Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 4 October 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

Block on User:Gene Poole

VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) has blocked Gene Poole (talk · contribs) for harrassment and personal attacks against Bidgee (talk · contribs). I personally concur with the block but consider a wider view may be necessary as the threats and harrassment has moved off-wiki and intensified (see User talk:VirtualSteve#Threats receive from Gene Poole on my email account). It may be best if a totally uninvolved administrator—who can't be dismissed as part of a "little cheersquad of proxies" takes a look at the entire issue including the conduct of the AfDs, the harassment, the block and the threats. -- Mattinbgn\ 08:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Any review should look at the talk page history for User:Gene Poole as he has been removing comments and warnings --Matilda 08:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (one of the cheersquad of proxies)

Reprinting emails is very bad form, regardless of their content. Poisoning the well, no way to verify them, etc. I'm removing all the instances of this I can find, call it a biographical decision if you'd like. If you're considering reverting this removal, please think very carefully about what you're trying to achieve, as I will be willing to block for disruption depending upon the cirumstances. That is to say, please discuss first before reverting.
brenneman 08:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment Aaron. I will not be wheel warring or reverting either of your two redactions and I note that you have covered both public copies by that work. However I also note that upon emailing an editor the wikipedia system now shows the following notation in a box:

A (non-public) log of this action will be kept for abuse prevention purposes via the Checkuser function. The log entry for an email does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the email. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators ("developers") can verify the recipient account, which CheckUsers can only see in hashed form.

I also note for the record (without reference to the content) that I have since received another inappropriate email from Gene Poole and of course I can provide copies (by private email) as necessary which will detail the time and date of the sender etc. Of course I understand your point but I too am concerned that too allow for protection of this type of email is to allow cowardice through the email process to prosper.

Best wishes.--VS 08:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Disagree with the removal but will not revert. Personal threats made off-wiki are in no way worthy of being considered protected and I for one reserve the right to post in my userspace any and all off-wiki communication of that nature. -- Mattinbgn\ 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) On further consideration blanket statements like mine above are not useful. -- Mattinbgn\ 08:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Respected longterm member"? A longterm obnoxious member I'd dare say. I'd have blocked for longer actually but the block has been placed, and I'm letting it stand. I've witnessed (and experienced, a long time back now though) nothing but outright chest-beating rudeness from this self-proclaimed "Emperor" . -- Longhair\ 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All this vicious stuff over Fish Information and Services??? Crikey! I think I'll start an article on Tiddly winks, and then fight to the death anyone who tries to delete it. Baseball Bugs 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is seriously lame. The user's conduct after the block is absolutely deplorable, so I fully endorse the current lengthened block. The first block seems to me to be much harder to justify, due to the general lameness of the dispute. Really, people, you should try practicing a healthy level of not giving a fuck, in regards to both articles and other editors (so that we don't take comments personally, ya' know?). Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned with the following aspects of this series of events:

• Longtime user blocked for obnoxious but not threatening on-wiki behavior without talk page or in conversation warnings to stop.
• Blocking administrator was involved in the argument on-wiki.
• First email (the one posted on-wiki and reverted) contains clear venting but at best vague threats and no threat of harm or off-wiki contact or stalking - it does not seem to justify extending a block. Venting on-wiki or in non-threatening emails to blocking admins are semi-protected activities, to avoid single blocks from escalating into a destructive circle due to complaints / venting by blockee. Clear threats or real-world contact are exceptions to that, obviously.
• I have no idea what's in email #2.

I was taken to Arbcom for blocking Giano in a situation comparable to issue #1 here a few weeks ago. This particular block is far more problematic than that.

Gene is clearly not behaving well in this manner, and I am working up a comment on his talk page, but to say that this block was in poor form and problematic is a grave understatement. This is exactly how not to do things and pretty much guaranteed further drama, rather than de-escalating the situation and calming it down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked Gene Poole's talk page history? You will find that Gene Poole had indeed received warnings but had removed them. You therefore need to look at history rather than the talk page to see those warnings and the exchanges, noting the edit summaries - for example and - note the attack on me was to accuse me (Matilda) of being a Single Purpose Account (withdrawn) and to state that I had nominated an article for AfD on spurious grounds - not withdrawn and in fact escalated. The blocking admin (Virtual Steve) was not involved in the argument up to that point - but was an active observor in my view. I would state that VS was making a call on behaviour he had seen on three related AfDs. The subsequent escalation has made Virtual Steve involved since. I do not think the block was in poor form or problematic - Gene Poole had breached WP:NPA to three editors - myself, Bidgee and Michelle Crisp and repeatedly over several days. I am concerned that that civility is not more emphatically supported. I am grateful that Virtual Steve was prepared to intervene in a situation that Gene Poole chose to escalate. --Matilda 04:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As a genuine outsider to this situation with past good dealings with Gene, and after having examined the background at about 5 locations, I concur with this assessment. Orderinchaos 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As the involved user I never requested for a block (Nor did I want to see anyone blocked) on Gene but I did warn him on the AfD (Since I'm not welcome on his Talk Page) as he was twisting my words and assued me of deliberately adding misleading comments in order to attempt to influence the outcome of an AfD. Now he has called me a "known problem editor", out of the editors I've interacted with I've only had issues with 5 editors. Gene has for some reason has got a vendetta against me which I have no idea why. He also removes editors (who he seems to have issues with) comments with the edit summary of "delete trolling" plus this comment by Gene was also assuming bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the above Gene has now said "the real issue here is VirtualSteve's abuse of admin priviledges to slap a block on my account in order to endorse the uncivil, disruptive abuse perpetrated against me by a known problem editor (Bidgee), while simultaneously attempting to alter the outcome of a disruptive AfD process in which he has an explicit conflict of interest." Bidgee (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record none of the editors of the AfD (including but not limited to myself, Bidgee, Michelle Crisp or Virtual Steve)have a CoI with fis.com (now that the sockpuppets have been indefinitely blocked). --Matilda 06:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo the concerns of Georgewilliamherbert. Blocking for alleged harassment can be a reasonable response; it can also very easily arouse anger, and emailing the blocking admin with a hot response isn't beyond the pale. Taking that email and posting it was utterly inappropriate for an administrator. If one is concerned about threats, law enforcement would be appropriate; if Misplaced Pages issues are raised, forwarding it to a member of ArbComm could be done. I do not consider the block of a long-time experienced editor to be an emergency, when it has anything like a reasonable basis, as it apparently did. "Reasonable basis" does not mean that the block was proper, it merely means that it could appear so, and blocking for harassment is, on the face, protective. (I was blocked in August for alleged harassment, and I did not and do not consider that resolving that is an emergency, it is being disentangled one small step at a time.) Gene Poole would be encouraged to reflect on WP:DGAF as well as some others involved here. That he should not have been "punished" for an angry response in email to an administrator doesn't mean that it was wise. He might ask himself what result he was seeking by that mail, and, then ... was it effective? --Abd (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene has sent me the second email, which was never posted on-wiki. It also does not appear to contain anything that appears to me to be a threat. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just to note that I have declined a request on my talk page by Georgewilliamherbert to lift my extended block, for these reasons: "By his latest comments and with his previous wikilawyering, Gene Poole has made it clear that not only does he not see anything wrong with his conduct, but that in his opinion, everyone else but he is to blame for what has happened to him. While it may be that "we try to give recently blocked accounts some slack on venting about the block" (although I'm not aware of any guideline to that effect), if an editor is blocked specifically for harrassment and attacks, I expect him not to continue with any behavior that may be reasonably interpreted as such. The e-mail he sent is just beyond the pale in terms of aggressiveness, rudeness and implicit threats, and in view of clearly-enunciated policies such as WP:CIVIL, I don't see why we should tolerate such conduct from anyone. I ask you to please not undo or reduce the block absent a clear consensus for this on WP:ANI."  Sandstein  20:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still reading up on this so I don't have an opinion on the blocks yet, but I just want to comment on the posting of emails. It's long been established that it's not acceptable to post emails on-site without the author's consent. There's been various AN/ANI discussions and ArbCom cases that have reinforced this, probably most notably with the Durova arbitration which found that "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki." and "Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators." So I don't agree with posting the emails on-site and support their removal (if they need to be shown to another administrator for review reasons or to ArbCom they can be forwarded privately). Sarah 03:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Noted Sarah - as you know I trust you explicitly and appreciate your comment. I did not know this was the case not having read anything related to this situation before. Will not happen again by me - but will send them on privately to you or other trusted admins in the future.--VS 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone clarify the status of Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Private_correspondence? Is it still true that "there is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence", or should this be changed? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Durova's comment - we cannot post private off-wiki correspondence without the consent of the sender: When you receive an email message, remember that you do not own the copyright; that is owned by the sender, or the sender's employer. - no change should be made to Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Private_correspondence. --Matilda 01:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This conversation sounds familiar. I don't recall who was involved now, but a few months back someone sent a canvassing e-mail to several users, or some such topic, and its contents were posted here. Someone kept trying to remove it on the grounds of "copyright violation", and then claimed there was no evidence of wrongdoing. In the post-9/11 era, anyone who sends anything in e-mails, anywhere, can be held accountable for it, and that's the reality of things. The "copyright" argument is bogus. Baseball Bugs 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Being held accountable for the comments is not the same as posting copyrighted material into a GFDL environment. The copyright argument is not in my view bogus. --Matilda 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes it bogus is that it's a red herring. Someone makes threatening comments off-wiki and then tries to hide behind "copyright" when he's revealed for what he is. Baseball Bugs 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not the author who took up the issue of copyright - it was User:Aaron Brenneman. Otherwise - yes it is a red herring as to the validity of the blocks. However, User:Viriditas questioned whether Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Private_correspondence should be modified ... --Matilda 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It has to be a judgment call in a given case. If a user claims innocence, and e-mails reveal otherwise, they need to be made available to someone. Whether that's just one or more wise admins, or on here, is a judgment call. I would argue that e-mails in general should not be posted here, not because of "copyright" issues, but because of violation of confidentiality. However, if someone writes a "poison pen" letter, they have forfeited the right to confidentiality. That doesn't mean it should necessarily be displayed here, but it doesn't rule it out, either. Baseball Bugs 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent> Durova didn't say it, the Arbitrators did. It was findings in the arbitration case about Durova's block of User!! where Giano posted an email Durova had written without her permission. And it's got nothing to do with whatever Griffith University have to say about copyright law, it's an internal ArbCom ruling. I don't know who posted that media file, what it is, why it was posted, or who it's directed at. I don't listen to media files here so if it was directed at me whoever posted it might want to use written words instead. Baseball Bugs, no one should email anyone on Misplaced Pages with some assumed right to confidentiality because emails around this place leak at an unbelievable rate. Anyway, getting back to the original subject, I read the various discussions and I don't think there's a problem with this block. There's a not unreasonable argument that Steve should have asked another administrator to make the first block because he was involved with the AFD, but he wasn't the subject of the attacks so I don't think it's that much of a problem. The second block by Sandstein for continuing attacks after being blocked seems pretty solid to me. Gene is a very disruptive, rude and abusive user with a COI and it's about time we stop tolerating his abuse of other editors. I think the block should stand and if he continues his abusive and aggressive behaviour when he returns, the community should consider long term NPA sanctions. Sarah 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Right on all counts. And I seldom write e-mails; and then only to a very short list of trusted users, and obviously not to threaten them. All users should follow that principle. Baseball Bugs 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question rephrased: Is there or is there not community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two inherent problems with publishing off-wiki correspondence. First, unless the sender licenses his or her private correspondence under GFDL or other copyleft license, it's a violation of copyright. Second, authentication poses a dilemma: without the full headers there's no way to confirm whether the material is genuine or fabricated, but the Foundation privacy policy gets in the way of posting full headers. Of course people are still responsible for what they send via off-wiki channels: notify ArbCom if necessary. Durova 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no monetary gain possible from a random e-mail, the copyright issue is essentially irrelevant from the legal standpoint. The possibility of fraud is a much better argument against it. Forwarding a threatening e-mail to a trusted admin is a much better course. There are a number of reasons to be very cautious and conservative about posting someone's e-mail here. But the alleged "copyright" issue ain't one of them. Baseball Bugs 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer? Durova 03:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Are you? The last time the subject came up, I did some research on it. Although e-mail is theoretically "copyrighted", the courts in general don't care about "copyright" issues where there's no financial interest, as it's basically a waste of their time. Baseball Bugs 12:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally when Wikipedians have a reliable source on one side and a nonexpert editor saying take my word for it on the other, the discussion resolves quickly. We have a reliable source stating this is copyrighted material and you agree with it. Yet you propose a new metric that deprecates WP:COPYRIGHT. There have been many times when I've refrained from uploading an image that had almost zero commercial value because I couldn't prove conclusively that it was out of copyright, even though the creator's heirs (if any) were very unlikely to object. The question is not so much whether a judge would award damages as whether WMF has the resources to withstand an influx of lawsuits that go as far as trial. Our site policies have been conservative in order to minimize this risk, yet there are areas where noncompliance is widespread. I've been going through popular song articles for months taking out blatant violations. It doesn't help anything to start sending mixed messages in this area, especially when other mechanisms already exist for addressing the problem you identify, which I agree is serious. Durova 20:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) We very easily get distracted. There are several issues raised here. I'm going to a list of them and my responses, separately signed so that others can intersperse if they choose.---Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• (1) Was the original block proper?
  • This is debatable but moot, unless someone wants to later examine it. Definitely it's not an AN/I issue at this point. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• (2) W Should the email have been published on-wiki without the permission of the writer?
  • No. It's well-known and established; if an editor receives an email that the editor thinks requires some community action, a copy may be sent to an arbitrator. Editors may privately share emails they receive. The arguments about legality are largely moot. I'll note that nobody reverted the removal of those mails, which shows, effectively, consensus on this. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• (3) Was the email from GP to VS a blockable offense worthy of a 30-day extension?
  • No. Suppose the editor had written this on their Talk page instead of in an email. Would it have been worse, the same, or better? I'd say that the private email was actually an action less in violation of policy than had the same material been posted on Talk, because, particularly if it is to an administrator, it should be less disruptive. It only caused disruption because VS posted it, something that I'd expect an administrator to avoid. Then, on Talk, it would fall within established ArbComm precedent that angry comments by a user, to an administrator, in response to being blocked by that administrator are to be, generally, tolerated. The "threats" involved were that the user would follow formal complaint process, and, he was claiming, sanctions would then be applied. It's actually chilling to respond to this as if it were a threat of, say, RL harassment or even on-wiki harassment. A sound administrative response would have been to reply to him with instructions and pointers on appealing his decision, both immediately and later, through dispute resolution process--Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• (4) Should GP be unblocked?
  • I would not necessarily recommend that at this time, unless Sandstein changes his mind. My thinking is that GP seems to be having difficulty recognizing the changing conditions here; his rather aggressive "frankness" was probably less of a problem, or no problem, when he began here, in 2002. However, if he requests unblock, it should be considered, and, were it me, I'd want to see some kind of acknowledgment from him regarding his part in this. He's still focused on what others did, not on what got him blocked, which wasn't them, it was his own responses to them. I've called it "impolitic," and he acknowledged that; but he seems to think that being "honest" is more important than being politically sensitive -- which means to respect how the community functions, which increasingly requires careful and cautious civility. The problem is that "honest," to him, means expressing his negative feelings. Hence he uses polemic and exaggerated terms. (I.e., the editor he's upset with isn't actually an imbecile so his honesty isn't about his knowledge, it's a dump of frustration (with what he sees as stupidity or carelessness) through uncivil language. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT page Admin problems

The Admins are acting partial when it comes to the edition of Arjun MBT page. Admin don't value each edit based on their criteria but always revert my edit. Not only that when asked them to take a totally impartial stance by having the first version that existed before the edit issue (that version was a verified version and got B-class article status) they don't agree and stick with a non-agreeable incorrect version based on a wrong PIB report. Atleast I want them to stick to rules when editing Wiki. The other things like high handedness, blocking, partiality etc can be tolerated.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, you were blocked twice for reverting to an edit was rejected by consensus, despite advanced warnings. Moreover, you were blocked once for personal attacks on your fellow editors and admins. So don't cry wolf here.By78 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but this user is currently blocked in relation to this dispute. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, his block for that just expired. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Woops, my bad. It seems I can't do simple math in my head in the wee hours of the morning. To that effect, I believe I shall turn in. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say, stop reverting back to an older version. Move on. The article has added new content. The older version was also in violation of some policy changes (like the use of flags), so I don't see a problem with User:Jauerback's reverts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of flags can be removed, that are minor issue. The present version is with a inaccurate information based on the PIB report. Hence an impartial stance is to restore the original B-class version which you can see met all the criteria of a B-class version article. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

An impartial stance is not to revert to this version from July repeatedly and complain when no one else agrees. The fact that that was the version that was rated is an absurd argument for sticking with that exact same version (especially when it violates multiple MOS changes we have had since then). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A revert was made to List of main battle tanks by country in which Arjun MBT edit was made by By78 "" and I had asked him not to do it since amount to speculation. The reason for it is that the DRDO wants 500 more Arjun's to be produced. Whereas the DGMF don't want more than 124. What will be the end result. No one knows. Why speculate. The Government may agree with the DGMF, Indian Army or agree with the DRDO based on which Arjun's will be produced. How can one say that only 124 will be produced. There is even a chance of DGMF changing his mind and stick with the Arjun. No speculation please. Admins please take note that there are two versions. Which option is selected will be known afterwards. Until then have patience.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The army orders the tanks, not the tank's developer (DRDO). By your logic, Boeing would make decisions on how many F-18s US navy should purchase. Besides, mine was not speculation at all. I provided a source to back up my claim. If you prefer, I will add additional sources. By78 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says they are ordering 124. Why is saying that they are ordering 124 then unreasonable to you? It is not speculative to say what exactly they are doing right now. You keep on wanting a version from months and months ago and adamantly refuse to budge. I'll leave it to the talk page, but anyone wants to compare can decide between the version from July or the newer one with more current information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are again mistaken. The order for 124 has already been placed. Some already delivered to the Army and further ones is ready to be handed over. The total will be around 90. It's not unreaonable for me to mention 124, that's what I want it to be. But the guys try to add comments like "no more than 124" etc. This is about predictiion. It may be 500 as well or even more who knows. I ask them not to speculate but put it as 124. No personal opinions, predictions etc. Regarding the version, I am not allowed to edit the page (gets reverted by the Admins) for months and months. And all others are allowed to add anything without any source. I am complaining about such actions for months and even tried reverting the articles by giving links. Not only that the article again got reverted but I got blocked as well. This story continues. The newer one did not have any new info but pure personal opinion and edits (more like a blog like). The present version even don't have what was there in the old one. Many with credible links were removed with edits without providing sources. When I intervened, got the article reverted and me blocked. The last one had all the correct info except the latest trials.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You insisted on 424 units of Arjun in service but changed it to 90 when I provided a source to debunk your original number. However, 90 isn't correct either because 124 Arjuns are expected. By78 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Even a version with all viewpoints existed with credible links that can be seen in the talk page under compromise section. That never was admitted by the Admin because By78 said "I don't agree" Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you say your compromise version accounts for all viewpoints does not make it so. Your edits are rejected because they were POV pushing.By78 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Having all versions is not POV pushing, it's called neutrality. And if you accuse me of POV pushing can you prove that?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Having one version that is sourced and another that is just speculation is POV pushing. Either way, I've completely redone the article into chronological so I think it's moot. Chanakya, you need to provide a source for your view. Musing that the other sources are just inadequate and should be removed without any evidence are not improving the article. I suggest closing this section, for the arguments to repeat themselves for the most part at Talk:Arjun MBT. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The army themselves have admitted that the PIB report is a mistake. They said no engine problems during the trials. Only minor gear box problems. Even the gun performance was exceptionally well.

Give it up. This source of yours is a BLOG. What did we say about using BLOGs as sources? By78 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Now what you and your fellow Admins are going to do?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You are gonna get blocked again if you revert to your POV version.

More abuse by User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

This has gone way too far. This user has persisted in added erroneous information to a large number of articles. In particular, I was horrified that this user has made a highly racist edit and got away with it. It seems that the user is attempting to push forward fringe views. Note that I have reported this user aleady a few days ago for personal attacks and possible sockpuppetry.

In fact this user has been accused of sockpuppetry by an administrator on this same page (you can also see my other report about the user in question on the link provided as well) . Also, the edit histories of the sockpuppet user pages and talk pages contain extremely racist content about Turks, Mongols, Altaic peoples, etc.

To add insult to injury, the user is still allowed to edit. I urge the administrators to take action against this user now. I really have a bad feeling that this case will drag on and eventually end up in ArbCom. I am sick and tired of seeing this user's racist rants and spurious edits. 122.105.147.101 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You might try WP:AIV, on the grounds of vandalism and also an inappropriate user ID. Baseball Bugs 13:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading someone mention that with the new unified IDs, we should be expecting non-english character IDs on the english wikipedia (this was made I believe in the case of one being all arabic).--Crossmr (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has not been warned at all, so AIV would be inappropriate right now. I suggest warning the user and taking it from there. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The complainant at least owes the Chinese editor a warning, for sure. Baseball Bugs 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, his username "ㄏㄨㄤ=huang ,ㄉㄧ=di" literally means Emperor in the Chinese language and I expect that he wants to be treated like one on Wikipedian. Here's the new, Emperors are a thing of the past and consider him to be on my radar from this moment on. Whatever inflammatory or racially charged statement he makes here will earn him the wiki-gressional medal of blocking. --Dave1185 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like he won't be able to get away with being uncivil in Chinese. Baseball Bugs 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out Um....it doesn't seem like Chinese Huang Di to me. Huang Di in chinese is: 皇帝. NOT ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. Unless of course, wikipedia uses something that's a Internation version which I wouldn't know (only know basic chinese). Google actually gives me this weird translation: Ⓒ ㄤ 's construction of hot (http://translate.google.com/translate_t#zh-CN%7Cen%7C%E3%84%8F%E3%84%A8%E3%84%A4%E3%84%89%E3%84%A7%0A ) Lots of words characters sound the same in Chinese, they don't mean the same thing.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this edit is cause for concern. Why else would the user name in question be used? 122.109.121.250 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Huangdi in Zhuyin. But that's besides the fact. Someone should give Huangdi a strong and final warning that if his behavior continues, he will find himself unable to edit the English Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given Huangdi a stern warning. I've found other editing abuses by him as well as his massive user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's already a User:Huangdi - the same name, but in the Latin alphabet instead of Zhuyin. The similarity might be a problem. --Amble (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this user has already been accused of sockpuppetry by an administrator. The content in the edit histories of the sockpuppet accounts are even more disturbing. Perhaps we have already forgotten about the sockpuppets? The initial report (which has not been resolved yet) about the user in question can be found here. In that report, two sockpuppets of this account are named: Vietnameseis*******notcantoneseisvietnamese and User:Nefbmn. The first account has been indefinitely blocked but only for a violation of the username policy. The second account remains unblocked and seems to serve primarily as an "attack" account.

By the way, this user edited Cantonese people some time ago, quoting a source out of context and inserting his own spurious analysis. An attempt to remove his edit has failed because another editor thought that I was vandalising the article. That other editor has been contacted for comment. 122.105.149.69 (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

the anon editor 122.105.149.69 is also known as David873, who has been blocked for disruptive editing, and harrasmentㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! The Emperor has finally appeared, and none too late to face the music here. Guys, please take note of his sockpuppets, disruptive edits (all listed above) and lastly for throwing a smoke screen in-front of us now thus thickening the plot. Let's go through them now and see what can be done to render the man a well deserved block. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

this anon editor 122.105.149.69 first says im wrong about northern chinese being a conglomerate of peoples. now in this comment he made at Talk:Cantonese people he blatanly contradicts the statement about my edit he made in this noticeboard

it goes as follows-

What the above information (which seems to have been lifted from Vietnamese people) does not tell us though is the origins of the Cantonese people themselves. Also, people in this so-called "Southern Chinese population" do not necessarily have to be of Chinese ethnicity, ancestry, etc (just like how a lot of "Northern Chinese" are largely descended from Manchus, Mongols, etc etc). After all, the Vietnamese population itself shows high levels of intermixing and I believe the "Cantonese population" would show this as well. Thus, a claim that "vietnamese people have more chinese DNA than their own" is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. Its unfortunate that the term "Han" appears to have been misused as "Han" and "Chinese" are certainly not the same thing! For example, no one in their right mind would call the Manchus "Han Chinese"; however, calling them "Chinese" might be appropriate depending on the context. 122.105.147.127 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC) ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185, your username sounds suspiciusly close to the blocked user David873 AKA 122.105.149.69, how do we know your not his sockpuppet? plus your user oage said exactly the same thing as his?ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up the same page with links to other Users and you can find many more Dave with that same display... so are we all one and the same? Think before you speak again. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

you have the same text diaplayed on your userpages, plus you both accused me of being a sockpuppet of the same hong kong editor. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My statement to User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Let me state this clearly here, I tagged your discussion page twice (how covenient of you to delete this part prior to tagging me a sockpuppet due to my tagging of you as one!) with regards to some controversial un-referenced minor edits (can be easily interpret as hoaxes which I did tagged you for) which you've made prior to this confrontational episode, informing you that it is against wiki-policy to add original research materials into any article that could be construed as being biased and not upholding the WP:NPOV during editing. I did not at any stage call you a racist although your actions speaks clearly of your intent.

Next issue was your username, which we all felt was really not in compliance with English Misplaced Pages's policy on Usernames so I tag you again but your reply was this "i dont enjoy having to copy and paste my username instead of typing it. i ws just trying out a new account with a weird name.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)".

This effectively resulted in me tagging you as a sockpuppet since you have already admitted to it and wouldn't even consider about how best to salvage the situation, thereby testing our patience with you which was already wearing thin. Your reply to me was a counter-accusation of me being a sockpuppet of another David and anon IP 122.105.149.69 (that IP is from Optus NSW Sydney Australia while mine simply reads as Qala Singapore) based solely on the evidence that my user page is the same as them having the exact same words: This page intentionally left blank., that effectively becomes your factless claim and false accusation which I don't believe any sane and level headed admin would even close an eye to, given that they have been rather patient dealing with you prior to this confrontational episode. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Another piece of just came in confirming that User:Nefbmn is indeed User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ and vice versa. Best part of the joke, this happens right after the blocking of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. Click to find out more → Special:Contributions/Nefbmn! Admins, you have the evidence now to act and I shall rest my case. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 is a sockpuppet of David873Nefbmn (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

wrong it wasnt just that, you and David 873 accused me of being the EXACT SAME sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefbmn (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

let me state this to you, considering the fact that you arent evn an admin, you have no authority to tag me any more than you claim that i DONT have the authority to tag you.Nefbmn (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me state this clearly here, I tagged your discussion page twice (how covenient of you to delete this part prior to tagging me a sockpuppet due to my tagging of you as one!) with regards to some controversial un-referenced minor edits (can be easily interpret as hoaxes which I did tagged you for) which you've made prior to this confrontational episode, informing you that it is against wiki-policy to add original research materials into any article that could be construed as being biased and not upholding the WP:NPOV during editing. I did not at any stage call you a racist although your actions speaks clearly of your intent.

"Next issue was your username, which we all felt was really not in compliance with English Misplaced Pages's policy on Usernames so I tag you again but your reply was this "i dont enjoy having to copy and paste my username instead of typing it. i ws just trying out a new account with a weird name.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"."

funny how the username policy says non latin usernames ARE allowed. Dave is lying blatantly in my face, go check out the policy.Nefbmn (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note Checkuser User:YellowMonkey  Confirmed that ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs) is Nefbmn (talk · contribs). So he is currently evading his block and so not even allowed to write to accuse somebody. I once encountered this insulting user, who were busy to falsely accuse anyone against his agenda as "vandal". Abusive sockpuppetry/block evasion are all no-nos.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

wrong Caspainclue, you were removing information from Lelang due to nationalistic korean reasons...... then do an ip trace on David873 and Dave1185....Nefbmn (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong? You went for forum shopping to admins and made racist comments against Korean editors. Technically', I have not even met you with your current sock account. You're just confessing yourself as evading your block.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Feeble/factless complains by User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Dave1186 personal attack

- he called me a "dammed horse gnat"Nefbmn (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The above user was swatted with an indef-block. Gnat's all, Folks! Baseball Bugs 01:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

False accusation by David873 AND his sockmaster Dave1185

they have both accused me of being User:218.188.90.194. do an ip trace and you will see it is false.Nefbmn (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

More abuse by User:Dave1185

he has used his anon ips to remove my sockpuppet notices on his page. ill leave the admins to do the ip trace and sort this out. Hugs and kisses!Nefbmn (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

122.105.149.69

i suspect this user 122.105.149.69 is also known as the blocked account David873. he seems obbsesed with stalking and harrasing me.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think these are sock puppets of a blocked user, please take it to suspected sock puppets. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 AKA David873 AKA 122.105.149.69

these 3 are all the same.

1. the content on Dave1185's user page matched exactly the one the blocked user David873 put on HIS userpage.

2. all 3 listed above are obssesed with getting me blocked.

3. They all have made similar warnings on my page while they are clearly not admins.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

i can now confirm that Dave1185 and David873 are 100% the same trolling, harrasing, and unconstructive editor, they have both accused me of being a sockpuppet of someone in hong kong, both have the same material on their user page, at least before David873 got blocked.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

look at the edit history of User:Nefbmn.

both dave and david put the exact same warning up, they both put "this page has been intentionally left blank" on their userpages too.

they are 100% the same all someone needs to do is look it up becuase David873 was banned from editing for harrasing and trolling.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:It seems that this is the beginning of the final chapter in the tragic demise of User:Dave1185 (no sarcasm intended by the way; you could almost be excused for thinking that the whole saga was a sick joke). Knowing that he is going to be thrown out shortly (he's blocked as of writing), this user has falsely accused User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ of being a sockpuppet of User:218.188.90.194 in a final act of desperation. Nefbmn (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is the beginning of the final chapter in the tragic demise of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (no sarcasm intended by the way; you could almost be excused for thinking that the whole saga was a sick joke). Knowing that he is going to be thrown out shortly (he's blocked as of writing), this user has falsely accused User:Dave1185 of being a sockpuppet of User:David873 in a final act of desperation. 122.109.98.33 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is something that needs to be discussed at WP:SSP not here. --JavierMC 01:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the old days, one might have said this whole discussion is something that needs to be submitted to BJAODN. Orderinchaos 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one might. In this case, the punch line to the joke is that the complaining user is the one who ends up with the indef-block. It's always funny when that happens. I especially liked the complaining user's final entry: "He called me a horse-gnat!" I can almost see the tears streaming down that teenager's face just before he discovers he's indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sad, isn't it? The fact that he refuse to own up to his own mistakes but yet continue to tag both my user and discussion page with the so called "Sock tags" repeatedly after I tag him for his confession for using another account prior. First, he use ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ to tag me but when he was indefblocked and couldn't get it unblock, he resorted to change to Nefbmn to continue his prank. Fortunately, an alert Admin saw through his masquerade and indefblocked him again. Bugs, I can also imagine the tears streaming down it's face, if not why would he/she/it be so bothered by my statement of "damned horse gnats!" as I cleared my pages of his filth? My last conclusion is, "it" is from Hong Kong but now studies in the States hence the different IP and it's blazon challenge to checkuser him, knowing very well that it would be a US IP instead of his original HK IP. As Bugs bunny would've put it, I'm no Elmer Fudd but he can fool me sometime but he can't fool me everytime! Cheers all~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Now he's got socks vandalizing various user talk pages. The vulgar stuff is one thing, but flying the Vietnamese flag on my page is really going too far. Also, I was expecting to see a picture of a horse gnat. Elusive little devils. Hard to capture on film or video. Baseball Bugs 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict and Possible Sockpuppetry

A report that showed up on AIV. I've just moved it here since it'll probably get answered here a bit better.

"Nefbmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for harrassing me on my user page and discussion page, I had deemed him as an apparent sockpuppet of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ who was blocked following an earlier complaint by me that ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ was harrassing me on my user page and discussion page. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"
"Dave1185 himself is a sockpuppet. his former blocked account was David873.Nefbmn (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)"
"see his list of sockpuppets on my page, and plus i wasnt harrasing him at all, all i was doing was putting up a sockpuppetry warning."

--EoL talk 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Dave1185 ann Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ would be pertinent to link here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As would the log for Nefbmn's userpage, showing the account was created by a blocked user. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a username block, so, account creation was enabled intentionally so he could create another account. --EoL talk 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I just realized that. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. --EoL talk 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I stand firm that I don't operate any sockpuppets and you can run a checkuser on me now and see where my IP comes from, it should read Qala Singapore. However, the sockepuppet User:Nefbmn had tagged User:David873 and anon IP:122.105.149.69 (from Optus NSW Sydney Australia) as my socks. This is ridiculous! For more info, read this! --Dave1185 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oiy. Looks like I guess we know who's the sockpuppet. Now we just need a blocking administrator. --EoL talk 00:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, it all makes sense now. I suppose that would explain the comment about "not wanting to copy and paste" the username; a 40-something char long username would be a bit difficult to type every time, while a zhuyin username would be rather easy to enter. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible related cases

DavidtheProxyusertoevadeblocks

I wasn't following the discussion above, but DavidtheProxyusertoevadeblocks (talk · contribs) just seems to be oddly named and worthy of an admin look or two. Thansk in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Slakr. Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds, smells and seem really like you-know-who... check his userpage for more details! ...Dave1185 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Raisininthemoon

User:Raisininthemoon is guilting of harassing User:Baseball Bugs. Just look at this outrageous diff. This type of harassment should not be tolerated. Please block User:Raisininthemoon indef from editing. AdjustShift (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser on the vandal's username? Anyone? ...Dave1185 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, an admin should block User:Raisininthemoon. AdjustShift (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So many sockpuppets, so little time...

Look at the taunt that this anon IP User:162.84.138.33 posted on my discussion page, I checked the anon IP and it says that it is a suspected sock of User:218.188.90.194 here, who has been blocked. Amongst his other blocked accounts are User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, User:Nefbmn and User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese. There seems to be no end of this happening... help from admins? Please? ...Dave1185 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have not blocked, as this is a dynamic IP with one edit about 15 hours ago, but this would be better dealt with at the suspected sock puppets page, or requests for checkuser. Black Kite 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can you please bring this up to the suspected sock puppets page, or requests for checkuser because the above-mentioned user can be extremely disruptive and abusive. Read this! ...Dave1185 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, http://kr.youtube.com/user/david873AKAdave1185

Is the YouTube account really yours? If not, and it was created by ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, this is a serious identity theft and racist attacks, and you should ask admins at YouTube to delete it first.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• No worries! I noticed and although I do watch clips on Youtube, I don't have an account there and I'm least bothered by it. Though you could help me ask the site admin to remove it, the guy is obviously peeved and trying his luck now with youtube to get back at us or me to be exact. My answer to him would be this: "Want a cookie?" ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have my account at YouTube, so I could not help you for that. I think you should be worried. Because if you google your ID, you will notice that your name linking Misplaced Pages comes up.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• No worries mate! Although I think the Youtube user Dave1185 should be the one worrying... please note that I endorse WP:DGAF. I will quote this from DGAF: "Wikisuffering (wikiconflict and wikistress) is caused by wikiattachment (giving a fuck) and can be relieved by Wikidetachment (not giving a fuck).". Cheers and have a great weekend~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Block of sockpuppeteer/vandal

I have indef blocked User:Nefbmn as noted at User_talk:Nefbmn#Blocked_completely. If anyone wants to review this block, please do so, but I think the histories of the user page and talk page is reason enough. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the final analysis, I was proven right but the lingering question remains... he falsely reported me here as a last ditch attempt of face saving measure and how am I supposed to be cleared from the above report now? Help? Anyone? --Dave1185 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nefbmn certainly didn't correctly fill out that report (after all, he was a sock himself). Still, does the report need to be urgently dealt with? ~ Troy (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a court of law. If a trolling party lodges a bad faith report, I'd say we trash it. Orderinchaos 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh, didn't bother to read someone else had reached the same conclusion and acted accordingly. :) Orderinchaos 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The ADHD article and Scuro

scuro (talk has removed the same line of text more then three times on the ADHD article. The line of text was refering to the controversy about ADHD in the lead. This user has also removed previous well formated and peer reviewed sources muiltple times from the lead. Have warrmed him about his edits with no effect. He went to the village pump were this issue was discussed and the conclusion was that the references were less good then what they were repaced with. He still reverted them back. Would appreciate if someone could look into this. ADHD is a page on an important topic. This editor makes it very difficult to make improvement as he just reverts anything that doesn't match his POV back to were it was before.

Many thanks in these matters. --Doc James (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I'm suffering extremely similar problems with Scuro on the ADHD controversies article, however I believe I am slowly making progress without admin help so don't worry about it if you're busy. 92.4.125.88 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd point out that the "Disorder" section has no sources whatsoever, so removing it isn't controversial. If you could source it, that would be a different matter. Black Kite 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the line of text that has been removed by scuro greater then three time. This however is just one of the many disruptive and uncooperative edits made by Scuro. If you read thru the talk pages they become apparent. As the user above states he is also doing the same thing on the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. Scuro denies the exsistance of any contraversy arround ADHD except when it comes to medicating toddlers:

• ADHD is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders.

This is perhaps less straightforward than Doc James has said. In fact Doc James has made many changes to the article quite successfully - sometimes 30 a day. There are only a few points of disagreement but DJ has been very upset about these and seems to have had trouble working collaboratively to iron these out. --Vannin (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a large chunk that part of the problem with Scuro is essentially one content dispute: that Scuro rejects the existence of any controvery around ADHD. I suspect he honestly believes he's in the right, but his view is so far detached from reality that it is completely incompatible with happy editing. Possibly a RFC over the existence of ADHD controversy would be a more effective way of aiding understanding than trying to get him topic banned. Although admittedly a topic ban would solve the problem by default. Going by his reaction to this discussion, I'm going to say that it would be very helpful to have an administrator keeping their eye on him afterall. 92.4.125.88 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Check talk, I've asked repeatedly that other contributors focus on content and seek consensus on editing. Repeatedly, I have been on the receiving end of personal attacks. Repeatedly, my requests to seek consensus have been ignored. Instead we see a "might is right" approach to editing, where editors make sure something sticks on the page by escalating to edit warring to a point where I will not go. It is only when I have sought outside opinion, which backs up what I have been saying all along, do they relent and allow my edits to sick on the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_55#WRT_ADHD_Can_one_cite_web_based_information_from_the_Mayo_Clinic.3F

When I have removed something from the page I have clearly stated why in talk. The reasoning has been rock solid and I don't believe DJ has ever made an honest attempt to seek consensus on any specific issue when I raise them on talk. On the ADHD page I don't believe I have had more then several words stick on the page since DJ appeared on the scene. Take a look at the edit summary history. DJ has made hundreds of edits. The few edits of mine that have been allowed to stick are the ones that reinsert material that was already on the page. Even as they file complaints they are doing multiple edits.

In fact, the specific sentence that DJ is complaining about was not removed but inserted lower into the article. If he had read the edit summary he would know this. It was removed from the lead because the sentence, up until today when new sources were offered, was minority opinion of three people who would not be considered experts in the field. I saw no reason to include minority opinion in the lead.

92 has made personal attacks in this hearing, it's just one of many I have endured from both editors. If this case is to be taken seriously, I would want both editors to be considered for censure as part of this process.--scuro (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well that's the last time I stick up for you. 92.4.125.88 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scuro makes lots of accusation. There have been multiple other instances of this in his past. He has been sited for POV pushing in the past.--Doc James (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and this ain't the first time that people have made formal, groundless accusations against me. What's your point? That I deal with tough articles that sometimes attract rabid contributors hell bent on getting the truth out?

I have never been censured. I play by the rules, I seek consensus, I assume good faith, and if I make an formal accusation you can bet I can back it up. How do you stack up on that score, Jmh?--scuro (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

NO Scuro, you make up your own rules and rewrite the guidelines to suit yourself then try to enforce what they don't even say as if they were law, you don't seek consensus you just tell people to seek consensus and claim that anyone disagreeing with you isn't doing so, your frequent threatening of anyone who disagrees with you is an obvious example of your lack of assuming good faith and talking of those threats, hell no you can't back many of them up, maybe in your mind you can but not in reality. Why don't you try to follow your own suggestions and work with us rather than trying to force your own views into articles and shouting and threatening when people disagree with you. Or better still, just leave us in peace to try to improve the articles in question, because any and all editors who aren't scuro are welcome to look at the recent history of the ADHD controversies page and it's talk, and judge for themselves exactly who here is trying to improve the article and who is being disruptive. 92.3.127.176 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue will calm down now, as an experienced editor - Vaoverland - has come on board and has volunteered to collaborate with DJ. This type of mentoring will be very helpful to reduce his mass reverts and should be just what the article needs.--Vannin (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I haven't looked at his contribs lately, but Scuro is a long-term SPA dedicated to articles generally relating to ADHD. He's been relatively hostile to "controversy" in the field, aggressively removing references to it, even when reasonably sourced. However, he's also been responsive to warnings about edit warring, can be cooperative at times, and, overall, if restrained, I'd conclude he's an asset to the project. The participation of experienced editors in those articles has normally been enough to keep the consensus process working; my concern would be, though, that as a long-term SPA, as the attention of other experienced editors moves away, Scuro moves back in. I have not been able to give those articles the attention they deserve, and occasional review simply doesn't cut it, too many changes are made, it's like rolling the boulder back up the mountain. Over time, in my view, the quality of the articles has declined (last time I looked), as various sides demand perfection in sourcing or strict "balance," slicing up each other's contributions. The articles, thus, become more reliable, in a sense, but far less interesting and informative. We should have both, and it can be done, when the consensus process works and the sides all share that goal: informative, reliable. And interesting. I.e., a good encyclopedia. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow a reunion of old friends! ;) Hey I openly admit that I focus on a few pages that all deal with mental health in one way or the other. ABD, you see that as a negative but I'll tell you that the tenacity of editors attracted to these pages suck up all of my time on Misplaced Pages. I'd love to see a month go by where wholesale changes by dogmatic contributors didn't occur on the few pages where I have done a fair bit of editing. That doesn't really happen. So yeah, I'd like to work on the Chess article or music articles but the amount of bad changes that I see happen on a daily basis give me no free time here.

Funny that you chimed in Abd. Like you Doc James has done a good job to make sure I am "restrained", have no worries in that regard. He also didn't like the term neurobehavioural, disorder, or chronic in the lead...so that battle is still being fought. With you, he shares a fixation that the term controversy is presented exactly as he wants it in the lead and he also escalates to all out edit warring to keep it the way. Really things haven't changed much at all.--scuro (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Username

Please be very careful to respect the request I made on my talk page.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I originally posted about this at WP:UAA and after a bit of discussion, we all thought it best to bring it here. The user in question is IReceivedDeathThreats (talk · contribs). While s/he makes it clear on their user page why they chose such a name, I'm not sure if it's the best thing to have around, and thus brought it here for discussion. Of particular concern is the last sentence on the user page, which reads to look up Gator1 (talk · contribs). This statement seems like a suggestion that Gator1, an admin, is the threatener, pointing a finger that may not be appropriate. Anyways, just thought I would bring it up to hear some opinions. Grsz 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it should be suggested to the editor they change it. If anything, it distracts from the project and may even solicit inquiry from others in an attempt to find out who did what, where, when and how. As to the last point of "look up...", it is very suggestive and in this context could be viewed as a WP:PA. Better to stop this now, than have to redress it at some point in the future.--JavierMC 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not and did not intend to suggest "Gator1, an admin, is the threatener". I'm happy to clarify that on my user page. Well, except I see you've gone and edited my user page for me, simply deleting the reference. Happy now? Fine by me. I note you did so without giving me time to respond to this ANI. I do not feel comfortable elaborating on why I feel I need to retain the name IReceivedDeathThreats. IIRC, the reference to Gator1 was that the former user Gator1 was a threatenee (so to speak; not real words). Looks like the reference ("Look up ex-user Gator1.") no longer makes sense, even when I look through the visible history, probably due to some article or page history deletion, and a possibly completely different person now using the username Gator1. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking I might change my user ID to "IReceivedTelemarketingCallsAtSuppertime". Oh, the humanity! Baseball Bugs 23:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you take that back or strike it through, as it is uncivil.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He can call himself by that provocative name, and I can make gentle fun of it. :) Baseball Bugs 01:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't do that and be civil. Especially when someone had just put in a formal request for me to be banned immediately. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You chose your user name, no one else. So don't complain if you get slings and arrows about it. Or merely pies, in this case. :) Baseball Bugs 02:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it uncivil, rude, and offensive. Perhaps you've never received a serious death threat. It's not fucking funny. I am complaining. You be happy self-control, C and AGF limit it to that. I'm tired of this. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want people to comment on your username, then it shouldn't be your username! Grsz 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=242411413 nice. You closed the discussion, then you insult me again. Nice.

Troll.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you take that back or strike it through, as it is uncivil.— Dædαlus /_Improve 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WOW! You say that and then you go and call me a troll! I would suggest you take back your own uncivil statement you made on your talk page (in an edit summary): "removed trollish comment". I'd say more but if I did, I fear you'd say I was being uncivil. WHERE'S MY FUCKING GOLD MEDAL BARNSTAR FOR HOLDING MY TONGUE?  :) --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Grsz11&diff=next&oldid=242382749 - Grsz11 claims he never asked for me to be blocked. And yet Grsz11 did exactly that!

Also, Grsz11 removed questions/comments I put on Grsz11:Talk without replying or providing any sort of explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You accused him, and stated it as a fact, that he reported you because of political reasons. There is no evidence of this, and you appear to just be throwing accusations around.

To others, I have a feeling this user is trying to make a point.— Dædαlus /_Improve 01:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Posting on UAA is a request for the user to be blocked. I don't see how this could be construed as a vio of the username policy. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Properly read, posting at UAA is not a request for a block in the way that posting at AIV more or less is. Sometimes a mere {{uw-username}} on the talk page is enough. Many times the user with the questionable name never edits again, or never edits at all ... the concern note has made them rethink what they were thinking of doing. Or they request a change or open a new account. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that UAA was wrong, I missed the blatant part, but either way irrelevant. They told me to bring it here, and here it is. No harm done at UAA. Here is the full bit at UAA. Grsz 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with your 'no harm done' claim! I still have a vandalism accusation from you on my page. And an outstanding AFD on TronixCountry (and you didn't even follow step 3 at http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:AfD_footer Step 4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|TronixCountry}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s). You were nasty. I'd say an apology is in order; I don't see the word sorry in even one place.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

bump!--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No further good can come out of this. The user doesn't have to change the name because it is in no way disruptive or in violation of the username policy. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Praise FSM!--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik: Oh, I don't know, I think the name is inherently disruptive, whether intended to be or not. Personally, I think it's creepy. Ed Fitzgerald 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The name looks like a problem to me, whatever its genesis. But isn't there a proper place for reviewing names? Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, based on the point that the user filling this request made at UAA, the fact that it could be disruptive by instilling a thought in another user, such as, oh, he/she received death threats, . That wasn't exactly the wording, but it's as best as I can remember right now.— Dædαlus /_Improve 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Names such as "DeathThreatsAreBad", "IWouldNeverSendADeathThreat", "OnlyEvilPeopleUseDeathThreats" or "HowISpentMySummerVacationWithoutReceivingAnyDeathThreats" would be just as disruptive. There's no real reason why, with all the possibilities available, the phrase "death threats" needs to be allowed in a user name. I would like to request to IRDT, who is certainly monitoring this discussion, that they change their name to something which is not disruptive to the community. Ed Fitzgerald 03:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It could. I think that the user should change their name but shouldn't be indef blocked for it (which is what a request at UAA is advocating for). Change the username to something less disturbing, but don't block for a username vio. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lame spillover

Can someone take a look at this? IRDT is now using his Twinkle to revert edits I made on my talk page. Grsz 01:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is inane. I reverted my own edit, with a full edit summary explanation, immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Grsz11&diff=next&oldid=242385887. But Grsz decides to complain anyway, 15 minutes later!?! Not to mention that he removed --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Struck the above. It was hard to tell what was going on it all those edits. Grsz 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't even worth it anymore. IRDT has turned this into a personal war on the world and discussion of his disruptive username has been thrown aside. Grsz 03:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Its mch better than if it were 'I give death threats', isn't it?:) Sticky Parkin 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Or IWasTheVictimOfIndecentExposure. Grsz 03:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken to RFC/N

Yes, there is a place to decide this: WP:RFC/N, which is where I feel debates about a username should go when the user himself sees no harm and hasn't done anything otherwise blockable. Maybe we should take this there? Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Grsz 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have opened the RFC there, where this discussion should be continued. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked for some time off from this arguing and explained why and what I thought was up on my talk page, saved the edit, and then moved it to Daniel's talk page. It's disappeared from both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here and here. Now please stop disrupting this page. Grsz 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think those are the edits I'm talking about. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you then refer us to the edits you are talking about? Then we can refocus at RFC/N and mark this AN/I thread as resolved. Franamax (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

After reading through this entire thread, and the following thread on WP:RFCN, I have blocked IReceivedDeathThreats for violation of the username policy. While the patience of the community and its admins is great, it is not infinite, and the degree to which we have been subjected to trolling and irrelevance in this case is already too great. In addition to this thread, a number of IRDT's other edits have been problematic, including his user page, and his explanations for them constructed in a way that does not contribute to the project. However, it's just a username softblock, and if he wants to come back with a new account and be a good editor, that's OK, at least with me. --MCB (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He has now reincarnated as User:IRDT, with the same general approach to things. Baseball Bugs 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to AGF with him and suggested he make a clean start, and got showered with profanity for my troubles. So far, the new User:IRDT does not have a single productive edit. Dayewalker (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, his purpose is to continue the diatribe of his predecessor account. I'm assuming the admins are asleep currently, or they would have blocked his new user ID by now. Baseball Bugs 08:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the history, please note the section that he keeps trying to add. Baseball Bugs 08:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I stated earlier this user seemed to be only here to violate WP:POINT, I can't see that's changed. His fascination with equating the loss of his user name to "rape" is quite troubling. Dayewalker (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. As I was about to say before the WP:ANI page got vandalized... It's evident that his sole purpose is disruption. The admin showed him a lot of good faith and he stomped on it, as he did with you. Baseball Bugs 08:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in at WP:AIV. They might not take it, because it's under discussion here (as I told them), but it's worth a try. Baseball Bugs 08:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Which they didn't. It will require an admin. Baseball Bugs 09:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. I have absolutely no issue, for the record, with anyone reviewing or modifying my action but the above did seem to justify acting. Orderinchaos 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a solid block to me, preventing more drama.-- Logical Premise 13:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too...I also filled in the notice and removed his rants from his user talk page. --Smashville 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them from his user page as well. :) Baseball Bugs 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did just that - not protecting quite yet...at least give him a chance to maybe ask for forgiveness/request an unblock. --Smashville 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be an unexpected turn of events. In any case, the user seems to have been around for at least a year, unless he was renamed from something else. He had a chip on his shoulder from the beginning, but the nomination of an article or two of his, as being non-notable, apparently pushed him over the edge. Baseball Bugs 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Was there ever any reason to block this guy before you guys started fucking around about his perfectly fine username or is this block completely the fault of this thread? I received mail 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was against the username at WP:RFCN. He was blocked for the username violation. Then he created another and continued to harass and disrupt, and was blocked for that. Grsz 17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "No, there wasn't. We are the real trolls here because we hounded this guy about his harmless username until he flipped and we got to block him. Now hopefully we can continue this pattern of being worthless to the encyclopedia while simultaneously ruining other people." I received change 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine then, if you think everything here was worthless, unblock him. Grsz 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

John, do you believe there was a different consensus that we are not seeing? Do you not think perhaps there is a better, more civil way to go about this than shooting your guns blindly into the dark? --Smashville 18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz / Grsz11

Grsz11's behaviour toward me in the following incident (see Questionable Username, immedately below, at least 'till it's archived) was uncivil. (Putting this here, not at the bottom because it's probably more convenient to have it here.) --IRDT (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC) FKA IReceivedDeathThreats. (New acct w/MCB's permission.)

Note - this thread has been moved down. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Refactored to this place, as it's part of the same discussion. Baseball Bugs 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the complaining user has been indef blocked. I came across his user name when I was putting an article for his up for AFD. To him it appears like I had a personal vendetta, as after the AFD I opened a UAA report, which was then brought here, and then went to RFCN. The odd chain of events that transpired was certainly no attempt to make personal attacks on the user. Grsz 15:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He had a history of "chippiness" from day one, but apparently flew under the radar until the AFD issue came up. Someone who gets really attached to a non-notable article will sometimes take it personally, and thus claim a "personal" attack. Baseball Bugs 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Block Review Review

He has expressed a desire to go back to productive editing. I am reducing his block to 24 hours. Please review. --Smashville 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"You'll be soooorry!" Baseball Bugs 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya right, but I guess we could just wait and see. Grsz 16:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If the unblock stands, are there conditions? I'm sure he'd try and put that notice back on his userpage, and that was one of the problems in the first place. We offered him a clean start with a new username and he took advantage of that. Grsz 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Productive editing sounds good. Let's give him a chance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Minus the potentially confusing comment about Gator1, is there any reason why they shouldn't be able to put the notice on their userpage? What was the actual problem with it? --Onorem♠Dil 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Daniel Case pretty much gave the best reasoning. --Smashville 18:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just catching up on all this since last night. Smashville's reduction of the block of the new account to 24 hours seems fine to me. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out, but if he returns to just being a normal productive editor, all the better. I am inclined to cut him a little bit of slack on this second iteration because he has been the inadvertent recipient of some negative feedback like an erroneous (but understandable) accusation of sockpuppetry which would be frustrating to anyone. (I told him, via the {{uw-ublock}} on his first talk page, that he could either change usernames at WP:CHU or start over with a new account, which apparently FisherQueen didn't see, and declined unblock of the new account based on socking, and said he couldn't come back with a new account.) In any case we'll see. --MCB (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry allegation was incorrect and unfortunate, but his incivility, personal attacks, constant comparison of his username rejection with rape, etc. all came long before that. I agree with the reasoning on the RfCU page above. The unblock is fine after 24 hours, but this user should be watched. It's been a long time since they have made any positive contribution at all to wikipedia, and I still feel they're being pretty pointy about all of this. Dayewalker (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I support Smashville's actions in this case. Orderinchaos 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can this be closed or is it going to go on and on? The user name in dispute has been blocked and the user has chosen a new name.-JavierMC 02:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it another day or two, to see what happens after the block expires. That may well save us a lot of repeated backstory for context in case there are further developments. --MCB (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I had no problem with the username. What I did have an issue with was them complaining when others felt things like "IReceivedTelemarketingCalls" could also be just fine were sudeenly acting uncivil. I've personally received both death threats and telemarketing calls. Now, if the person's name was "IGiveDeathThreats", that would be far more inappropriate. They unfortunately became more and more argumentative and abrasive, therefore deserving some form of action.

As was pointed out to the user, if someone doesn't like others making fun of their user ID, maybe there's an issue with their user ID. I've been called plenty of things. It's not important. If it becomes "important", rather than coming here and arguing about "incivility", maybe it's time to change the user ID. And simply abbreviating it to IRDT is not really the right answer, as it's still liable to invite trouble, i.e. it's liable to be a distraction from writing and editing, which is what wikipedia is supposed to be about - not about arguing over incivility over making fun of someone's user ID. Which is the whole point of the rules about user ID's - they should not be lightning rods for controversy. Baseball Bugs 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, editors' energy should be spent on editing, not on trying to manage the behavior of others when that behavior has nothing to do with editing. I.R.D.T. and Pigsonthewing are both guilty of that form of nannyism. Baseball Bugs 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the original username issue, sometimes you have to look at a username in context of the user's edits. There are a lot of usernames that are patently inappropriate on their face -- obscene language, insults to ethnic or religious groups or individuals, threats to hack/spam/vandalize Misplaced Pages, etc. -- and those are offensive or disruptive and are summarily blocked, per WP:U. Others, though, depend on how they're used. An organization or group name is not patently inappropriate -- but it is if it's a role account or used to promote or spam for the organization. In this case, "IReceivedDeathThreats" is not patently inappropriate, and if the user simply contributed to the project without repeatedly calling attention to his username and treating it like a chip on his shoulder, we would not be here. If the user had not created a provocative user page, and had replied "my username? oh, it's the title of an old song my band used to play", we would not be here. Instead, he used it -- and its successor -- as a focus of Wikidrama, and that is not well received by the community and is not productive. --MCB (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MCB that this name might have been acceptable, but take on this (an opinion which has developed gradually after learning more and more) is that the username is rather emotionally manipulative. I don't want to speculate (AGF etc) but it feels to be outside the spirit of collegiate editing and discussion. Please do not disagree with me! I will feel very hurt if you do! HELPLESSKITTEN 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok to wait see what happens, but there's no harm in being straightforward about what's likely to happen. Each time you pick a dodgy username, a kitten cowers in fear (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the editor's behavior contributed to the community's negative reaction to his user name, once that name come to their attention, but I disagree that the name is otherwise appropriate. I think, rather, that the name is inherently disruptive because of the inclusion of the phrase "death threats". If the name was "IReceivedTelemarketingCalls", there would be no problem, it's no more bizarre than many existing names. "Death threats" brings it to another place entirely. Ed Fitzgerald 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin

Someone may want to take a look at what's going on over there, where an editor who appears to be an SPA (188 mainspace edits, 184 of them to this article) appears to be deliberately editing a BLP article with a political agenda. Ed Fitzgerald 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at BLP and a few others have now looked in and are keeping an eye on it. I wish I had more time to help out, but that was the best I could do for now. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Help needed with Aaron Sorkin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Likely either the subject or someone connected. Be nice, eh? Guy (Help!) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think Aaron Sorkin would use bigger words... --Smashville 01:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would a full protect for a few days be in line? --Smashville 01:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NM, I reverted it to the FA-status article again...and sent him a 3RR warning. He has two full page reverts and a revert of one tag in the last 24 hours... --Smashville 01:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He's just reverted back. Is there consensus for a 3RR block? -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I warned him before he did it...so he's definitely aware of the rule...and he's shown that he does read his talk page...I have a feeling a solid 5th revert will come while we discuss...since I reverted him, it would be out of line for me to do it...and I'm not about to link all 200 or so of his edits to the 3RR noticeboard... --Smashville 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Block Review

I have just blocked Homely Features (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for the stated reason of edit warring and 3RR violation, but also to protect the wiki from damage and abuse. I welcome a review of this block especially since I am certain the user will appeal through an unblock request. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally users are blocked for blockable offenses, especially when they have been warned not to do so. Good block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse obviously from me...5RR after the warning is a pretty straightforward block. Seems like he's likely a sock of someone else, too...of course, the question is which user... --Smashville 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought, the blocked user has posted an unblock request. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline it. He violated 3RR by multiple reverts and so should be blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I do enjoy after all that MBK being reverted for vandalism...snicker --Smashville 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I need another admin to take a look at this guy's talk page. He's constantly under the impression that he's correct. I believe that he intends to get right back to what he was doing when the block expires. I'm not able to talk sense into him and think that a longer block may be in order to prevent damage to a FA. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this person has found THE TRUTH about Sorkin, CapsLock and all. Experience has shown that people such as this very often have trouble restraining themselves. Ed Fitzgerald 03:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left another note, trying to explain the situation and give him an idea of what to do to move forward productively. We'll see how that goes. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reverting to the FA version and blocking the problem WP:SPA looks to me like the right result for the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that while I agree with the block, as it might encourage the editor to curb his/her incivility, I spent a long time yesterday stepping through the diffs. Of concern is the editor's lack of civility, both in edit summaries and at the FAR page. The "hacking and slashing" at the article noted by others, and the speed at which this is being undertaken, also hampered efforts to determine whether the edits are truly constructive. Despite all this, I didn't see too many edits that I would consider harmful to the article, and those that could be construed as such in isolation did ultimately seem to be part of a wider plan of improvement. I wouldn't endorse every diff I've seen, but I think we've a chance for a net gain here. In short, I was content to leave the article be for a short time to see what Homely Features managed to do with it. I think it would be a mistake right now to continue barring the editor from making his/her edits to the page when the article could end up in much better shape than before the FAR began. If the editor gives assurances that he/she will use appropriate edit summaries that properly outline the rationale behind every edit, and will stop issuing borderline insults at the FAR page and everywhere else to the article's previous contributors, we should tread a little more softly on this one. The editor can be a valuable contributor here. All the best, Steve 08:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I have actually shut down the FAR. When flaming outweighs suggested improvements, it's better to close a review. This editor has serious temperament issues. Perhaps he can be a valuable contributor but until he makes a clear statement that he understands cooperative editing, I would actually suggest extending the block. Marskell (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Closing the FAR was a good decision; it was getting in the way and acting as no more than a vehicle for the editor's frustrations with the article. Without that, dialogue on the user talk page should resume, and if it is made clear that no further outbursts will be tolerated, and he/she agrees to this in a statement alongside a commitment to using proper edit summaries and a promise not to violate WP:3RR, I think that would go some way to resolving the situation. I can leave another note on the user talk if you want, requesting such a commitment, but I think it would be better coming from an admin. I know the softly-softly approach can be frustrating to admins who have to deal with vandalism, POV-pushers and trolls day-in day-out, but as I say above, it is clear that the majority of edits to the article have been genuine improvements, and in its current state several problems persist. It's just a pity the editor's temperament hasn't matched the maturity of his/her article-building skills. Steve 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At it Again

Well, I just saw the block on the user expire and he's gone right back to what he was doing before. I do not have the time or the desire to deal with this, but it does not bode well. I already support any block that may be imposed. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But I did an detailed summary of all my edits with a long explanation of them on the talk page.Homely Features (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused on this one. I agree the editor should have been blocked for his 3RR violation and he was and it has now expired. Here's where my confusion comes in. Prior to his edits on this article, the last real article talk page activity took place in late June 2007. Now User:Homely Features comes along in October 2008 and begins making edits on the article, leaving edit summaries for his edits, albeit "screaming" the summaries would be more accurate, yet all his edits are reverted, no conversation or explanation is given on the talk page for this reversal. Considering the amount of work this editor did in his "rewrite" (which the FA template on the talkpage says to be bold in doing to improve the article if it can be done), I would think a simple cursory revert without an in-depth explanation of what was wrong with his edits, was a bit drastic. Then he is admonished on his talkpage that he should have used the article talkpage prior to making his edits to gain a consensus. How is this inline with WP:BOLD and where is the contentious or sensitive past article edit discussions on the talkpage? The article talkpage was basically stale, or is this a FA rule that after reaching this status, any further edits must only be made under consensus? Hence my confusion.-JavierMC 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he was told in about 3 different forums and his talk page why his edits were being reverted. --Smashville 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. I went and read the other conversation. I wasn't aware there was a whole other thread instead of the main article talkpage. With the edits made after the block expired, it appears he has repeated his indiscretions against consensus. His misunderstanding or apparent unwillingness to adhere to the process is landing him in hot water. With his declarations of wanting to improve the article (AGF), it's unfortunate he doesn't "get it", but the process is necessary. I've struck my previous remark.--JavierMC 05:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor now seems to be taking a more reasoned approach to his/her edits, with a detailed explanation on the talk page of what he/she believes is wrong with the article. The section concerning the infobox photograph also seems to indicate that the editor is happy to discuss and compromise on these issues. The situation appears to have resolved itself amicably, so perhaps this section should be marked as such. Thanks, Steve 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it's entirely resolved, Steve. There's a mighty mass o'edits on the article itself that followed the editor's post to the talk page - done without any discussion from other editors, and started within a minute of the post on the talk page. I am nowhere near familiar enough with the article to say whether the changes are good or not, and frankly I don't have the time to go through those edits and determine that, but I think there's still something to be considered: consensus takes more than a minute to determine. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oral sex, chihuahuas, and hoaxes

We are being used to propagate a hoax. Beverly Hills Chihuahua is being vandalized frequently from multiple sources to list its director as being Gerard Damiano, the director of Deep Throat. People don't recognize the problem, edit on top of it, and it sticks for too long. Long enough that now hundreds of sites are listing Gerard Damiano as the source. This is probably 4chan, SomethingAwful, or some similar crap. This doesn't fit the normal criteria for protection, but I feel like we should at least semi-protect and maybe full-protect the article for a while. Since it isn't a standard reason, I'm bringing it here for discussion instead of WP:RFPP. I think that Ami Llort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs an indef for this one (reported at AIV), and it has also been edited in by other editors: and , among others.—Kww(talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The account's got an indef by MoP as a vandalism-only account. I put an in-text note next to the director, so people should notice when it changes now. I'd prefer to avoid semiprotecting it, if there are other ways to address the problem. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is coordinated fact-changing vandalism afoot, an {{editnotice}} identifying the correct director would be the best solution. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody read "Ami Llort"'s name backwards? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the whole thing, just each word individually. Well, that's under the bridge now. Baseball Bugs 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted another attack. I'm watchlisting it. I wouldn't mind more escalation. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please have exact change

Carlossuarez46 is almost certainly acting in good faith, but he seems to be creating articles for every named spot on the globe (other than those for which there are already articles). —SlamDiego_←T 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're all in Azerbaijan. I wouldn't have thought we needed a stub article on every named place in Azerbaijan, but wasn't there a ruling not too long ago? Something about villages in France, and all existing places having inherent notability? Ed Fitzgerald 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ed. I really wish the ANI archives search wasn't so out of date. It's really annoying for finding discussions at times like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note User:Carlossuarez46 is an admin, and from discussion on his talk page, I believe work is bring done by this bot, or, perhaps, CS46 is manually supplementing the work of the bot. In any event, the whole thing seems to be a Project with many Admins & Familiar Names involved, so I think it can be assumed that it's on the up-and-up. Ed Fitzgerald 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For searching purposes, I believe it was User:Blofeld of SPECTRE trans-creating stubs for all communes in France referred to above. Franamax (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I came across this weirdness by way of “Mexico, Illinois” (in turn found by way of a disambiguation page). This particular Mexico is an obscure community within Chicago, a small part of one of the larger areas that would normally be identified as a “neighborhood” within Chicago. —SlamDiego_←T 10:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I put a {{prod}} on that one. It's not a place name. It's a 1950s nickname for Englewood, Chicago, a neighborhood in Chicago which already has a reasonably good article. At best, "Mexico, Illinois" should get it a mention in the Englewood article. One wonders how many other such bogus place name articles exist. --John Nagle (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an article about Holder, Illinois that has been around for at least a year. Holder consists of a grain elevator and like 4 houses. You can't get much smaller than that, except maybe Bill, Wyoming. Baseball Bugs 10:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hillsview, South Dakota, East Blythe, California, North Red River Township, Minnesota, Rulien Township, Minnesota, Hush Lake, Minnesota, Pfeiffer Lake, Minnesota, Livermore, New Hampshire, Point of Rocks, Wyoming, and Hobart Bay, Alaska make for some damn good reading. — CharlotteWebb 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why list the places with 3 people Charlotte? How about Hibberts Gore, Maine, population one. And the "Gore" in the name means that the place exists because of an error by the surveyor... most likely a Mr. Hibberts, but I've yet to find an online reference establishing that. Of equal 2000 population are Erving's Location, New Hampshire, Lost Springs, Wyoming, and New Amsterdam, Indiana. GRBerry 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that I could write an article on Flint, Ohio, were there a felt need. When last I knew, they were just a few houses and a long-derelict school house. —SlamDiego_←T 11:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring it on! Baseball Bugs 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that I could stuff beans up my nose. --NE2 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Google maps show that one of the main roads leading to Bill, population 11, is Dull Center Road. I wonder where they got that name from? – Sadalmelik ☎ 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody's guess. Baseball Bugs 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article “Mexico, Illinois” has been turned into a redirect. But the prior version of the article referred to a US Geological Survey entry, which in turn refers to

Hauser, Philip M. and Evelyn M. Kitigawa, editors; Local Community Fact Book for Chicago 1950. Chicago, Illinois : University of Chicago, 1953. p258

This seems, then, to be a genuine place. If consensus really supports the madness of an article on every verifiable place, then Mexico, Illionois, should ultimately have it's own article, not just a redirect. And if it should presently have a just redirect because of the lack of content, then the same should hold for the many near-zero-content articles on other locations. —SlamDiego_←T 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In theory yes we should have articles on every place. In practice past experence is that not every place listed in standard databases actualy exists.Geni 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly, some makers of atlases "salt" them with a small percentage of fake information, as "bait" for ripoff artists. Holder is a real place and I read about Bill, Wyoming, a number of years ago. I can't vouch for any of the towns in Azerbaijan, though. Baseball Bugs 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And that doesn't even count places like Ravenstoke, Alaska. Baseball Bugs 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

salting isn't to much of a problem in this case. Azerbaijan shouldn't be to bad since I would expect there to be fairly good soviet records. The problem comes when you have people makeing mistakes or missunderstaning what records there are in less well recorded areas. For example Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination).Geni 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. A town phonier than Hooterville, and it took 3 nominations to get it purged. I've heard of Gnaa, though. It's about a stone's throw from a mysterious, elusive place called Irdt. Baseball Bugs 00:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's nice that someone finally bothered to tell me about this "incident" - If SlamDiego wanted to act in good faith, s/he would have perhaps informed me of his "issue", which had already been addressed before rather than stir up drama. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right, the complainant should have quizzed you about it first, or at least notified you of the ANI discussion. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Apologies from me -- I meant to post a note to you last night, and somehow it slipped away from me. I did intend to, though. Ed Fitzgerald 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No, he's wrong. Even if he were right that I should have gone to him first, he's flat wrong in accusing me of not acting in good faith. And the fact that he accuses me of not acting in good faith illustrates that he is wrong that I should have gone to him first. One lesson that should be quickly learned around here is thatwhen a non-admin encounters an admin who seems to have gone off his head, it's usually best for the non-admin not to try to deal directly with the admin. Far too often, the admin reacts badly. It's best, instead, to ask someone else to look at things, which is exactly what I did here. —SlamDiego_←T 01:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • So, how's it working out so far? Baseball Bugs 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Not well. But better for it to be more in the public eye if it happens. —SlamDiego_←T 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with FritzpollBot

This is not FritzpollBot (only operated by me) and this work is not sanctioned by the Geobot project. I guess he's using some of the old lists generated by some early trials. These data are potentially inaccurate, and this user is acting against a well-argued consensus of the community. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? The consensus is that all places are inherently notable. While I understand you efforts to protect your bot, your comment is way off. I am not using your data - I'm using the government's data. Could it be "potentially inaccurate" - of course, but so could the NY Times, CNN, or any other source. This was played out in a recent AFD when some one decided they couldn't find a place I added - well with a little checking including non-English language sources (Russian and Azeri) the place was found and is alive and well. If you think that there is a consensus somewhere that settlements not be added to the WP, show me where and we can go ahead and delete all of them in accordance with such a fouled up consensus or maybe we'll just WP:IAR and say that consensus smells like what it's full of... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that all places are inherently notable? I have been away for a few weeks and may have missed the discussion. The (horrific) FritzpollBot discussion is what I'm referring to, where it was made clear that there was no consensus of inherent notability of geographic locations. But if consensus has changed, then I am happy to admit that I am wrong. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES#Places. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You state that the "community" are against the creation of geographical articles but you seme to be forgetting that over 100 decent editors supported, some strongly that original "horrific" proposal which was one of the most ambitious projects ever proposed on here and a genuine one to dramatically attempt to improve wikipedia in the long term. Now I believe that government sources are necessary to identify notabiility and some basic data, which might I add Carlos has been adding to articles evne if as yet they are a little stubby. One thing however if the community is so against the creating of geo stubs, why is it EVERY time a geo sub stub article is listed at AFD it results in a Snowball keep every time because it is an article about a real world place. The Bald One 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant the discussion was horrific, not the idea. I'd figure that much was obvious from the similarity between the bot's name and my own... :) All I know is that whenever the community as a whole tries to discuss geo notability, there's not consensus for inherent notability Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see yes it really was a terrible discussion wasn;t it. There isn't a full agreement about inherent notabililty no I agree, another example of how peoples view differ greatly in just about every aspect of wikipedia. The consistent scenario though at AFD however stubby the article, if it can be verified as a populated place it always seem to get a resounding snowball keep. The Bald One 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's mark this resolved. I see no point in further discussing the issue, since we all know how it will turn out. I've got to work on Nepal geo stubs now. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 19:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Masonic ritual and symbolism

I'm not sure what to do about this page. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Masonic ritual and symbolism was kept as no consensus with a note saying that if it was kept or merged should be a matter for the talk pages. After the debate the nominator has redirected it without discussion, saying that a merge would be easiest. I undid this and the redirect was reinserted by another editor who has a history of agreeing with the nominator. I have no idea what to do. I don't think that the article should be redirected without a proper merge vote but I don't want to start an edit war. JASpencer (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth the article started as a cut and paste from the Freemmasonry article and never got beyond that in any substantive way. The majority opinion was that it should be merged or redirected.

I'm surprised there isn't some form of interpretation of an obscure rule somewhere about it, but given the closure it was pretty clear.

This is more content dispute than anything else.

ALR (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The closure decision was to discuss whether to keep or merge, not redirect without discussion. JASpencer (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that there was no substantive content that wasn't already in the main article, a merge and redirect were the same thing. I'm surprised, you're normally much more prepared than this.

ALR (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do it through a merge discussion while the page is up and allow the page to be improved during the discussion, then. JASpencer (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, process; a substitute for thinking... Not everyone takes the same slavish approach to blind obedience when there is little value in doing so.

ALR (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ALR, please try to remain civil. JASpencer seems to be consistently suggesting practical ways to improve Misplaced Pages; by contrast you seem to be trying to provoke an incivil response. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The former is open to interpretation. The latter, frankly I'm not too bothered how JAS responds.ALR (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Giano blocked (and unblocked)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Presented without comment, and with still less intention of participating in the ensuing shitstorm: , , , , , Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was also this --Tznkai (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Block notice by Tzknai at User_talk:Giano_II#Block_10.2F2. Not a great block. And Moreschi already unblocked. rootology ( C)(T) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unblocked. We can't use blocks to bully people into writing more kindly like this - particularly when we KNOW it doesn't work with Giano. He just becomes more forthright. Moreoever, by Giano's standards that was very, very mild. Moreschi (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• SirFozzie is tough enough to endure a little criticism from Giano. It is part of an Arbitrator's job description... Jehochman 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have grave concerns about this block. SirFozzie made statement announcing his intention to run for ArbCom. Giano called him on some of its content in strong terms calling the statement "bolox". Apparently now Giano is blocked lest he agrees to remove his assertions that SirFozzie's statement is inaccurate. The effect of this seems to me to be to stifle criticism - a use civility blocks that really isn't acceptable. People should be free to ask tough questions bluntly without nannying "civility" blocks. I urge an unblock in this case. WJBscribe (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Essentially, it's been empirically proven that blocking Giano for civility vios does not make him more civil. It does the reverse. So don't block him for this. Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate that this might be satirical in nature, if there is a long-term problem with Giano in any way at all, can someone tell me why he's still here? --Rodhullandemu 23:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because we get far more good out of Giano than bad. Moreschi (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent decision. Now you might lift the "probation" this same Admin imposed on me for....we'll, he doesn't seem to be sure actually, but he doesn't like something about me. Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, no, I'm not likely to be pressing for you to be unsanctioned, Sarah. Have you forgotten who you're talking to? I'm the racist English imperialist who thinks all those outside my little island are irrational scum, remember? The one devoted to promoting systemic bias? Moreschi (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just because I parodied your daft essay! Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you said that, not me. But any port in a storm. You find it all here, a real pacy read, unputdownable. Are you saying your Admin responsibilities are conditional on agreeing politically with abused editors? Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did say it. And what "admin responsibilities"? Do they exist? I particularly like "abused editors". Is that supposed to make me change my opinion that you should have been banned long ago? I don't care what you got sanctioned for, I just want you gone. Anything that helps with the assisted-movement-out-the-door process is fine by me. And no, it's not politics, it's just WP:TIGERS. Moreschi (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Beware of the tigers seems to sum you up pretty well; but is that really the sort of editor we want running loose as Administrators on Wiki?? Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no. You're the one with the strong opinions (the mention of the phrase "British Isles" seems to make you sick). But hey, it's obviously terribly smart to go round insulting people and then expect them to do you favours. After all, one must protect all minority points of view we can possibly find in order to avoid systemic bias! Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Look, guys.. I don't want to become the center of the drama. I don't like having to explain to Giano (yet again), that no, I didn't create the ArbCom case to get him, or at any one else's direction (he seems to think that I'm a puppet for one or more Arbitration Commitee members, when that's the furthest from the truth. However, right or wrong, Giano will believe what Giano believes. I did not call for his statement to be refactored, or to be blocked. I'm hoping that this does not turn into another 200KB Misplaced Pages production of Much Ado About Nothing.. Tznkai is right to expect better behavior from Giano, but we don't need to fight the Giano/civility wars again.. do we? SirFozzie (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fozzie. Glad to have finally got your attention. Would you remove the "probation" please? Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah777, I have a habit of not undoing other administrator's actions without getting consensus first, even if I wasn't of the mind that the whole Troubles thing needs MORE restrictions, not less, because there have been too many edit wars amongst too many people already. But let me look things over. SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So if blocking doesn't help Giano follow the civility policy, what do we do instead? It's all very well saying "it's Giano", but obviously if blocking people for not following that policy doesn't work, why is it still a policy? -- how do you turn this on 23:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance it needed to be said, I'm not going to argue about the block or the unblocking or try to have it overturned or whatever. I did what I thought was proper, and another admin disagreed. As far as I'm concerned, that ends that part of it.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do it again. It's not the idea of blocking Giano that missed the mark, no one should get a free pass... it's how you carried it out. You threatened him, demanded a refactor, and then blocked him, all worded in what struck me as a bit impetuous way. At least it wasn't all in the span of 5 minutes but still... please put a bit more thought into your actions and consider gaining consensus for them when they are likely to be controversial. I hope you've learned a valuable lesson. You've been gone a long time and things are not exactly the same as they were when you were here before. Plunging in doesn't seem a good approach to me. Civility blocks do not work. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not "threaten" him. I strongly recommended he refactor, I gave him specifics on where I thought the problem was, he reverted, I blocked with the aforementioned notices. As for not doing it again, I will not, because clearly the community doesn't want me to.--Tznkai (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I find this block beyond belief and it is difficult to surprise me, i must say. This is an incredible lack of judgment. That Giano would be unblocked in no time was beyond doubt. But I remain firmly believing that only on the spot desysoppings for such self-serving exercises may alleviate the situation of such outrageous blocks. The reason is easy to see. Most (even if not all) of those who blocked Giano do not build encyclopedia but are having an alternative career on-wiki. For admins who don't write, the horror of desysopping would be a very well working self-restriction because the lack of the bit (with removed #admins access) would leave them lost here. I am not blood-thirsty by any measure. But the truly outrageous actions got to prompt an adequate and swift response. --Irpen 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the desysopping. Most (even if not all) of those who blocked me do not build encyclopedia but are having an alternative career on-wiki. mMybe you'd look into my case Irpen, or are you another one of those things that Moreschi calls himself :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, come on. Tznkai's been away for a couple of years, it's natural that he's not going to have been following every inch of Giano drama during that time. This is just a good faith mistake. Moreschi (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If I ever go away for a couple of years I am not going to just plunge right back into the thick of things. This is not the first matter that Tznkai seems to have jumped into. Seems unwise to me. And Sarah: This is not about you. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was "probationed" by the same Admin for even less reason that Giano was blocked by him. But I see from Moreschi above that this is all political and obviously having expressed non-mainstream views in the past puts one outside the normal due process, such as it is in Wiki. Maybe you'd look into my case Lar? Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent :) No, quite possibly you were sanctioned wrongly, and I would look into it if I weren't just about to fall asleep. You'll have to wait till morning. I'm just mocking your ludicrous expectations that you can freely insult people and then still expect them to do your bidding. Moreschi (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "bidding" - I asked politely. But your response read more like your personal Administrator Manifesto than mere mocking. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Giano's talk page access restricted?

Giano says on his talk that through the block Tznkai restricted Giano's ability to post to User talk:Giano II. I'm lost at how that happened--if so, is that appropriate? rootology (C)(T) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• NO further administrative action is required here, as far as I can tell. I move to close this thread. Jehochman 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • No further admin action is needed. Second. WilyD 23:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. The no talk page editing thing is just the only dangling participle here. rootology (C)(T) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The block logs shows that Tznkai didn't set that - if Giano couldn't edit his talk page, it must be a bug. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is quite serious. I already dislike the idea of this new block feature, but with bugs it's really quite serious. It means that users could be blocked from editing their talkpage - one of the most common methods of appeal - without us knowing this. Compare Tsnkai's block to this test one - Giano should have been able to edit his talkpage. The fact that he could not is worrying as we have no idea what the extent of this problem is. WJBscribe (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla, and perhaps request that the feature be disabled until such time as it works flawlessly. It not very difficult or frequently needed to protect the talk page. Jehochman 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just theoretically

I reversed an admin action without discussion. Does that mean I should be sanctioned somehow? Particularly given that I've done this before? Do my actions not constitute wheel-warring? Moreschi (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically yes. But for practical purposes, let's just stop. Please. —kurykh 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not wheel warring, no. Possibly a violation of blocking policy. Those are two different critters. I suggest that this should be ignored as no harm was done and there was an emerging consensus to unblock Giano. Jehochman 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage editing bug

Just a related note, separate from Giano--WJBscribe and I just ran my account through some tests, and whatever happened to Giano's talk page was a bug. See here and here. He's going to drop a bugzilla on this. rootology (C)(T) 23:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I have filed a bug report in relation to this: Bugzilla:15812. WJBscribe (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This matter seems far from resolved, I want this incompetent apology for an Admin fired, and fired fast! Comments such as this show a stupidity, naivety and unacceptable degree of ignorance as to the way Misplaced Pages works, or at least is supposed to work, and I stress supposed! - and who archived the above with such unseemly haste - it's archived when I have donw with it! seldom have I seen such blaten abuse on wikipedia, if you lot don't care, I certainly do! "Use IRC it is quicker indeed" - I bet it bloody is! Giano (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget this one where he blocked someone 24 hours for stating the opinion that a just-defrocked admin was "horribly bad". He was promptly slapped down for that one, and the block lasted all of one hour. Baseball Bugs 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I want a unicorn that can fire death rays from its horn. I think it's perfectly acceptable request. HalfShadow 20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, as those death rays come out in a spiral. But right you get that, we'll get a healthy dose of pigs on the wing. Baseball Bugs 00:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All I want is a small pony that can disintegrate things with it's forehead. IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK?! HalfShadow 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They have them at Wal*Mart. Look for them in the same aisle as the Wayback Machines and the Vegematics. Baseball Bugs 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50

Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to edit tendiciously across a broad swathe of template articles after being repeatedly asked (and then warned) not to do so by various editors. He's accompanied the latest reverts with a new spat of personal attacks. I can't see what's going to convince him that continually repeating himself on talk pages (sans threading) and reverting to preferred versions of articles over periods of multiple days is unacceptable / unproductive short of administrative action. His talk page and template talk:Sun Microsystems should provide an ample study of his behaviour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They were a recent discussion at WQA as well. BMW(drive) 17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

KingsOfHearts

KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still date-warring at History of antisemitism (see above). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for edit warring/disruptive editing at History of antisemitism and other articles; for abusing edit summaries. The fact that he was given a final warning by another administrator, then minutes later conducted this revert, and was pushing the boundaries, led to his two week block. seicer | talk | contribs 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RTV revisited

It seems that an old friend has come back again from being vanished (see archived AN section) and has engaged in a game of sockey as reported here. This was discovered after another user observed similar comments at various AfDs and after making a comment on my talk page here in which I am not sure is an admission or not. (I don't think that is my call to make that judgment.) MuZemike (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems premature to open this thread at this time. The SSP report hasn't given a conclusion. There was a CU done recently that didn't turn up these results, and another one could be requested. What action would we discuss here, without the facts in hand? Durova 01:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be disingenuous, Durova. It's absolutely obvious who's editing from those (and related) IPs. I personally have no problem with it, though many of his edits to articles are useless at best and arguably detrimental rather than constructive. His contributions to AfDs are so lame that I can't imagine any closer paying them any heed whatever. As long as he doesn't get up to his old tricks of adding bogus "references" to articles, etc., I agree that there's no action that needs to be taken; but there's no reason to live in a world of make-believe. Deor (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) First sentence stricken per request on my talk page. Deor (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's not be disingenuous. I happen to know where he lives and I doubt very much he has the skill to disguise his IP location. He's easily checkusered. Why not go there? Durova 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the strikethrough. I've gone ahead and requested checkuser. Let's see what it has to say. Durova 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief it doesn't take that much skill. But it does sadden me that this issue has arisen yet again. For the record, I'm not convinced that I assumed too much good faith last time around. I knew somebody was trolling us, I just didn't think it was Grand Roi (but in hindsight it seems I was quite wrong about it). — CharlotteWebb 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, requesting a checkuser on cases of obvious sockpuppetry is a waste of the checkusers' time, and should be discouraged. Admins should feel free to act as they think appropriate when they encounter an obvious sockpuppet. Nandesuka (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher was quite helpful and polite regarding this request. If it ought to have been discouraged I trust he would have done so. It's important for those of us who aren't inclusionists (and I'm not one either) to remember that not all inclusionists are necessarily the same person. Durova 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Block template feature preventing blocked user from editing own talkpage

I know that this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I am becoming increasingly concerned about the number of instances in which blocked users have been inadvertently or unnecessarily blocked from editing even their own talkpages, as a result of the newly enabled feature on the block template allowing the blocking administrator to so direct. In the case of most blocks, this additional restriction on the blocked user is not necessary. If anything, it will often be counterproductive, in that it stops the user from posting an on-wiki unblock request or engaging in dialog regarding what he or she did that triggered a block and what he or she should do differently in the future.

Administrators should be sure to utilize this feature only where it is clear that there is no reasonable chance of legitimate input of any kind from the blocked user (e.g., Gra*p vandals) and not in the case of routine blocks, or even blocks based on serious misconduct. Indeed, I am not sure that this feature might not be counterproductive to the point where it should be removed altogether. I certainly don't recall any groundswell of demand for this feature/setting relative to the dozens of other proposed changes patiently waiting in line....

In the same vein, it is my view that the "block this user from sending e-mail" setting should only be utilized in the case of blocked or banned users who have misused the Misplaced Pages e-mail function or as to whom there is a serious and substantiated risk that they will do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The checkbox is close to the block button. It can easily be unchecked by accident. PEBKAC errors are likely. Jehochman 01:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also be aware that there have been instances where this feature has worked incorrectly; one user could not edit his talk page, although the log did not show he was blocked from doing so, and another user was blocked from editing his talk page, although the admin had distinctly not selected that feature. Bugzilla 15812 has been filed, as noted up above. Risker (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

At an absolute minimum, shouldn't the feature be revised so that the default is that the blocked user can edit his or her talkpage, and the blocking administrator would have to check a box to stop the editor from editing that page, rather than the other way around? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the case at the moment that the box needs to be unchecked to disable talkpage editing - so the default is not to disable editing. I'm not aware yet of a case where someone unchecked the box by mistake, but there does seem to be a bug that has resulted in people not being able to edit their talkpage even though the blocking admin did not uncheck the box. WJBscribe (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If this becomes too much of a problem I'd support a removal of the feature. Really, it accomplishes very little that full protection wouldn't accomplish, and what it does accomplish (allowing other non-admins to post to a block user's talk page without allowing the blocked user to respond) runs a substantial risk of heckling/hitting a fellow when he's down. Durova 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima has mentioned that a similar problem was encountered on Wikiversity and has been reported. Risker (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Even without the bugs, I don't support this feature. Very rarely should blocked users be prevented from editing their talkpage. Most of those cases will be where they abuse the ability to edit the talkpage following a block, at which stage the page can be protected. A talkpage protection is likely to get more attention than an additional element of a block, and allows for the period where the user cannot edit their talkpage to differ from the block length. I suspect that, as an added parameter to a block, it will be used far more commonly than talkpage protections, which is problematic given the number of blocks appealed on talkpages. We shouldn't be putting up barriers to users getting a fair hearing if they want to contest their block. It doesn't appear that the feature was added as a result of a consensus-based discussion and, if others agree with me, I suggest we have a discussion to form a basis to ask for this feature to be disabled. WJBscribe (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Remove the featurecruft.Jehochman 02:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are already issues as it is with some shared IPs with their talk pages blocked. The last thing you want to do is make things even more inconvenient. ~ Troy (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well; it seems like something handy that might get used occasionally, but in general just sits there and does nothing. If it ain't broke... —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

After all, when this would be useful, can't you reach the same end by protecting the userpage when necessary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has suggested to me off-wiki that this feature may have been developed in response to the ongoing antics of a certain group of vandals who sometimes place dangerous malware on their userpages. If this is so, the argument for having this feature is stronger than I had imagined. Perhaps the solution may be to retain this feature but physically separate the "block user from editing own talkpage" as well as "block user from sending e-mail" settings from the other block settings on the "block user" template, thus allowing admins to engage these settings when there is reason to do so but reducing the chance that this will be done through inattention or inadvertence.

Also, the wording of the setting is a bit confusing. It would be better as "block user from editing own talkpage" (default unclicked, click when choosing to engage) rather than "allow user to edit own talkpage" (default click, unclick when choosing to disengage). They are logically equivalent, of course, but the lack of parallelism with the other wordings probably increases the number of mistakes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

By "certain group of vandals", do you mean the Gr*wp fools? If not, then I for one am not familiar with the vandals you're referring to and, therefore, wouldn't know to use the feature anyway. That makes it all the more useless. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that too, and it seems like a much less intrusive solution for those who deal with that problem to get into the habit of protecting the relevant user talk pages rather than implementing a new feature that has the potential for substantial collateral damage. Hardly anyone ever accidentally full protects a user talk page while protection is a separate action from blocking. New admins may be confused by this tool, and it being buggy as well inclines me toward jettisoning it altogether. Durova 03:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse removal. This feature is all disadvantage and no advantage. The number of instances where this feature can be possibly used reliably is absolutely tiny, and shrinking. The risk of unwarranted use is unacceptably high. If Newyorkbrad is right about the reason for its introduction, I wonder if he has been misinformed and confused between the regular edits of these vandals, and their talk page edits. It is not malware on the talk page but just a very large edit. It's not that bad really, and the precise size of the edit is conveniently provided in several places before you have to look at it. We get these large edits all the time in articles, in the sandbox, in templates and other places. Every admin should know by now when they block a particular page-move or template vandal to look at the page size, to go straight to the page history instead of the diff, and to delete and salt or protect the talk page. Any admin who would use this checkbox would necessarily know that. And these admins are usually onto these vandals very quickly. It's probably even quicker to protect the page than faff about with the checkbox. Developers should be introducing a way to limit the size of edits instead. -- zzuuzz 08:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also would like to see this feature removed; it has very little benefit as the same function can be attained by protecting the page, and that one minor benefit - making the blocking of page move vandals require one less click of the mouse - is hugely outweight by its disbenefits, detailed above (buggyness, accidentally disabling, buttoncruft, potential of misuse (q.v. certain admins inappropriately removing the ability of blocked users to use Special:Emailuser despite no abuse occuring) either through ineptitude or malice). fish&karate 11:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, remove it. It causes a lot of trouble for almost no benefit. We're very good at deleting and salting G*awp talk pages immediately anyway: about the only time we would use this feature. Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also can't see any advantage of this feature over the already existing feature to protect a User's talk page. No significant benefits + significant costs and risks = an idea that should not be implemented. GRBerry 17:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is responsible for testing this software? Why is it not properly tested first? Why are half witted incompetent admns allowed to expirement with it? Giano (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of taking cheap shots at the admins, who frankly don't deserve you, why don't you go make yourself useful somewhere? HalfShadow 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, absolutely. I've been active around requests for unblock for considerable time, and never had protecting talk pages manually when needed been too cumbersome to introduce such a potentially devastating feature. MaxSem 21:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

With all this consensus, how does it get turned off? rootology (C)(T) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Poke a dev? I think Brion oughta' be able to do it. In the meantime, let people know to leave that box checked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want that checkbox, just add #wpAllowUsertalk { display: none } to the global CSS. That way, the checkbox is not shown and can't be inadvertedly unchecked. While keeping it for other projects. Hardcoding to remove it is IMHO excessive. Platonides (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More copyvio by User:LamyQ

Since our last report here , LamyQ (talk · contribs) has continued to upload copyrighted images, the latest being File:ESPANOLA PLAZA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-01 and File:EspanolaValleyVolleyball.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-03. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a sockpuppetry case against him too, see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd). --Uncia (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This was never handled the first time. Sorry for the bolds, but here's hoping it finally gets some attention. x42bn6 Talk Mess 08:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Returning troll

Valliant1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for persistent racist and antisemitic talk page disruption on 14 September 2008. He vowed on his talk page that he would return to cause more disruption, leaving behind some advice to the blocking admin and to me. He seems to have made good on his threat in the guise of Tybridgefarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing on 19 September 2008. Note his similar trolling of the Rodney King and Holocaust denial talk pages and talk pages of related articles. Compare also the promiscuous use of caps by Valliant1967 on his own talk page to Tybridgefarm's similar use on Talk:Rodney King. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking this situation over. I think it is a pretty obvious sock puppet and don't see any problem with a permanent block. --Leivick (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I'll mention that Valliant1967 was identified as a sockpuppet of Bannedtruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to ask for reaction to the idea of treating this user as banned and reverting on sight. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody going to deal with this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. You might often find a delay in the UTC morning hours, as North American editors are asleep and European ones are at college or work. Black Kite 10:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Masonfamily

Masonfamily (talk · contribs)

Masonfamily's contributions strongly suggest that s/he is not a new user. His first edit is this. S/he even talks about Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. These are not somthing a new user can do. S/he seems familiar with complicated policies. S/he cannot be a new editor and might be someone who was blocked before.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless they're doing something wrong it's not unacceptable. Grsz 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

She's been around since July. Nothing to see here. Blueboy96 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note Just for your information, Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) is confirmed as the sockpuppeter of Robert Houdini (talk · contribs) per checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa although he constantly excuses himself with his implausible "brother theory". Recently, Michale also canvassed to 2channel, the biggest web forum of Japan to keep South Korean cultural claims from being deleted via WP:AFD. As the result, many socks/spas emerged at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims (2nd nomination). He also did the same thing and supposedly used a sock/or meatpuppet from his alleged brother, Robert Houndini for Uriginal.http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Uriginal&diff=141120087&oldid=141115112] I think the user is the one who should deserve to get careful attentions by admins for the obvious evidences. Moreover, the user's first contribution was to upload a lot of bashing copyrighted images for 2002 FIFA World Cup. Along with him, another sockpuppeter's offsprings are not blocked yet, so the RFCU case should be taken care of from now.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can some one please help with a vandal

This vandal 216.135.96.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made several disruptive edits in the past few days to William Howard Taft. Please can we block him or do something. I would but I am not an Admin.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked it. In future please direct such requests to administrator intervention against vandalism. Regards SoWhy 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Armenian genocide debate

Will someone please put protection on Armenian genocide debate as it has been subject to two cut and past moves in less than 12 hours. I would do it myself but I am an active editor of the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the wrong version for three days and asked people to discuss on the talk page. It doesn't look to me that the original move had consensus, but the revert war afterwards was just silly. Jaw-jaw, please. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Threat made by banned user

This user 216.135.96.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been given a three day ban for vandalism, but posted a threat at the top of his own talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Royxomonuchi

Royxomonuchi (talk · contribs)

Could an image-savvy admin please talk to this user? I think they just need to be given a good explanation and perhaps a good policy link or two. I would wade in myself but I don't have a good knowledge of image policy (particularly fair use).

They've been uploading hi-res box art for Playstation3 video games, and edit warring to include them in the relevant articles. So far, they've been blocked once (Disruptive editing: Edit warring and disruption on image pages after multiple warnings) and have not changed their behaviour since the block expired.

Thanks in advance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam-only account

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

A ten month old account posted a complaint over removal of external links to the talk page of a featured article. Prior to that post, the account's only activity had been to add links to a particular domain that was recently removed from the featured article. Requesting independent review and action. Durova 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked through that account's total contributions, and I compared it to the histories articles in question, to see if this was a sockfarm of some sort. I didn't see anything that raised my attention; the additions were not re-added by other accounts as far as I can tell, and other than a snippy tone in the talk page post, I don't see anything blockable or actionable yet. You've done a fine job of reminding them of NPA and AGF, unless we can tie this to a larger issue, I don't know what else we can do here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam-only accounts can be blocked per Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Disruption when there isn't any encyclopedia-building activity. Durova 21:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Our good faith contributors are not required to wear out their fingers endlessly reverting spam, and responding to frivolous complaints. Jehochman 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think COIbot could probably deal with this, it is not high volume. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ze vandalism on Shamokin, Pennsylvania

There is some bloke called Jefffoxworthy345 who is continually vandalising Shamokin, Pennsylvania with things like "SAM EATS BUTT" on 1 of the sections. I have had to warn him 2 times in a row, almost a third revert. Upon my hypothesis on whom he is, he is most probably a new sockpuppet vandal SPA. I'll inspect the contribs and see what else is there. If there is vandalism all over, I would deeply have a blocking concern. I'll check now. RoryReloaded is an I.Q guy (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK - blocked indef. RoryReloaded is an I.Q guy (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeated removal of speedy tag

Would any admin with a moment please look at Cardiff airport parking, a non-notable parking company whose db-inc tag I have just replaced for the FIFTH time? Since its SPA author got to a level 3 warning, an IP has taken over removing the tag. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted and salted... It should be done with now. If it comes back under another guise, let us know again, and we can take care of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The same SPA has also put in Silver zone parking which I have just tagged - perhaps you could look at that one too before the same game starts there? JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done (i.e. salted). --Gutza 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IP redirecting talk page

Weird one. This IP 216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs) is redirecting their talk page to User talk:User216.153.214.89 in protest of something or other . The User216... page clearly shows they have been blocked, I'm bringing it here for admin attention. Seems disruptive to me. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not really disruptive -- at most, they're going to confuse the hell out of some anonymous user happening to access Misplaced Pages via that IP address. However, given the five day period during which this same person has been editing from that IP address it stands to reason it's a pretty static IP, so I don't think there's any serious cause for concern. The situation is a bit weird though, since the anon's talk page obviously can't be salted -- but then again, given the context I don't think there's any real harm being done. --Gutza 22:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly confusing. It doesn't make sense to me to redirect your talk page, which is the only way anyone has to discuss things with you, to a page that says the user has been blocked (with no explanation). If I just logged on to make a comment there, I would assume the user is blocked and move along. Dayewalker (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing, yes, by all means. However, disruptive, at least in my opinion, no. I suggest we let it be for the time being, and only address the issue if anyone is affected in any way by this. --Gutza 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The only possibility I can think of is that it might be disruptive if anti-vandalism tools that issue warnings would follow the redir and make the warning at the target rather than destroying the redir and warning on that page. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True. However, given the history of the account (see above) I think it is reasonable to expect the IP is static; as such, the registered user is indeed using the same computer as the anonymous user, in which case there really is no difference between the two accounts (user pages and talk pages respectively). Incidentally, I think we're splitting hairs. --Gutza 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User adding libelous information to articles

Please block Big777d (talk · contribs) who adds libelous and defamatory information to biography articles of living persons, see , , . Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

blocked. --barneca (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

childish vandalism is better not dignified by being called libelous and defamatory, just stupid. in the spirit of RBI.DGG (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing

When this editor first appeared on the law page with his single issue pushing, I was inclined to be accomodating. And then it came up on the competition law page, using "neutrality tags" and again I did what I thought was reasonable to deal with the views being pushed. Then it seemed to get worse, and uncompromising, so I gave a warning, because a disruptive pattern was developing. But it didn't help, because soon enough, the editor had learned how to exploit the formal Misplaced Pages channels. And so this review appeared, after I (and other editors as always) had rejected the plugging of these views as slanted. On these pages, of course, we have to summarise, and encourage editors to expand the subpages. But no. Here are examples of persistent reverting, without talking when explanations were already given:

• Six times trying to get one sentence by an economist about an economist into the law page intro, explained on the talk page here: ... and when he'd been told be me and others that he wasn't going to get it, he brought a featured article review (which I was disappointed to see veteran editors condone).

• Again in an introduction (my experience is people argue over that mostly) of the competition law page, one sentence which was changed because of grammar mistakes - explained here - reverted three times: ... after which point I'd really had it.

• And this is probably the best, on the History of economic thought page, trying to keep a section on chicago economists expanded (the same thing as in the above two pages), when it'd been explained that it was condensed for style, and the sub-page was expanded to match: one potato, two potato, three potato, four... five potato, six potato, and there'll be a seventh potato and more unless there's some kind of intervention.

• Here is Vision Thing deleting large tracts of prose (without moving them anywhere) four times: once, twice, three times, four times

• Here he is trying to insert the same odd notion that Proudhon didn't say property is theft, but property is freedom in the law page:

• Here he is putting up a few more tags, when he doesn't get his way:

This editor is intent on spreading his views with a strange mix of anarchism, and what's known as the Austrian school of economics. It's persistently bias editing across the three pages you can see. He may be doing it on other pages as well, but it's got to stop. You'll see from my own talk page, that I've been scolded for going too far in using bad language. I've not brought complaints before, because I just try to get on with editing myself, rather than get bogged down in these discussion forums. But I've been persuaded that it might be the only resort when people who are asked politely, then asked again, then asked firmly, then pleaded with, then warned, then mocked, then castigated, then insulted, just won't quit. The other side, of course, is that he hasn't contributed anything, except I think a footnote or two, and a sentence or two. It's perhaps characteristic, but it's always over one sentence or one paragraph again and again and again. Wikidea 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Vision Thing has registered a complaint here a couple of days ago, accusing Wikidea of personal attacks. As a result, I have blocked Wikidea for 48 hours. In the meanwhile I have had an exchange with him on his talk page during which he has acted consistent with a good faith but frustrated editor (I have ended up unblocking him, although I only did it one hour before the original block would have expired anyway). I'm not saying that proves Vision Thing's guilt, I'm only saying that I don't think Wikidea can be accused of bad faith or any other form of genuine malice, and, as such, I believe that his recent block should not be taken into account when considering this complaint. --Gutza 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Vision Thing is that he believes so much in his own truth that he sometimes decides he can impose these views of him or even edit WP policies as he likes them even without any dialogue. In this particular case, I have to say that Wikidea's attitude was not an ideal one; I once warned him and advised him to be more polite. But it was VisionThing who started tagging the article with some inacceptable POV tags, and initiated a FAR IMO not in order to improve the article, but to push his personal vendetta with Wikidea. In addition to all this stuff, reading the detailed and well-exposed diffs of Wikidea, I get the impression that VisionThing may be wikistalking Wikidea.

Important notice: This is a case I cannot be objective, because I have repeatedly co-operated with Wikidea, an editor I highly esteem, in the Law article (and he has also asked me to review the History of Economic Thought article). But I do have the right to make my own conclusions and remarks, which are the following:

• VisionThing and Wikidea have entered into editwars in more than one articles. Most of these editwars started when VisionThing removed material he didn't like or when he unilaterally tagged articles as POV.
• Wikidea was not always polite towards VisionThing, something that infuriated the latter.
• I disagree with calling VisionThing a troll, but the latter shouldn't remove material he doesn't like (as he did more than once) without prior discussion.
• If VisionThing wanted to convince us that his Law FAR was sincere, then he should have been more active (as Ottava and Ceoil have been), and limit his long-lasting absence from the FAR page.
• Because of the articles he edits, and where the edit wars occurred, VisionThing gives the impression of wikistalking and provoking Wikidea (the FAR could be regarded as one of these provocations).
• Wikidea is a great editor, creating and expanding core articles. This should be taken into consideration when judging his (sometimes overwhelming) frustration.

In any case, one thing is sure: This cannot go on like that for ever. These two users is difficult to co-exist, and some adm action seems necessary. Now, if they cannot find a modus vivendi at all, then I am afraid ArbCom might be the ultimum refigium, but this wouldn't be nice for neither of them.

I close speaking about things I do know, the Law article and Wikidea's great contributions there: some days ago he announced that he will never again edit the article. His absence is already noticeable and bad for the article. I cannot say the same thing for VisionThing's absence during the last weeks. As a matter of fact, I could say exactly the opposite!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I came here via a message on my talk page. Perhaps it is to offer some insight, which I hope to do. This is in part from a problem with a FAR. One user put up a FAR, and at the time, I originally pushed for it to be closed, because it became obvious that the original complaint could have problems. After that was made aware, other users wanted to focus on their own problems with he law article and continue the FAR, and I don't remember much from Vision Thing after that. The two have a clear problem with each other, and Wikidea has shown that he is willing to listen to the community in changing parts of one article that he has fought over with Vision Thing (but that article is since being worked on by some others, so, I don't know). That's just a little background info as I see it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I read this thread as well, I must say that I am annoyed! Wikidea was punished for incivility (and PA?!), while nobody of the eloquent critics of a prolific editor's behavior, found a word to say about VisionThing's misconducts. Shame!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, incivility and PAs -- but I suggest you ignore that complaint, I believe everything related to it has been resolved. Wikidea has been incivil, administrative action was taken and he promised it won't happen again; while Wikidea's incivility might have annoyed VisionThing, that has no bearing on the content dispute and disruptive behaviour discussed here. --Gutza 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gutza was only trying to do the right thing, and I'm giving up on name calling, because it obviously hasn't worked. Wikidea 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Query about ANI archives: I've never seen this happen before. Are AN/I archives intended to be edited? Wikidea came off his block to add a comment to the archived ANI thread, continuing more of what led to his block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a history with Wikidea, and this seems to be a straightforward content dispute. I see there's some POINTy acts on VT's part, but it's unclear how administrators can help. For example, VT apparently tried adding Hayek's quote to the lead of Law because of user's longstanding complaint that a novelist's quote is in the lead. VT might have a point, but he shouldn't violate WP:POINT to make it. Anyhow, I hope that Wikidea does in fact stop the namecalling. Cool Hand Luke 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR enquiry

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#1RR enquiry per suggestion.

Myself and User:Boodlesthecat are subject to 1RR restriction. At Żydokomuna, I have reverted Boody's once and I ceased, per 1RR. But he has been revert warring there, before and after my edit (he is now at 3 reverts there), with incivil edit summaries - and in addition to edit warring, he claims that me and Tymek are spreading anti-semitic propaganda ("This is Jew baiting claptrap. Pure and simple. tymek and Piotrus think the article is simply a repository for them to insert arbitrary claims about evil Jews"...as a justification of your own attempts to make this entry into a vehicle for anti-semitic libels"" and so on). Is his behavior acceptable in light of our 1RR restriction and our other editorial policies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:92.43.64.70

User:92.43.64.70 has numerous vanadalism warnings on its talk page, the most recent being a "final warning" from Alexius08 on September 30. 3 days later, on October 3, there were at least 4 additional disruptive edits, to Beluga (whale) , Talk:Beluga (whale) , Blue Whale and Elephant seal . I think it is time to escalate to a block. Rlendog (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has not contributed anything after the last warning registered on their talk page. --Gutza 00:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a final warning on September 30. There seems to be a 2nd final warning based on one of the disruptive edits on October 3. I'm not sure that October 3 warning was necessary, given the final warning that had already been issued on September 30. Rlendog (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they have been blocked 3 times as of now. They seem to be warrenting of a school block. I will presently be issueing a 1 month school block. In the future, please report these issues to WP:AIV. Thanks for your good work, and have a nice day! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unpleasant stuff from User:TV Stations, and apparent related sockpuppetry

User:TV Stations is producing some rather unpleasant material at User:Phuntsok2000/Nickerlodeon. They have also made a number of other edits in Phuntsok2000's userspace: sockpuppetry?

Also, various bogus edits to articles about TV broadcasts in the "Mushroom Kingdom". Could this be the same user who was creating fake TV stations some time ago? If so, I wonder if they have been editing under any other accounts recently? -- The Anome (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Yes, this looks the same person as Phuntsok2000 (talk · contribs): their userspace is full of garbage -- preparation for later vandalism, I wonder? -- The Anome (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Update 2: searching for "WGFO" finds other messes, such as at List of NBC slogans, which I haven't yet been able to discern which edits are clear nonsense, sneaky vandalism, or attempts to clear up vandalism. It's possible that some of the other editors are also Phuntsock. -- The Anome (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Uodate 3: Anime Channel (talk · contribs) looks like they may be the same editor... -- The Anome (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we may have a bigger problem. Phuntsok2000 (talk · contribs) and TV Stations (talk · contribs) are obviously the same person, both blocked by others. I've just gone through and cleared out all of Phuntsok's user space. It's all a mix of alternative history cruft, obvious nonsense, not so obvious nonsense, and sneaky vandalism to copies of articles. Since User:TV Stations was using the user space, I figured his socks would probably return, so I just nuked all the subpages. I have not looked at Anime Channel (talk · contribs), and I have to log off for the night now, but someone should look at this, and maybe file a Checkuser to see if there's a whole sockfarm or not. --barneca (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Orthopraxia engaged in edit war

Orthopraxia (talk · contribs) is currently engaged in an edit war on the Misr page, against established WP editors and WP:Firearms guidelines. He refuses to provide any arguments to support his position, has accused me of vandalism and has violated 3RR. Koalorka (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Either tell the user, go to WP:AN3, or do both. ~ Troy (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just left a note on his talk page, advising him to take his idea or opinion to the relevant discussion page. Let's see if he would respond in a less confrontational manner, shall we? ...Dave1185 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. ~ Troy (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is fair because it is common sense that it takes two or more to have an edit war. Maybe its time for those who act high and mighty to reconsider their manner of approach by taking things into ANI just because they cannot handle things in a logical or sensible manner. Administrators have better things to do than to keep squabbling party at arm's length from each other although it is, legitimately, part of their duty. In short, they have other fish to fry too! Mind you. ...Dave1185 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Um...Dave, you might want to read what you wrote above and think about how civil that sounds?? Not very. --JavierMC 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• What can I say? I'm a troll magnet! Plus, you are quoting things out of the context now. FOCUS! And note that I endorse WP:DGAF. ...Dave1185 (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I'm not an admin, I'm glad to help with that kind of stuff! ~ Troy (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Spamming sock farm needs blocking

A sock farm is inserting links to illegal MP3 files at Black or White, They Don't Care About Us, The Addams Family (film), Earth Song and HIStory/Ghosts. They try to cover their tracks by making insignificant edits before and after inserting the links.

Accounts identified so far as being involved in spamming of quickfilepost.com links:

• Deaf Sentence (talk · contribs)
• Hub Ballroom (talk · contribs)
• Shellshock12 (talk · contribs)
• TranceOnTheDancefloor (talk · contribs)
• RockNRollBlues (talk · contribs)
• JamesDJ-Wozz (talk · contribs)
• NewCoke² (talk · contribs)
• Bee's Kness (talk · contribs)
• Just A Lad (talk · contribs)
• Discotek (talk · contribs)
• Christmas Island92 (talk · contribs)
• Tangerines Aux Fleur (talk · contribs)
• V8 Engine (talk · contribs)

I'm fairly sure there might be more but these are the ones I've identified by looking at the edit histories one month back. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you checkusered it? Why not get to the bottom of the whole thing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that a few quickfilepost and a lot more jacksonstreet.nl are still around. More work to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checkusered it because Misplaced Pages:Rfcu says not to file requests for obvious cases but I'll do that later today. I was going to look at the jacksonstreet.nl links later today unless someone feels like helping out. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's a big ol' sockfarm here, operating under two IP addresses. I'm going to softblock both of them and block the rest of the socks. That should hopefully hold them off. And EconomicsGuy, even though they're obvious socks (block per behaviour), this is a classic use of Checkuser; locate the source IP and softblock them to prevent more and more socks. Not so much associating accounts as stopping the source - Alison 05:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank Alison. I found ((user|Chubby the bink}} so the spamming goes back at least over a year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alison. I'll remember that next time before taking it here. I'll nuke those jacksonstreet.nl links later today. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• quickfilepost.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• jacksonstreet.nl: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Are these domains blacklisted yet? MER-C 06:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Might want to consider blacklisting on meta because of this. MER-C 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just requested COIBot to save reports on these links. Quick summary, quickfilepost.com is added here 33 times, on it.wikipedia 2 times, for jacksonstreet.nl there are more records: en.wikipedia (43), es.wikipedia (8), de.wikipedia (6), fr.wikipedia (4), pt.wikipedia (3), ja.wikipedia (3), tr.wikipedia (1). If the users are the same, I'd suggest meta blacklisting both. --Dirk Beetstra 09:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's enough for me, after checking the cross-wiki searches, which show Chubby the Bink on several projects adding this spam and YouTube copyright violations, I have blacklisted and logged this on meta. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget Tha Otha Side

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this wikipage, created on 04 October by an obvious member of the Dade County band whose music is being discussed. The db-band template is being consistently removed, without any discussion. Thanks for your attention.Raymondwinn (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first lesson is to actually use the person's talk page and discuss it with him. He might not know about the history or see any edit summaries. Second, just AFD it. If it's easy enough, it'll be deleted in just about the same speed. At least give the person a chance to understand what's going on and be told. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Third, there is an assertion of notability ("The single features fellow Dade County rapper Trick Daddy who dose the chorus of the song. Production for the track comes from Miami Music Producer Gold Ru$h"). It's arguable and probably nowhere near enough, but it is there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User Strayson

Strayson (talk · contribs) This editor has been going through several articles and removing information, and leaving an edit summary of lack of reference or citation. I have left a message on his/her talkpage here asking that they stop removing the content and instead tag it with citation needed or fact, and allow time for others to find sources to keep the information. However, they have made approximately 20 or more edits already to several articles without giving time for citing. I'm not sure what we should do here, but I think the edits should be reversed and the cite template added, instead of removing so much content. I also noted that another editor has left a message on the users talkpage, with the same request about removing content, yet the editor has continued to do so. Should something be done here?--JavierMC 04:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I notified him of this thread. He has no edits to talk pages, other than wiping all the warnings away from his own talk page. If he doesn't respond soon, a last warning and then a block if he continues. Civility requires that he respond to people's questions, not play games. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reversed most of these edits. Note that Strayson is now adding contentious material to the lead, with a pre-emptive fact tag, as in Carbon footprint. Gaming the system, I'd say.Cap'nTrade (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out the earlier versions of his talk page. I had several altercations that revolved around the same type of edits: removing material when adding a fact tag was more appropriate. I chased him around adding references that were very easy to locate indeed. E_dog95' 05:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok this guy needs to be stopped. He obviously has an agenda other than improving this encyclopedia and seems to be pushing a personal POV with his edits. He is misrepresenting referenced material by changing the wording in opposition to what the reference provides. Here's one example diff where he makes it appear as if the reference can only be attributed to one person when in fact it is a collaboration of no less than 19.. He has still not responded to messages left on his talkpage nor made an appearance here after notification of this thread. Rickey81682 gave him a final warning on his talkpage about his editing habits, which he apparently is choosing to ignore. I think it's time to block.--JavierMC 06:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide another diff please? That one appears to be a good faith edit to improve readability. I have refined it further. Thanks. Answering own question. e.g. - Atmoz (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 31 hours. I told him he needs to stop and respond and he decided to wait another half hour before continuing. The controversial part is not what bothers but the lack of response. Even someone who edits well but doesn't response isn't helpful here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson Page Semi-Protection

Since he was just convicted of the 12 counts against him (on CNN as of this writing), a semi-protect on the O. J. Simpson page from IP users to limit vandalism might be necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 4, 2008 @ 06:02

Good idea. When the verdict was read, Simpson was heard saying, "D'oh!" Baseball Bugs 06:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It already is semi-protected since 00:52, 30 December 2007 when Can't sleep, clown will eat me set it. —Ashanda (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This I did not know. Sorry about that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 4, 2008 @ 07:37

User:Trexon

Trexon (talk)
Only one edit so far: adding link to porn image on talk page. I'm concerned.

(Disclosure: I created this account on the ACC tool. My bad, sorry.) Prince of Canada 06:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Still the account's only edit, so it's probably abandoned. Page's been deleted, too. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, this user was created by you, PrinceOfCanada, but you're concerned about its edits? What's going on here? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User troublesome again and again (Einsteindonut)

Please check the last two edits by this editor, Einsteindonut (talk · contribs), I think his/her account and IP address must be blocked forever cause of his/her last two edits. posted on 03:04, 4 October 2008 by User:PuttyschoolSorry « PuTTY 07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a complete violation of WP:NOT#SOAP but I'm not absolutely sure it requires eternal bannination. A somewhat shorter block, however, may be in order for this and a range of other problematic edits. Orderinchaos 09:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No one can imagine that here in Misplaced Pages, we can receive such comments, which is very offensive, hateful, horrible to a whole country with 7500 years of history, I don’t even think that blocking forever is sufficient« PuTTY 09:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Misplaced Pages, I don’t know if this is one of my rights or not, but blocking Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) for only 72 hours is by all means not enough especially this is not his/her first time to use such comments with me and with other editors« PuTTY 10:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In general things work on an escalating basis. We usually do not block users indefinitely for a few occurrences - initially they are given the benefit of the doubt until even good faith cannot accommodate what they are doing. Then a block ensues which reflects the community's wish for them to rethink their approach. If they do not then do so, then a longer block is tried. If it keeps going, the cycle repeats, the blocks get longer until someone (uninvolved, I mean) concludes that a community ban is a good way to proceed, proposes one, and people sick and tired of seeing the person acting in the way they are support it. To be honest, I think that is where this one is heading. But we're still at a late stage of the "benefit of the doubt" phase, and if this user (ED, I mean) proves me wrong with their conduct, I'm prepared to eat my words. But 72 hours is reasonable (it's three times as long as the block reason usually attracts). In general, the presence of clear and obvious adversaries in the process complicates things and makes it harder for admins to decide what to do, or even want to get involved to begin with. I've seen cases in the past where out and out trolls have gotten off in part because they have been able to allege harassment from good faith users they have been bothering, and the evidence actually seems to exist. Orderinchaos 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Putty, was he right or wrong when he said you suggested that Misplaced Pages editors should turn to Jew Watch to learn the truth about Jews? I ask because this post of yours makes it look an awful lot like you did. Why not Stormfront? Seems to me that if you want to dish it out like that you ought to be willing to take it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This post probably didn't do much to de-escalate the situation either. - Atmoz (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at this user's block log--apparently he was blocked before for sockpuppetry, per this subsection of the previous ANI discussion. For a week that time--is 72 hours enough? Blueboy96 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the two should maybe keep the hell away from each other. Einsteindonut does something Puttyschool doesn't like and PS comes here screaming 'Ban 'im forever!' Rinse and repeat. HalfShadow 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the previous ANI discussion, that was my thinking as well. But what about Einsteindonut's socking? Blueboy96 18:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

72 hours seems proportional, especially given the recent reduction of Eleland's block from indefinite to 3 months to 1 week. Einsteindonut's conduct was less egregious, so a shorter block is reasonable. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Qwest Communications Corporation IP vandal

There is an ip-hopping vandal (registered to Qwest Communications Corporation) inserting profanity into multiple articles and vandalizing my user page. I'm starting this thread per a talk with Bidgee, who suggested that the problem extends beyond AI/V and requires comprehensive admin attention.

Evidence

• My user page:
• 76.87.210.39 (talk · contribs)
• 75.165.89.45 (talk · contribs)
• 71.34.129.209 (talk · contribs)
• 69.136.190.125 (talk · contribs)

Perhaps a range-block is necessary? Cheers --Flewis 07:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• No rangeblock can cover IPs so far apart as those. However, I have semi-protected your userpage. Ask me (or another admin) if/when you want it removed. Black Kite 09:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but could you please remove the protection? It seems as if the vandalism on my userpage was a 'one off' bout of anger or the like, - I doubt it'll happen again. Thanks in advance --Flewis 10:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Black Kite 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

213.233.128.120

I'm not sure whether or not this is the right section to log my complaint, but a IP address user who has been remarked against me, his IP address is 213.233.128.120.HMR 10:57, 05 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK, this IP address hasn't edited for four days, so a block would be pointless here. However, if they start editing again in the same way, please post the details at the administrator intervention against vandalism board. Thanks, Black Kite 10:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User uploading bank notes

King wiston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a few photo and claiming that it was self taken or having nothing at all. I've found some images on Flickr. Now the user has uploaded Australian Bank Notes but unsure if they're copyrightable or not. Bidgee (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Might want to move this to WP:MCQ; the helpers there would probably be able to better answer this question. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

This user has been personally attacking me and other users for ages. I've filed a report on Wikiquette but this issue has not been resolved. He's now back with even more aggression . Please can someone protect me from this abuse?--   Avg    11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a warning regarding the use of language in their talkpage summaries. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job, we must not tolerate any kind of personal attacks. AdjustShift (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that Avg should also moderate his language , and I'm going to suggest him that he stops implying that anyone contradicting him is an irredentist . It's very tiring to edit Balkan-related articles where you are getting accused all the time of being X or Y depending on what you edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to a content issue and I've limited myself strictly to BF's behaviour here. It was never my intention to enter into content issues, therefore I'll reply to your talk page on the irredentist issue. Whoever is interested they can follow the discussion there.--   Avg    19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Turkish Flame

Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) Massive POV edits and moves on a large scale. Thoughts? AIV seemed like the wrong venue. Prince of Canada 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to post an AIV against PrinceOfCanada-HG (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) ... this user has most horrific use of Huggle, etc that I have seen in ages. Nothing but templating, many of them wrong, a poor understanding of WP:VANDAL, being very very WP:BITEy. He's given level 4 warnings, but never actually explained what the user did wrong. PLEASE someone stop him. I have tried to advise on his talkpage, but of course it redirects to his normal talk page, so he doesn't even see. BMW(drive) 12:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs would probably be helpful here, BMW. I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's difficult to find anything unusual for someone who uses Huggle. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, rather than post 4 diff's, have a look at User talk:Turkish Flame's talk page at the 4 warnings, and how easily I solved the issue underneath. On top of that, was a the receipt of a pretty serious vandal templating, considering the edits in question were AGF edits. In fact, my first note to that user was to welcome him, then to try the sandbox...which he did. I can do a lot more easy hunting, but he's done dozens of templates/reverts today based on "vandalism" that I would bet 1/2 don't meet the criteria. BMW(drive) 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at User talk:Blanche of King's Lynn (bottom section), which is pretty horrible. I am looking further at this at the moment. Black Kite 15:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have left a warning regarding use of automated tools on his main account talkpage. Black Kite 15:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot changing date formatting in artlces in violation of MOS

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

SmackBot is going around delinking dates in articles. Yes, that is a good thing, however he is changing the format of the date from one to another, i.e. from "March 27" to "27 March" without prior consensus on articles. This I believe is violation of MOS. Please see for what I mean. The bot is also removing commas after dates and before years, so instead of March 27, 2008 it is March 27 2008. D.M.N. (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this. Unlinking dates I have no objection to, but the subjective changing of date formats at the same time is perhaps worth avoiding. ~ mazca 12:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing this post I dropped a message at User talk:SmackBot#SmackBot problem, referencing this thread, which is supposed to have the result of automatically stopping further bot edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked though quite a few diffs and have not seen an instance of March 27, 2008 to March 27 2008. Anyone have a diff? Note that 27 March, 2008 to 27 March 2008 is not that case because with autoformatting the first comma wasn't displayed. Gimmetrow 13:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

- The first diff I provided. It was ], ]. The bot changed it to 27 March 1971 thus removing the comma. Normally, if it's simply ] ] the comma would appear magically, but this wasn't the case here, the comma was actually inserted. The bot fails to insert a comma if date autoformatting is removed i.e. ] ] as a random example shows up as August 8 1980 with a comma, while the bot is changing it so no comma is shown - the bot should be inserting a comma like what happens with Lightbot's script. (see for instance here as an example) D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In that diff ] ] is converted to 7 August 2006 - which is the correct DMY format without a comma. Above it was claimed ] ] is converted to August 7 2006 - which would be wrong, but I haven't found an example. Gimmetrow 13:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:DATES#Retaining the existing format:

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.
• In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

So, it should have stayed the same. The comma should have really been inserted. D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two very different issues. One is whether the date formats should be switched between MDY and DMY - the other is whether that switch was performed correctly from a technical perspective. Above you claimed it was performed incorrectly from the technical perspective - your example was March 27, 2008 to March 27 2008, by which I understood ] ] to March 27 2008. If that is happening, yes that is technically incorrect, but after looking at numerous diffs now I have yet to find this technical issue. ] ] or ], ] to 27 March 2008 is, however, technically correct - if the date were displayed autoformatted as DMY, the comma would be absent. Whether DMY and MDY should be switched at all is a completely different issue. Gimmetrow 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I was on about. No problem originally (well apart from datelinking), but no comma was inserted in unlinking dates. D.M.N. (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying by that diff is that there is no comma issue, as 13 June 1941 doesn't take a comma. So it looks like we are only presented with the MoS problem. I say "only", but it is not insignificant and will lead to huge numbers of wasted edits by users manually changing the dates back if it continues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing technically wrong with - no comma was displayed in DMY format, and after linking removed still no comma. There are technical issues with some of the edits (mainly not doing everything, so it takes another edit to either complete or undo), but I have yet to find a problem with commas. Gimmetrow 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If a bot is going to do this sort of thing, it should insert the comma, and leave the order alone; it's the order on which users have strong feelings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Off wiki problems re project from jidf.org

NOTICE: As per my talk page this is a one off account I have created to preserve my real identity from off wiki attacks. I will not use it again after this posting. Please do not C/U or anything else that would violate WP:Outing!!! I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID for this one off posting.

The website http://www.thejidf.org has posted a list of wiki editors and asks that people track their edits. This is off wiki harassment and has bearing on the editors as there may be WP:Outing involved. I would urge oversight on any of the individual editors accounts in case this is the case.

The latest posting comes a a few hours after a wiki editor has been blocked. This editor has been editing in a pro jidf way. I think it is fair to state that the jidf.org posting is connected to the blocking.

Under the heading List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Misplaced Pages Editors there are 15 wiki editors named with links to their talk pages.

The posting goes on to say "Behind the scenes, we have been studying their "contributions" to the site and we encourage others to do the same. Please alert us to any problems of POV-Pushing and bias and subtle antisemitic jabs and the standard "Jew baiting" found on Misplaced Pages (WP) so we may update this list and cite examples. Also, we are looking to get a lot more active on Misplaced Pages, since many people have pointed out unfair policies there, especially with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. Please keep us posted as to any problems you experience on Misplaced Pages as it will aid in our research and approach."

This is a serious form of harassemnt and presents serious problems for any editor involved in I/P wiki projects and /or pages.

Thought you should be aware cheers and goodbye from this account .

JIDF Threats (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the list, and I don't see any "outing" nor do I see any harassment or calls for harassment. It is mostly an expression of opinion about the nature of the contributions by the editors listed. In order to stay on the safe side of WP:CIVIL, I will refrain (for now, at least) from stating whether I agree with the characterization of most of the listed editors, or not. While I do not find such off-Wiki lists to be helpful to the project, I don't see a big deal here. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The website mentioned by JIDF Threats is not helpful for the project, but we can't do anything. Nobody can stop people from creating such websites. We should simply ignore these websites and continue making productive edits to Misplaced Pages. AdjustShift (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Only once they become a problem here can anything really be done about it. And when and if that happens, we deal with them as we deal with all troublesome editors. HalfShadow 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree; not really "outing" editors beyond what's already on their userpages. It's just a list

of links to various userpages with the title claiming they all have a heavy anti-Israel bias. In any case, along with the others, it's not our jurisdiction. Find out the username of whoever runs JIDF however, and some reasonable requests might be made. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I make one last point to clarify one thing. This should possibly have been posted above at . The posting on Jidf came mere hours after User:Einsteindonut was blocked again. He has been involved in problems with some of the named editors. I imagine some of his "friends" may have been involved in disputes with the other named editors. That may be a place to start re unravelling which users are working for or are indeed jidf. I am sorry to remain anon here but the external threat of being called an anti semite is a big stick that when used the way jdif use it could cause users off wiki real life problems. This problem from jdif will not go away and they still are all over their page on the project , . Hope that clarifies my original posting here. JIDF Threats (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal on 118.137.x.x range

In the past couple days, there's been a vandal on 118.137.x.x IPs that has been doing rather subtle but repeated vandalism. The IP's I've identified so far are:

• 118.137.68.103 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.21.140 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.20.170 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.48.87 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

The MO of these addresses are to repeatedly put insert false information into articles about anime series and companies, specifically that certain companies are owned by or series licensed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer or other major American studios. Their most common targets are Sunrise (company) (, , , , ) and TMS Entertainment (, , ), but they also add this information to a wide variety of articles (, , , , , ) as well as miscellaneous vandalism to other articles (changing the station an anime series is broadcast on, adding a list of uncofirmed character to a video game article, adding false info about actors in a Mexican TV series).

Repeated warnings to stop have been ignored, and at least two of the IPs (118.137.21.140 and 118.137.68.103) have been blocked, but then the user shows up again on a new IP. I'd like to request a rangeblock to stop this user, if at all possible. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the contributions of the IPs and they are guilty of persistent vandalism. It is quite possible that one vandal is using these IPs for vandalism. A rangeblock is required. AdjustShift (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for checkuser is thataway! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Whois shows that the range 138.136.xxx.xxx-138.137.xxx.xxx is owned by an Indonesian ISP. Seems likely the vandal just has a very dynamic IP and would show up within this range. Would a rangeblock be to nail their whole subnet? Seems a bit extreme to deal with what's likely one vandal. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dole n' Kemp

Dole n' Kemp (talk · contribs) has been around since September and all contributions appear to be vandalism. —KCinDC (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User also claims on his/her talk page to be Fatbutt, who is blocked indefinitely. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the contributions and blocked indefinitely. Quite obviously a VOA. --Smashville 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Mayes R, Bagwell C, Erkulwater J (2008). "ADHD and the rise in stimulant use among children". Harv Rev Psychiatry. 16 (3): 151–66. doi:10.1080/10673220802167782. PMID 18569037.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Foreman DM (2006). "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: legal and ethical aspects". Arch. Dis. Child. 91 (2): 192–4. doi:10.1136/adc.2004.064576. PMID 16428370. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards