astounded that another admin would believe that this was a reasonable edit summary, frankly, although nothing to do with that article surprises me any more. Black Kite 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of good form I am repeating an apology to Black Kite for an edit summary which was not intended to imply he was a troll. --BozMo talk 10:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Black Kite 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject requests deletion

Does anyone know what to do about the Francis Wasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article?

I AFDed PRODded it a few days ago, flagging it as a non-notable possible autobiography created by Wasserf (talk · contribs). However, Rmutt2008 (talk · contribs) claims to be the real Francis Wasser, seeks privacy, and has replaced the page's content with a complaint.

I don't see anything in WP:CSD to cover this. Do we just wait for the PROD to expire, or should I WP:IAR and delete it anyway? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

His edit was reverted as vandalism. Allow the normal deletion processes to run their course, do not treat it differently due to this. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that any claim to be the subject of an article needs to go through the proper process of verifying identity and such. Otherwise, it is open to abuse. I'm confused by the AfD comment at the beginning though. I think you meant to say you'd PROD'd it (or I'm jsut reading stuff wrong). Let the deletion run it's course as it only has a few days left and no one has contested the deletion that I can see. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the confusion, I did mean PRODded. I'll let the PROD run its course as you and ST47 suggest. --17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit history etc

Does anyone know how I can check how many edits I have made to wikipedia so I can decide which service badge I can display?--Energizer07 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find out here. But to be honest you might want to focus on the thread below, and your poor use of rollback, rather than asking question like this, which should be done at the help desk. Pedro :  Chat  11:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Service badge? We don't need no stinking badges. Corvus cornix_talk 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ZionistLionist

ZionistLionist (talk · contribs) needs to be dealt with immediately. --NeilN 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No edits in 30 minutes, but I can't see anything but POV pushing at best and vandalism / hatred at worst. I'm not sure wether this account is likely to be constructive, and would consider an indef block. However given the subject matter this is very likelt to inflame and not help. Pedro :  Chat  11:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the explicit racism in the second diff I say immediate indef block. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be confident that this editor doesn't "get" what Misplaced Pages is about . I think we probably need to consider press reponses to this, and that Misplaced Pages does not tolerate this kind of attitude. I'm in support of indef. blocking, on balance. Pedro :  Chat  11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond the pale. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please look at IP 211.28.41.32 (talk · contribs), similiar use of abbreviations (Xtian for example), similar/identical edits etc. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been no action for 12 days now, though almost certainly the same editor there is nothing to be gained from a block in hindsight. But as soon as this person/IP edits in bad faith again then there is in this case no need for good faith warnings etc, straight to AIV with it. I will monitor the IP as well. 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removal

Today I was granted rollback power and have spent around one – two hours reverting numerous cases of obvious vandalism BUT TODAY AT 11:03AM the User:Bongwarrior removed my roll back power claiming that ‘at least half’ of my roll backs were not vandalism. I checked this and it is obviously false as you can check.

I challenged him about this but as of yet have not got a response. I am asking that I be granted my roll back privileges again so that I can begin to revert vandalism again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energizer07 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I only got back two diffs. nope, and nope. Both of these were not vandalism - they were other editors reverting poor edits which you then reverted back again i.e. you are rollbacking to vandalised entries. Not to hot. I suggest you stick with undo for a while and study up on what vandlism is. Pedro :  Chat  11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see my name comes up in the diff. I generally don't make mistakes but they could just be mistakes. There is also a talk going on about this sort of stuff Energizer07 on Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism under the heading Overly Aggressive Vandal Patrolling Culture This may help you understand what to rollback and what not to. Also which warns to use for what e.t.c ·Add§hore· /_Cont 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that warnings like this one are completely over the top. MaxSem 11:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That template does nothing to aid a situation, and if it's in template space should be TfD'd or even speedied immediately. Energizer it's clear you are wishing to help the project, but may I suggest you pull on the hand brake just a little bit. There's a fine line between helping the project and possibly driving away editors through well intentioned actions. If you have any questions regarding vandal patrolling, issuing of warnings when to look for a block etc, just leave me a message and I will work through it all with you. 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And such warnings in unusual places. Maybe we should edit the talk of the IP and mention that the warning was far too aggressive ? Cenarium 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted with approx 200 mainspace edits, less than half with edit summaries, or so it appears. Any comments on this approval Tiptoety? Franamax (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't grant rollback to a user before checking that he has enough good RC patrolling. That would make this kind of situation less frequent. Cenarium 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my comments are what have been being said at WT:RFR for weeks, rollback is no big deal, and we should extend good faith when granting it with no prejudice/drama about removing it. Each admin has there own set of criteria, some lower than others. It has been suggested we set a standard but everyone agrees the current process works. It has been removed, no damage really done. Tiptoety 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's no big deal. But sometimes, giving some advises and waiting 2-3 days, or a dozen of reverts, to see the evolution in the contributions of a user, is better than giving rollback then having to remove it. Maybe it's easy to remove, but it may have a negative impact on the user as shown above. (I suppose that further discussion on this should go elsewhere.) Cenarium 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And thats where opinions differ, maybe we need to move to WT:RFR and discuss the topic of guidelines when granting rollback further. Tiptoety 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I occasionally do RC patrol but I find my time far better spent actually adding useful content or doing minor janitorial stuff like fixing typos and reformatting links that RC Patrol. Why? Precisely because recent changes ARE patrolled. I haven't asked for rollback but about the only use I would have for it is when a drive-by IP vandalizes multiple pages while making zero non-vandalism edits. Even that wouldn't save me much time, since I still have to check every single edit before rolling it back, just in case he made even one edit that wasn't clear vandalism.

When rollback was first introduced, I suggested that after a few months of shakedown testing, it be an option on preference pages so administrators don't have to waste time granting the option. Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps it should be an option on preference pages for anyone who has X number of edits and at least Y months of service, but the option should be revocable by administrators when necessary.

By the way, for the past few days I've been following Energizer's edits. If he is given the right guidance and not scared away from Misplaced Pages, he will be a very valuable editor someday and people will go to him for advice. In the meantime, he needs the community to walk behind him, fix up and point out mistakes, and recommend ways he can become a more valuable contributor. Except when he gets frustrated like at the start of this thread, he's got a good attitude, which more than makes up for his run-away enthusiasm and the resulting mistakes. I predict that in 2-3 years, after a few thousand edits, a few Barnstars, a few dozen B-class articles, and a few Good Articles, he will be well-respected and will easily pass a vote to give him administrative tools. In the meantime, the next few months will be filled with the mistakes of someone learning. If you have time please spend the next few months patrolling his edits and help shape him into the good editor I think he wants to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack edit summaries

Can the edit summaries in ] be deleted? DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made a request for oversight. They should disappear shortly. --B (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the name of the user, not needed any more here. Cenarium 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Based on that I'd say the user needs a much more substantial warning than the one I previously provided on his talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is now blocked indef. Rightly so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user as vandal only after reviewing the whole account. I am just looking up how to entirely get rid of them: bit beyond my normal actions. --BozMo talk 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Back as User: Mr nibble Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page needs deleting, salting and oversighting. Should also do this to the original account. MER-C 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to oversight request. --B (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• A little bit narked with this ladies n gents. I'd already issued a temporary block to the original editor to stop any further disruption to the project, and with a couple of others had already started reverting all the edits, and it was also to give me time to look through the whole issue. There was no pressing urgency to change the block without discussing it with me first and to find the reasoning behind, whether anyone agreed with the length or not. There was already a discussion on my talk page that would have immediately made the situation clear. So in brief if there is no immediate potential disruption to the project please discuss it, and think to ask other administrators without overriding their decisions and causing bad feeling please. 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you are referring to me but I am pretty sure there was no temporary block in place when I indef blocked this user (unless they were concurrent). Certainly no block notice either or any note to say it was with you. --BozMo talk 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:B unblocked ot re-block, and it appears User:BozMo Blocked at the same time ; and Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here also via some attack talk pages that I deleted, and after a further note that i dropped at the user. Personally, I suspect that it relates to Iamdoctortran (talk · contribs) being warned and blocked yesterday, but it is just a guess.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look through User:Thingg's past to see if I can see anything but SOBS's started editing on the 9th one edit then started his anti-Thingg rant today. Thingg is a pretty prolific VP'er so it could be anyone looking though it. I've watchlisted his talk page for now just incase we get a sock or two. 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Extending your block to indefinite, blocking email to prevent further harassment, and annotate the block log to note that the offending revisions may be oversighted should anyone ever review this block in the future was all non-controversial and obviously correct. Permission or prior discussion is not necessary. Your complaint was left on my talk page four minutes after I reblocked him, before I had a chance to leave you a courtesy note. Bringing it here when there is nothing to resolve, an unambiguously correct decision, and you have already expressed your concern to me is pointless. --B (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Back again as User:Hoppin' bonkers Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of WP:RFA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Several administrators have commented on the discussion and nobody mentions any "abuse". John Reaves didn't "abuse" anything. Further discussion about the protection itself should be continued at WT:RFA#Protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about whether WP:RFA should be semi-protected here. During that discussion, the page was semi-protected by User:John Reaves. I asked him here repeatedly to revert the protection and join the discussion, but he declined.

I think the discussion seems to move into the direction of non-protection. Anyway, consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process, and I think John should respect that by waiting for the discussion to end either way. He was not entrusted with admin privileges to be a judge.

How do you see the situation? --Yooden ☮ 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is not the right place to discuss whether WP:RFA should be protected. Use Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship for that.

There is no reason whatsoever for a new user or IP to edit the RFA page. I'm with John Reaves here. Sean William @ 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is not the right place to discuss whether WP:RFA should be protected. Use Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship for that. --Yooden ☮

So you think admins should avoid community discussions about a particular subject and just do what they think is right? --Yooden ☮

I don't see this as a very big problem. It could take ages (or never) to get a very strong consensus on anything on the RfA talk page. There didn't seem to be a huge opposition to semi-protecting the page. Rather, there is no consensus either way. If neccesary, at any time his protection can be undone and he can be directed to the talk page for further discussion. I highly doubt John would get in an edit war to keep his semi-protect up, and as I said, will the discussion really ever end? If the semi-protect proves to be bad for the project, then remove it. Or if policy appears to trump a good application of IAR in this case, then remove it. The one caveat to this is I think editors should discuss changes as much as they can when applying IAR. I do suggest John add his input to the RfA talk page, but I don't find it neccesary for him to revert himself before doing that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So let's see: We have an ongoing discussion about topic A; an editor avoids the discussion by ignoring the talk page and just implements a change; he is notified of this; he still refuses to enter the discussion; currently, he demands that his change should be considered to be the new precendent. This is where you don't see "a very big problem", right? Could you please explain how, using this policy, you intend to avoid edit wars?

I didn't ignore anything, I already told you I wasn't aware of the discussion. Are you suffering memory loss or are you just a liar? John Reaves 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are an admin, so you are allowed to use personal attacks. Reverse psychology be damned, I'm sure they will let you get away with it. Anyway, here is your proof. --Yooden ☮

It's a legitimate question. So far you have spurious claims of attacks and abuse. What are you going to fabricate next? Also, it's ~~~~, not that hard. John Reaves 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yooden, forgive me, I don't believe my first response was well worded. I did not come here to commend John's editing or use of talk page. Ultimately I was suggesting this is not an issue for AN/I at this moment. If at some point John engages in an edit war over this and continues to ignore discussion, then it would be a problem. That's not where we are at. He made a change and is defending it in his own way (probably not a great way). As I said, 1,500 other admins can change it back and advise him to "wait" for the end of the discussion. If he then edit wars and reverts, then we have a problem, but certainly not yet. He is not a "judge" by any means, but he has every right to make a judgement call that can easily be changed back if perceived to be wrong by other admins. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here is really not necessary, nor helpful. You should continue discussion on WT:RFA#Protection. Obviously other administrators, including myself, agree with the protection so we aren't talking about any admin "abuse" here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: If an admin implements a change which is currently under discussion, willfully avoids that discussion and then demands that his change should be considered the new consensus, that's not abuse?

Also, I'm not using Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Protection because I don't particularly care weither way. Protection of WP:RFA is not the issue here, abuse of administrator privileges is. --Yooden ☮

Why won't you sign normally? Not having a date stamp can make conversations very confusing. John Reaves 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your summary of the events is skewed. John made one change to the RfA page, semi-protecting it. No admin has removed the semi-protection, which any one of them can do. John is not edit-warring and has every right to make a judgement call and semi-protect a page, regardless of a talk page discussion. He is not going against any consensus, there is no consensus yet. He is nowhere demanding that his change be considered the new consensus, he is just suggesting it is the right choice. There is healthy discussion going on now regarding the issue elsewhere, I'd reccommend not pressing it here any further. It's just a massive stretch to call this admin abuse. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not admin abuse. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Abuse? This was hardly abuse. More like a bold move. People always have issues with bold edits but it does not mean such edits are viewed as abusive.¤~Persian Poet Gal 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Improper page moves by Husond

User:Husond has once again started engaging in improper, undiscussed page moves, moving Mihai Suba to Mihai Şuba in this edit. He tries to justify it by attacking me and my motives in moving it to align page name with the cited sources, rather than addressing the issues involved.

The Mihai Suba spelling is not only the one in the cited reference here; is is also the spelling in both external links in the article and in the book he wrote with the ISBN 0-08-037141-8 citation in the article. It is quite reasonable to think that these spellings are accurate and correct spellings, the way this British resident for the past 20 years or so (since before he wrote his book, the main reason why he is notable) in generally known in English.

Husond's move is an improper, unreferenced move of this article to a name not supported by the cited sources. Furthermore, it is contrary to the spelling of his name as the author of his book mentioned in the text.

That the move Husond made was undiscussed is especially improper and inappropriate given that there already was a talk page discussion before his move. His move was clearly much more inappropriate than the original creation of the page under an unreferenced spelling contrary to that of the sources by User:Krakatoa, who—unlike Husond—hadn't then had it specifically pointed out to him/her that the spelling was contrary to that in all the sources.

Note further that even if he can and does find some sources supporting the spelling in the move he made, that would be sufficient to list the alternative spelling in the article. It is not by any means determinative of the spelling of this English resident's name in the article's name under Misplaced Pages:naming conventions. But so far, we have absolutely no evidence from any reliable source, nor even from any unreliable source, that the "Mihai Şuba" spelling has ever been correct at any time in any language whatsoever.

Note in particular that Husond did not change my correction of my spelling of the name of the author of Dynamic Chess Strategy from "Şuba" to "Suba", the name of the author as it appears in that English-language book he wrote. He knows better than to deliberately change that to a spelling different from that used in the book itself (LCCC listing, which is reachable by following the ISBN link already cited in article and clicking on the appropriate "find this book" link), yet he thinks it is okay to improperly move the article containing it contrary to Misplaced Pages's naming conventions, without even discussing the points which had already been made on the talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and you are discussing many issues of the content dispute here. Please spend more time looking for resolution on the article talk page or the user's talk page. You are far away from needing to bring this issue to A/NI. Husond should engage in a talk page discussion over the correct name of the page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As an outside view, I noticed Gene that you made no attempt (at least that I can see) to resolve this name dispute with Husond. This feels like tattling. Do you have some sort of history with this particular editor to bring you to AN/I so quickly. This seems like a simple dispute that could be fixed on article talk, user talk, even WP:RM. Why the AN/I drama? This isn't traditionally a first stop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The valid core of this complaint is that Husond should have brought the move to WP:RM. He knows, better than most, that all diacritical moves are likely to be controversial. Instead, he argued in the edit summaries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond has been notified of this thread. Rudget 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Husond revert a prior move that wasn't brought to WP:RM? He has the page named the same way the original author had it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And contrary to the spelling of the sources (see the links in the article). Husond disagrees with WP:UE, and has every right to campaign for his minority view; but the way to do so is to discuss and poll to see whether he has gathered support, not by move warring. Gene at least discussed his move on the talk page; Husond did nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would not regard this (as it stands) as warranting sanctions, in either direction; but is this not a reasonable place to ask for a third opinion? It may require adminship to act on a move war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, this isn't the place. (Read the header). It's a dispute. We have Dispute resolution. We have third opinions. But before those even get going, we have talk pages. Nobody even went to Husond's talkpage. Calling the article talk page a "discussion" is rather laughable. It's a one liner by Gene Nygaard "telling it like it is". That's not a discussion, that's an order. I wouldn't have replied to that either. This thread should be closed. Husond and Gene are disagreeing on something, outsight eyes need to be on it, I agree, before it gets ridiculous over something rather ridiculous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be ludicrous if not for the aggressive nature of Gene Nygaard's reaction that I unfortunately am so well used to. I'll try to make this brief. First, Gene strangely failed to mention that right after I reverted his move, I reminded him on his talk page that he is under community probation and may not move articles in order to remove diacritics without going through WP:RM first. Second, Gene seized the opportunity to move this article under the grounds that the only source refers to this person without the diacritic. Any search on Google with most adequate regard for Romanian sources will clearly show that this Romanian citizen's name is clearly and naturally written with a diacritic and that all the other sources are lacking this diacritic simply because most non-Romanian keyboards don't have it. But this, in case someone forgot, is an encyclopedia and accuracy is imperative. English speakers who know how "Ş" is pronounced don't have to be mislead into reading the name wrong simply because most English speakers don't know how to read it. Those will likely read it as "S" anyway, while the ones aware of the correct pronunciation would read "SH". In my view it is thus logical that in an encyclopedia readers be provided with an accurate and clear presentation of the subject, starting with its correct pronunciation. Gene Nygaard and Septentrionalis think otherwise, they defend that everyone has the right to be dumb, stay dumb, and make everyone else dumb. But that's not for here. I am surprised that Gene brought this issue here without contacting me or User:Krakatoa, the creator of the article. But I see that Gene has just declared on his talk page that the probation does not exist, which is false: Misplaced Pages:Community sanction/Log is marked as inactive but as one can clearly read there, his probation is still active (and for good reasons). Gene has once again moved the article, which I will revert once again and block Gene Nygaard per his probation if he attempts to move the article once more without going to WP:RM. Húsönd 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be ludicrous if not for the aggressive nature of Gene Nygaard's reaction that I unfortunately am so well used to ...

Husond, please stop the mud slinging. Gene tried to discuss this twice - on the article talk page and on his user page - and your reply was to threaten blocking. Enough already, quit stirring up trouble. --Duk 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Move protected for one week. Tiptoety 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(i) Husond is an admin, and party to what is apparently a two person dispute where one user is an admin and one is not and (ii) I'm not sure that protection is necessary, particularly if Gene Nygaard ends up blocked for edit warring and violating a community probation. Also, Husond, it would be a bad idea for you to block Gene yourself. Avruch 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested protection because a user who often teams with Gene Nygaard joined in and moved the article again. Didn't want this to go on forever. As for blocking Gene Nygaard, I understand your concern but I don't view this as a situation where I'd be using the block tool to have advantage over a dispute. Gene's probation is very clear and whenever I monitor his recent contributions I always find violations. He has been warned many times and I could've blocked him right away for persistent violations. And perhaps I should have, because I'm always lenient and explain to him over and over what he is not supposed to do, but then he always attacks me and this time came up with this unnecessary thread. The fact that Gene and I have a long history of disagreements does not mean that I may not enforce a clear community probation when it is blatantly violated. Húsönd 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment If a clear community probation is blatantly violated then there is likely to be another uninvolved admin willing to block, so to avoid the inevitable filing of a complaint why don't you let that happen? Indeed, if you are insistent on performing the block it may become the view of some that you appear more willing to act on matters where you have some interest than with keeping as much drama out of Misplaced Pages as possilbe. It may even be considered that acting in such a manner is disruptive. If there is a blatant violation of community probation then why not contact me and request me - or any other uninvolved admin - to perform the block (once satisfied)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Husond. I wouldn't recommend you blocking GN, regardless of the probation. Even though you may "technically" be within your rights to do as much, the perception of admin abuse, and inevitable drama to follow, would not be in anybody's best interests. I recommend letting the community handle any potential blocks (and at this point, I don't believe any blocks or other sanctions are warranted). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, your argument is sound- drama would be inevitable indeed. Okay, I won't block Gene if I see further violations, but I may be reporting them here if they do occur. Húsönd 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Premature Archiving of ANI Discussion

User:Rjd0060 just archived a discussion on ANI while the discussion was ongoing (less than two minutes after the last contribution); in fact I had an edit conflict on this change.

Please reopen. If there is a better place to appeal the decision to archive it, please point me to it. --Yooden ☮ 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This response is awful. I'd suggest you retract it immediately, even if there is a disagreement. That is by no means the start of a resolution. Rudget 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that you took what was clearly a sarcastic remark seriously. For the record: I don't want to ignore the community. --Yooden ☮

(EC) I archived it because there is clearly no "admin abuse" as you claim. I, as well as several others have agreed. Also, continuing that discussion will only cause things to become heated, which really isn't necessary. Please continue the discussion at WT:RFA#Protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yooden, admin abuse is a matter much more serious than what John Reeves had done. It is unacceptable to apply such labels to situations in which you simply had differing opinions on the matter.¤~Persian Poet Gal 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That label was not brought up by me, and I'm perfectly willing to drop it. --Yooden ☮

You archived the discussion after three hours and after less than two minutes of inactivity.

I was already attacked, but nobody cares. Now imagine I would have taken a break, as suggested elsewhere on Misplaced Pages when things get hot.

Now seriously, please reopen or tell me where to appeal your decision. --Yooden ☮

As has been suggested, please take this to Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether WP:RFA is protected or not. --Yooden ☮

Yooden, your account goes back practically to the Misplaced Pages beginning of time. Surely you understand the difference between an admin making a decision to semi-protect a page (regardless of ongoing discussion, which may or may not result in a change that any admin could make) and admin abuse or some actionable policy violation? If you want to debate the issue of protection, raise on WT:RFA. If you want an admin to unprotect the page absent that debate, go to WP:RPP (although, good luck). What else are you trying to achieve here? Avruch 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I want a discussion that was closed after three hours to be reopened. --Yooden ☮

I want you to timestamp your posts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanna make a deal? --Yooden ☮

And ultimately all of those requests are bit pushy wouldn't you say? Lets just step back and agree to disagree on all the above.¤~Persian Poet Gal 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A nice thought. Why don't we just let it rest for a day, reopen the discussion then and continue? --Yooden ☮

I hope more is forthcoming, but I want to have a short interim status message in case anything happens to this discussion:

I asked to reopen a discussion about admin behaviour that I myself started. Within this thread a several objections of mine which are not addressed yet. The thread was closed after about three hours (2008-04-18T13:08:00 to 2008-04-18T16:23:44) and after less than two minutes of inactivity.

Currently, the reason given for closing the thread is that "{User:Rjd0060}, as well as several others have agreed." and because "continuing that discussion will only cause things to become heated". I was also pointed to another discussion with a different topic.

Now I wonder, is simple agreement of what few admin could reach the page within three hours enough to absolve one of their own of any wrongdoing? Is the possibilty of a heated discussion reason enough to strike it? --Yooden ☮

There was no "admin abuse" as you claim. Several people have agreed with that, and more importantly, nobody has agreed with you (that I know of) in the sense that John Reaves has abused his administrator status. I don't know why you are still at this, but do as you please. I won't be leaving any further comment here, as I've said what I feel needed to be said. You raised an issue here, people commented on it, and you're unhappy with the outcome. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did't claim it; I admit I picked it up after others used the expression though. All I want is clarity about Misplaced Pages's rules.

What if someone would describe John's action as "poor behaviour" and would continue that "John has behaved badly over this entire incident"? What if someone else would have told him that "another administrator will eventually have to end up unprotecting it if you don't"? With your early closure you not only give me reason not to WP:COOL down the next time, you also send the message that WP:CANVASSing is necessary. You closed the thing after three hours for fuck's sake, what am I supposed to think is the reason for that if other threads remain open for weeks?

I'm still at this because several of the objections I raised are unanswered. Do you want them to remain so? --Yooden ☮ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the threads stay along long enough for the bot to archive them. It's also probably difficult to follow when you'd commented last, with no timestamp in your signature. SQL 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like that's the reason the thread was closed. Let's see. --Yooden ☮ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. Rjd0060 was likely just covering up the thread you brought here, in order to further his agenda to keep RFA protected. SQL 17:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to a place to appeal the decision to close the thread. --Yooden ☮ 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You have seen what kind of comments you will receive if you take this further. And by the looks of it, everyone but you agrees that John did not "abuse" his administrative position. In addition, I find this comment to be quite... uncivil. It would be appreciated if you would retract or the statement. seicer | talk | contribs 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So lets keep talking about this

I don't think it's admin abuse either, but it's still an admin action, and ANI is an appropriate place to discuss this kind of thing (especially since the same situation might face other pages). John's a good guy, and we don't have to be burning someone at a stake to justify a thread here.

All pages fall under our protection policy. I remember this well from past discussions about semi-protecting all policy pages with similar logic. As long as there is no requirement that a user be auto-confirmed before making an admin nomination, then the page should not be protected as such. -- Ned Scott 22:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

69.253.242.57 (talk · contribs) and legal threats

This editor seems to be presenting themselves as a parent of Jenna Syken and recently made this edit. In the corresponding edit summary they spoke of contacting an attorney due to libel. This is the whole edit summary:

We have been in touch with an attorney pertaining to libel and slander written by wikipedia about our minor child. There is a record of everyone who redoes Jenna Syken page by wikipedia people

Is that considered a legal threat, should something be done?
Thanks. 15:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a legal threat but before any block I think this IP should be approached very gently with some help. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, their page does contain 5 warnings about non-constructive edits on the above mentioned article. SWik78 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They're all standard warning templates, not very informative. Blanking is a common response by non-users to what we call BLP worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a gentle notice at User_talk:69.253.242.57. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article makes a very striking, unsourced claim about a living person, and suggests a motive. Neither is supported by the existing links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The who is check goes to Mt. Laurel, NJ. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: her mother has contacted the Foundation before so this is likely her again. John Reaves 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The negative, possibly OR spin on her career has been rm'd. Meanwhile if the IP doesn't answer and carries on with threats, a block would likely be fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be evading an indef-block on NaomiSyken (talk · contribs) from behavioural evidence... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed what was unsourced, and sourced the rest. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else check out whether this is a sock? Bearian (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it to me, RCU? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a point to this, it seems totally obvious. In any event, we should probably not pursue a real aggressive RBI policy toward relatives of BLPs. Polite conversation and gentle education would seem more appropriate here. Thatcher 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for answering so quickly, it is obvious and I agree, which is why I suggested a gentle approach to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The named account has a page full of warnings, suggestions and finally instructions from the blocking admin on how to deal with the situation; the IPs (see 167.112.160.33 (talk · contribs) as well) both have flurries of warnings... at what point do we step out of "gentle education," especially considering the rather blunt legal threats? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your question is worth talking about. I'd say with this article, when thoroughly sourced information is being removed with legal threats not to put it back. We're not there yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gwen Gale post at 16:01) I gave the account User:NaomiSyken a personal message on how to address their concerns when I indef blocked the account, per here. I also note that it appears they attempted to contact the Foundation. From the continued edits to the article and the message on the ip talkpage it appears either the editor is continuing utilising an improper avenue to influence content in the article while contacting the Foundation - or they are unsatisfied with the Foundations response and have reverted to what is generally considered vandalism. In either case what they are doing falls outside of permitted behaviour. As the main account is indef blocked (I made it clear that a block can be lifted if the improper editing stops) I suggest sprotecting the article, and noting on the ip talkpage that concerns can still be addressed to the article talkpage. Perhaps someone can find out from the Foundation what the state of play is there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) ps. If anyone wishes to make edits to the article but are concerned about possible legal consequences, contact me and I will make those edits on your behalf.

Thanks. Since the unsourced information has been removed, I would suggest that if the IP blanks (or mostly blanks) the article again, that the IP be blocked and the page s-protected. I'll try to ask about any contacts with WMF. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-harm

An individual made this now-deleted statement, presumably from Sydney. Hard to tell if it's serious, or where any contacts should be made, but I didn't want to let it pass. Acroterion _(talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm clueless. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat from a kid in Sydney. No real way to find them, but someone in Australia may have a better idea. Acroterion _(talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I left this short comment on their talk page informing them that threats like that are not taken lightly and can result in serious measures being taken. Lets pray it was just a joke.¤~Persian Poet Gal 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. His other edit doesn't imply any problem. Acroterion _(talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right answer. Can Checkuser done to contact the appropriate authorities? We're talking about someone's life potentially. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic cry for help, joke or not must be followed up on. Will leave a message RCU and if I can get IP will chase it through normal channels. Though it may be better if someone from the foundation got involved or had input. What's the correct channels? 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Have raised RCU, and seriously think this should be followed up. If it's a hoax oh well no harm done for a bit of effort, if it's not ....... 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

Hi. Could someone please take a look at #Discussion refactoring on Talk:Philip K. Dick a little farther up on the page? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (not too proud to beg)

IP spamming external link

63.145.29.12 has been spamming the same link across multiple pages. Can someone please revert all the changes (not just the ones today, but earlier ones too) and block accordingly? Looks like someone trying to advertise. John Smith's (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider posting your request at WT:WPSPAM. That noticeboard is listed under 'Spam' in the header above. (See the line for 'Report Abuse'). EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - someone has already taken notice. John Smith's (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Asd124

I believe Asd124 (talk · contribs) may be a sockpuppet, though I don't know how it would be determined what user they are a sockpuppet of, exactly, so I can't add this to suspected sock puppets, and the situation isn't serious enough for checkuser. I believe this user is a sockpuppet because of this diff, where their first contribution, they add a question to a user's RfA, specifically relating to sockpuppetry and administrator abuse, specifically a line where they state "This is not a joke question because the issue of sock versus admin abuse is common in Misplaced Pages." —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like an SPA asking a loaded question. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Would a SPA ask such questions if it weren't a sockpuppet? Or could the account have been made so that the user could contribute to RfA? Are anonymous users able to contribute to RfA? —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at any diffs, the answer is Yes. Anonymous users (aren't we all, anyway?) are allowed to contribute to RfAs. In the discussion section, or asking a question. The only thing IP's are not allowed to do is cast a !vote in support/neutral/opposition. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a sock. I said SPA because there is clearly some history behind the question along with a singleminded reason for creating the account. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

River Usk

The last entry has added a reference which is simpy from a wikipedia mirror site. Not sure what to do. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid it, although this should have been dealt with on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - just thought there would be a standard informative template - its quite a hard concept for a newbie to get their head around. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, sounds like you're catching on quick :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

userpage as advert, with warnings.

User:Canplex has only edited his userpage to serve as a corporate advert. I warned him on talk, he continued to edit it, it was blanked once, he has reverted and continued to self-promote. He hasn't responded to warnings about how to use Misplaced Pages. Admins please? ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Page blanked and protected. User has been advised to offer an undertaking not to replace that content before the page will be unprotected. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent addition of nonsense to Inishbofin, Donegal

Inishbofin, Donegal has been subject to persistent vandalism since January. Initially it was done by an anon IP (or various IPs), but since a couple of days ago User:Tropicanmanofthesea has been deleting the accurate text and replacing it with nonsense. His/her version looks plausible at a glance, but it is in fact rubbish. He/she adds photos of (a) Tory Island and (b) Slovenian forests, and gives the distance from the mainland as things like 37.54 miles - and 37.84 miles in another sentence - spurious and inconsistent accuracy. But in any case there is no island in the location he/she gives. There is no nature reserve. The stuff about legal status and international waters is rubbish. It's quite subtle in some ways, but it's a spoof. I left a fairly gentle message on the talk page, but Tropicanmanofthesea has not seen fit to engage in discussion there. He/she has received warnings from three different people, and two "last warnings", for vandalsim of this and another article. Something needs to be done! Thanks. Snalwibma (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proabivouac (talk · contribs · logs)

This seems rather worrying... seeing as attacking FT2 is the "in" thing right now, and Proab's contributions to WR have been more polemic than actually discussion, is there a net gain to having him on the project? Sceptre 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

His contributions to WR have no basis whatsoever on his continuing status as a wikipedian. Viridae 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And why the hell was FT2 blanking that in his userspace anyway? Viridae 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Better question would be why did anyone need a copy of that in their user space? And was threatening to "publicize" something really necessary? Shell 22:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - you could go and ask him? (novel idea that one) Viridae 22:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see an issue with this. This kind of stuff occurs in userspace all the time. As for his WR comments, they aren't always the nicest, but that's WR not here. Majorly (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• These reports have no purpose, they are far too old to be actionable and this is the first time Proabivouac has edited anything for weeks. He seems to have left, probably a wise decision on the whole, but seems to pop up foroccasional pot-shots at his old foes. I don't think that's terribly helpful, and there is past history of problems from Proabivouac, so I have blocked for now. If he demonstrates an intention to come back and contribute to the encyclopaedia then I have no objection to an uninvolved admin unblocking . But I don't think we need people whose only contribution is drama, and not much of that. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have unblocked Proabivouac as I see no consensus for the block - and having one person who is arguing against such action being declared an opponent of the blocker, and therefore whose opinion is presumed invalid - and there was no indication of IAR. I am not aware of any RfC or ArbCom which allows for this action. I therefore consider the block to be entirely improperly made, and have undone it accordingly.

Now, if there is a discussion regarding whether the main account is contributing, or is capable of contributing, positively and the consensus is that it is not then I agree that the block be re-imposed (and will impose it myself, regardless of what - if any - my opinion is of the matter, if need be). Can we get away from simply indefing someone whose opinions and presence at other places we don't care for, and use the processes and principles of Misplaced Pages to guide our actions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem like acceptable conduct to me. JzG does not need a consensus to block, only a belief that a block is appropriate. Were a consensus to emerge that he was mistaken the block could be reversed. But you have no basis, and frankly give no reason, to reverse a block by another administrator for harassment. Please reconsider your action. WjBscribe 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was that JzG does not need consensus or admins do not need consensus? I would draw your attention that the first two responses on this thread were opposed to any action, so I think there was already a consensus not to block. JzG's actions did not reflect the direction the discussion was taking, even among those who considered the (re)creation of the userpage to be seriously problematic there was as yet no demand for summary blocking. Further, if the account is moribund then a block is not preventative. I hope we are now able to properly consider what may be done in the matter of this long term contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when are Guys actions suddenly sacrosanct? You need more to indef someone that a vague "he isnt really helping much as of late" Viridae 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Echo LessHeard vanU - we have ways of doing things on wikipedia so contributors are not ridden rough shod over by admins. Indeffing on that basis is not one of those procedures and likewise to the deletion. If you want Proab gone - start getting consensus, if you want the page gone (which was proven sockpuppetry by the way, contrary to Guys assertions) MfD it - there is nothing in the speedy deletion policy that covers that sort of deletion. Viridae 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: All mentions of OIC bar one are by Proab... I think this is crossing into Wikistalking myself. Sceptre 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Really - so the entire SSP page is also wikistalking...? Come on you can do better than that. Viridae 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages Review, I mean. Looking at the SSP report, it's very tenous at best... the Unabomber, OIC is not. Sceptre 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenuous? He admitted it? Whats bloody well tenuous about that? Viridae 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know OIC admitted it. But the SSP itself is clutching at straws. Sceptre 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares how tenuous it was? It was i believe what prompted the investigation. Viridae 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the page about Oldwindybear or the one about Orderinchaos? WjBscribe 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Eek, apologies. I did get the two mixed up :/ Sceptre 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Proabivouac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not a contributor at present, merely a drama whore. Were he a contributor I'd have left him be. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  A WP:drama whore? Why am I not surprised the link is red? Even if the block is agreed to have been ultimately correct, such language indicates that entirely the wrong person enacted the block for likely the wrong reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So because you declare him a dramam whore, that magically gives you the basis to indef him - not to be overturned until you decide he isnt a drama whore? Viridae 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• How can you claim that he doesn't edit much anymore and appears to have left, and simultaneously claim that he's a drama whore? What a bizarre block reasoning. Extremely poor. -- Naerii 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Whatever s/he is, should our server space be user to host material that even if contemplated for use here, would be dismissed out of hand as stale if it were so used? I think not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2 problems. OIC actually admittted to being a sockpuppeteer, and the server space will remain whether it is visible blanked or deleted. Viridae 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about the OWB page, but I'd be interested to know your justification for the keeping of the page about Orderinchaos given those were thoroughly investigated and evidence provided to an arbitrator/checkuser that 3 separate people were indeed involved. That page seems to be being kept for harassment, especially as it serves as a springboard for some pretty personal comments Proabivouac has been making about the people concerned off-site. WjBscribe 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed OWB to OIC in your post. Then you are mistaken. Orderinchaos admitted the three users knew each other and had shared computers but they were not his sockpuppets. He supplied evidence confirming they were three separate individuals. WjBscribe 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not -gasp! Wikistalking!:) A lot of people have pages collecting diffs etc and preparing stuff against other editors. Some times they are deleted as attack pages, if people feel that way, maybe do that. But it's hardly 'wikistalking' to do something in his own user space.Merkin's mum 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is clearly very little merit in the claims on Proabivouac's subpage. Support deletion, don't really care about the block (may as well AGF...he might find the next OWB for us if we're lucky). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

University of Luton (now Bedfordshire)

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/University_of_Bedfordshire has been editted many times by people at the University of bedfordshire. My attempts to balance the discussion seems to upset a number of other editors who might also have connections with the University.

I do not know what tools you have available to check that they are not using Misplaced Pages for advertising but http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=University+of+Bedfordshire might help Alfred Vella (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong (and if so apologies in advance), this all rings a bell with me. I'm sure that user (talk) (maybe not under that name) was warned off that article last year because he his edits were WP:UNDUE and did not represent WP:NPOV. I'm sure has all been discussed before here. This ring any bells with anyone else? --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

His userpage needs urgent attention (WP:SOAP, WP:NOT a battleground etc) I would strongly recommend that potential staff and students avoid Luton (and therefore Bedfordshire) university like the plague until it is honest about its past. , If you have any tales to tell about Luton (preferably with evidence), I would like to hear from you. I have been battling since 1997 to have the wrongs done acknowledged but the UK is not a very open country with lots of things hidden from its people. (Plus contact details). Yes this is the editor I was thinking of. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost for people to collect evidence for off-site grudges or campaigns. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The deeper I look into this, the less I like it --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I now remember why the name rang a bell in connection to wikipedia. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an ongoing edit war between Alfred Vella and university staff. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe but that user page is a violation of policy, we don't allow people to use user space to run campaigns. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I had already removed the soapy content from his user page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Quack Guru, OrangeMarlin and Eubulides at Chiropractic

Although I can appreciate the lamentable fact that Chiropractic is back again in discussion here, I feel that I need to present some facts that will hopefully result in clarification of the issues raised. I declare the conflict of interest that I am a chiropractor and a kinesiologist.

First, QuackGuru is making seriously misleading statements and is seemingly gearing up a smear campaign to make it look that I'm a bad editor. Diffs and and claimed by response on the Talk page of chiropractic to a query of a fellow editor was disruptive and he proceeded to delete my comments and concerns I raised.

Next, User:Orangemarlin a medical doctor, made 2 reverts which blanked all of the scope of practice section that was added citing "NPOV". It first occurred here which then I asked OrangeMarlin to please not blindly revert and participate in Talk first . 3 minutes later, without even acknowledging my cocnern, OrangeMarlin blindly reverted again here using TWINKLE, an automated tool that I believe is used to revert acts of vandalism. The revert he supported was done by User:Eubulides who is also, coincidentally, a medical doctor.

Shortly thereafter, Chiropractic was protected due to the "edit war" which ensued. Admin Swatjester, a completely unbiased, neutral party restored the blanked scope of practice section here citing it was indeed NPOV and well-sourced. He was then overturned by admin Vassyana who proceeded to revert admin Swatjester who explained his case here rather well.

I also believe that User:Eubulides acted against the spirit of wikipedia in several ways the first of which was fully reverting the inserted material which had been discussed on Chiropractic Talk for over 1 week and that had no comments from the skeptical editors until (surprise, surprise) I asked permission for it to go then. Eubulides claimed the citations weren't working whereas User:Levine2112, User:DigitalC, myself and others had no problem viewing the citations. Then he claimed the citation format was incorrect. After it was fixed and I inserted the scope of practice, he reverted claiming that he did not have time to check the citations. Looking at his contribs I saw that he had been actively editing other pages the entire time (I counted 25 separate edits) while the majority consensus had to wait for his approval (a paternalistic and/or arrogant behaviour that implied other editors were not somehow discern that the section was good enough for inclusion). Anyways, he has since made a list of grievances all of which are minor and I personally view as stall tactics and obstruction. Given allopathic medicine's history of trying to contain, supress and eliminate chiropractic (more context which can be seen ) I find that the editing tactics of Eubulides and OrangeMarlin to be disruptive at best, not in good faith, at worst and ultimately go against the goal of the project here which is to provide expertly written articles that are reliable and high quality. For contextual purposes, I have included the section which was reverted and declared "NPOV" and "poorly sourced" by the aforementioned editors in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorticoSpinal (talk • contribs)

_{lenghty cut and paste from article page removed once again - don't do that again, it's a sure fire way to piss people off. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)}

Please assess and see if this is POV with poor sources. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

==

Content dispute. I would suggest deleting this from this page and taking it to the article's Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the username indicates a possible conflict of interest, and the content looks like original research. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. This is a content dispute. If discussion on the talk page has stalled, might I suggest a content RFC? Either way, it might be helpful to delete this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have presented a case of disruptive editing by OrangeMarlin, QuackGuru and Eubulides. I would appreciate if comments were directed towards that. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to consider a User conduct RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

this is content dispute, there is nothing here that a) requires admin intervention and b) would warrant admin intervention. As suggested, this is a matter for RFC. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwen are you suggesting that the evidence presented above is not sufficient for this noticeboard? It's my first time bringing something like this up so guidance would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So far as I can tell, this is a content dispute over a controversial topic. There seem to be disagreements all the way down to what sources meet WP:RS along with WP:WEIGHT. While there are signs of edit warring, which is in itself disruptive, this is something for dispute resolution, not ANI. Truth be told, if discussion has truly bogged down, I think one might start with a content RFC, which could gather some helpful outside input. This also could be a fit task for the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely a content dispute as presented, however, if this doesn't get resolved somehow, this is going to keep coming back, because it involves a deliberate blanking of NPOV material. ⇒SWATJester 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards