Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:18, 30 January 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Unban proposal for Rms125a@hotmail.com / User:Robert Sieger

Moved from WP:AN to here for greater visibility - Alison 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Back last summer when this editor came up for a possible unban, I vowed that if he went six months without socking I'd open a new unban proposal on him myself. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Proposed_conditional_unban_of_User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com Looks like he's held up his end of the bargain: see User:Alison/RMS log. Eliz81 has a set of conditions at User:Eliz81/RMS and has promised via e-mail that she'd support this proposal. She'll probably endorse shortly. Rms has waited on the sidelines as we've asked; let's give him another fair try. Respectfully, Durova 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What got him banned in the first place? Was it behavioral or what?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks than Sock Shop. There are 340 listed, and probably a lot that were missed, not flagged, or not associated. Black Kite 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are waaay more than that. RMS' socks go easily into the thousand - I, and others, just stopped logging them after a while - Alison 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The links Durova provided say it all. RMS has quite a...colorful history, but he's really worked hard to hold up his end of the bargain since July. Let's give him another chance to be a member of the community, under the provisions laid out in my userspace. Though maybe this request belongs in WP:ANI? ~Eliz81 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I wasn't aware that this has started already, and I'm caught a little unawares. Let me just say that RMS promised both Eliz81 and myself that after the last unsuccessful unban request, he's stay clear of Misplaced Pages and his notorious cadre of sock accounts. Well, he's done exactly that and I've been checking up on him regularly using checkuser. His IP and other tech info makes him instantly spottable. In short, he's kept up his side of the bargain. I have a pmail here from Jimmy that I was CCd on stating that he'd "support on general principles, if not been sockpuppeting in the meantime.", when 6 months has passed. I can't believe he lasted this long without socking, but he kept up his side of the deal. BTW - I've been dealing with RMS for ... what ... over three years now, and know his ways very well indeed. I've blocked more of his socks than any other admin and indeed, was vilified on-line and in the letters page of a newspaper by Robert, back in 2006 - and yes, I'd still support his unban 100%.

Having said all that, if he's to be unbanned by the community, I'd like it to be on condition that he be placed on probation for 3-6 months under the Troubles Arbitration conditions. After a while, that can be reviewed. But yes, he's been out in the cold way too long and I believe that everyone (well, almost!) is entitled to redemption. RMS, while socking, has spent most of the year keeping out of his 'hot button' articles, and had spent a lot of time wikignoming on biographical articles, and on early movie actors, etc. Time to bring him back in out of the cold! - Alison 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Eliz81's conditions are more appropriate than just Troubles Probation. I'd like to endorse that plan - Alison 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban; if they kept to the conditions, and Durova and Alison confirm they have, then we should keep to ours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although the conditions (specifically #4 and #9) should be written in such a way as to allow an account name change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• The restrictions look pretty weasel-proof but I think three months probation is too short. A review after three months may be appropriate, but the probation should be in place for at least six and preferably twelve months - a year would be normal if ArbCom sanctioned someone whose history of disruption is of this magnitude. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see little point in parole; a violation of the conditions is going to result in a block, likely indefinite and therefore a resumption of the ban, no matter if the editor is on parole or not. With their history this account does not need the stigma of parolee to ensure severe repercussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Call it probation, parole, agreed conditions, whatever - if there is no violation before everyone has forgotten the specifics then I think it won't be a problem. I just think that implying a three month limit to these restrictions is unhelpful in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of visibility here. Mind if I move the thread to ANI? - Alison 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Last time I checked email adresses were not suitable account names... - Mgm| 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS's account was created before the September watershed, so he's okay there. That comes up all the time on WP:UAA. If needs be, he also has an account in his real name - Alison 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only issues are that we cannot grant userrights to accounts with an @ sign and afaik, they cannot SUL. MBisanz 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really an issue; this was one of the accounts that got grandfathered in before the change. BTW no objection if the thread moves to ANI, Allie. Durova 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am thinking more along the lines that if he ever wants any userright like Rollback or ever wants to SUL, he'll need to be renamed, which some people will claim he is doing to hide his past. But you are correct that it does not matter if he wants to keep the account. MBisanz 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're already into worrying about this stuff, does that mean he's unbanned? ^_^ Seriously, though, he also has User:Robert Sieger, which may well be the account that gets unblocked, all going well - Alison 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why he was banned, what he has done since then, or if he should be unbanned, I'm just trying to head off the picky technical bickering that will ensue if the point is reached where a large number of people want to unban him and a large number of people want to prevent unbanning by arguing over details. Yes, I am jaded, but only because I've seen it so many times before. MBisanz 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All bans should be publically reviewed after a certain period of time, if requested by the banned editor. Misplaced Pages risk being guilty of incivility if we don't because administrators can be quite rude by email. I have experience of being mistreated at by an administrator and even told threatened with gang rape by another Wikipedian. (Ryulong and Durova both posted here, Durova was nice. No comment about Ryulong, he'll probably block me if I say anything less than stellar). What would be a suitable period of time? 1 year? 18 months? This would encourage good behavior and not using sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more appropriate to bring up at WP:VPP. — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect for Chergles's input I've created a new essay about lifting community bans. Misplaced Pages:Standard offer contains the standards I've practiced for over two years. Shortcut WP:SO. Durova 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Robert emailed me to say that he's dealing with a family issue right now and won't really be able to participate (on or off-wiki) in discussions here for the moment - Alison 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I've gone back over this guy's record - old blocks, old RFCs, etc - and it's quite clear he's a lunatic bigot. We have enough of these on Misplaced Pages without letting another one from the past back into the fold. Troubles article have plenty of nutters editing them without another one being throw in. I don't care if he's been a good little boy and avoided socking for six pathetic months - ooh, well done, would you like some chocolate cake now? Leopards spots change do not. What do you think he wants to come back for? To carry on wikignoming on movie bio articles? I really don't think so. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this in my plague archives: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Do we really think that any...person...capable of writing this revolting bile should be allowed near Misplaced Pages? Do we really? Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Keeping him from Misplaced Pages isn't actually feasible, but genuine reform may be. He has refrained from socking for half a year. Okay, let's give him a try. He'll be on the short leash and there isn't likely to be any opposition to a renewed ban if problems return. There's little to lose by giving banned users an incentive to turn over a new leaf, as long as the parameters are fair and reasonable to both sides. Not too lenient, but not impossible either. Durova 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban per Eliz81's substantive conditions although I would go along with the suggestions that a new name is used. At a guess, I think I must have unwittingly welcomed almost a dozen of RMS's sock accounts during routine work at Recent Changes. You can add quite a few welcomes later, after I became aware of the history involved and where I had a gut feeling from editing patterns that it was RMS, but there was no legitimate reason not to assume good faith. I've knocked off a couple of socks along the way :). The events that led to his banning happened before I was active on Misplaced Pages, so I wasn't involved, but they clearly and unambigiously fall into the category of "things-up-with-which-Misplaced Pages-cannot-put" if the system is to work; perhaps if I had been involved then, I probably would be reluctant to support an unban now. But the question seems to me to be: has the situation, or more accurately, has RMS moved on from 2006 and would unbanning him compromise the encyclopaedia? He has kept to his agreement not to sock. From the few interactions I have had with RMS - although granted those were with sock accounts - and from reading his edits over the course of late 2007 and early 2008, my opinion is that he has moved a long way from the RMS of 2006. And, perhaps this isn't really relevant, but the fact that he is agreeing to go through this process earns a few points from me, if only on grounds of "intestinal fortitude". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Without going into too much detail, Robert had some personal issues back in 2006 that would certainly have caused problems, especially those outbursts that Moreschi noted above. That's all been resolved now and is in the past, and he's unlikely to go back to that behaviour. That's all I can say, really - Alison 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And you believe him when he says this? "Oh, sorry, I couldn't help all the xenophobia and racism, I was a bit stressed at the time"? Do we have any proof of this? These conditions are incredibly generous. I could maybe support if the topic ban from Troubles articles was lifetime, but 6 months? You must be joking. Moreschi (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nip some Wiki-stalking in the bud, hopefully

NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor heavily involved in the range of Israeli-Palestine articles, as am I. As we obviously have divergent points of view on the subject matter, there will be the expected disagreement tension. We can all expect and handle that. However, I become a bit concerned when this user suddenly appears in the middle of an editing dispute regarding notability in an article about a Seinfeld episode, with 3 edits; one a minor link adjustment , one a reversion of my previous edit , and one in the article talk page taking the view in opposition to my own . Looking at it now, I realize that my last edits there were a week ago, even, so even more peculiar that Nocal100 would suddenly appear there and dust this off.

I've dealt with this sort of problem before, and would rather not go down this road again. The desired outcome here is not punitive, but rather that NoCal100 simply be admonished that following the edits of users with whom he has disagreements with and reverting them on subject matters in complete left field from where one normally encounters them is unacceptable behavior. Obviously everyone is allowed to edit anywhere in the project, but the possibility that another I-P editor just happens to find the same article of a TV show that I am editing on by chance is rather improbable. Special:Contributions/Tarc was clearly the road oft-taken here. Tarc (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone involved in the content dispute with Tarc, I saw the edit war this has set off. I have to say, this does seem to be a pretty clear cut case of wikistalking (or wikihounding, or whatever we're supposed to call it); a look thru NoCal100's contribs shows no interest at all in this kind of article, and a heavy overlap with Tarc on Isreal-Palestine articles. Although NoCal100 is actually agreeing with me, content-wise, out of an abundance of caution (no ZOMG involved admin! accusations), I'll ask another uninvolved admin to review what's going on, ask/tell NoCal100 to keep the battle mentality out of unrelated articles, and decide whether protection and/or 3RR warnings are appropriate for either editor. --barneca (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one article is anything to raise a fuss over. Believe me, I know whereof I speak; I've had editors follow me to multiple articles, with very little in the way of consequence, let alone "admonishment." If he makes a habit of it, then come back. IronDuke 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Having been a focus of Zeq's CAMERA fiasco, I'm well-aware, hence the "nip in the bud" approach. This is a clear first step on a well-trod path of harassment that many of the I-P editors have had to deal with, from both "sides". I'd rather see it stopped now before mushrooming as past cases have. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a content dispute with Tarc at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni , where he is removing material sourced to a book published by a mainstream press and authored by two academics, claiming it is non-notable "cruft" - and violating WP:BLP by calling those two academic "quacks". WP:HOUND is very explicit that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Given the seriousness of the BLP violations, I had a look at Tarc's contribution history to see if he is repeating these BLP violations elsewhere, and found The Serenity Now article, where surprisingly, Tarc is inserting true fancruft, sourced to a Youtube video into an unrelated article, against the consensus of multiple editors - a problem which I fixed. NoCal100 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Had a hunch that that was the angle which you were going to cast, but I sincerely hope that no one nibbles. This isn't about me, and others, who have dismissed the "sources" at that article as non-reliable frauds perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and these "academics" are anything but. It would be interesting to note that, while Mohammad Amin al-Husayni most certainly falls in to the I-P realm, NoCal100 had never touched that particular article until a few days ago as well, swooping into to revert to back to an edit made there by a new user, Tanbycroft (talk · contribs). This gets a little curiouser the more one digs. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have complained of NoCal's habit of stalking them. I haven't complained. I just noted it on my page. here, and I think once to Elonka. My own case is fairly obvious. I corrected him on his confusion of 'flout' and 'flaunt', and quickly afterwards he appeared on one of the rarest pages in the I/P area, that of Nafez Assaily, a Hebron pacifist, which I had written. It is extremely difficult to imagine that he came across that page in oany other way than by looking at my contributions, and going there to niggle, or assist the since-banned dogmatic editor who attacked that page. He appeared as attempts were being made to get the page deleted. His editing is obnoxiously uninformed. He rarely engages in dialogue of justifications of what he is doing. His preferred modus operandi is reverting. I, like Tarc, have worked the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni page for some two years. I think I've revised intensively half of it. Sure enough, just as that page is disturbed by a newbie with no record of editing Wiki, and is challenged by both Tarc and myself, NoCal100 wheels in, and supports the newbie.

I imagine nothing will be done. I should hope, for the third time, that administrators in the area look at his methods, which are those of provocative attrition.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at Tarc's contribution history to see if he is repeating these BLP violations elsewhere, and found The Serenity Now article, where surprisingly, Tarc is inserting true fancruft,

That sir, is virtually an admission you tracked Tarc there. And worse still, the edit conflict at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni had nothing to do with the ostensible reason you introduced,i.e. WP:BLP violations. Whatever the virtues of the other text, Tarc, as I, and Imad Marie, were defending the al-Husayni article against cruft, which violated WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, as shown by detailed argument (to which NoCal hasn't deigned to reply to. He just keeps reverting three times a day). So, the excuse you supply is, by your own words, invalid. You supported a violation of two core policies on one page, and then chased one of the editors to another page to challenge him on a quite distinct issue, WP:BLP. Thanks for clarifying the plaintiff's case against you.-Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given NoCalton a 3RR warning re Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you haven't done the same for the other participants in that edit war - e.g User:Tarc (2 reverts in the last 24hrs, same as NoCal) or Nishidani. Or why no warning for User:Tarc's 3 reverts on The Serenity Now. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tarc, of course. But I presume an administrator does actually check the thread of talk. NoCal was asked to talk over the edit and justify it. The edit was ungrammatical. He still reverted, and would not give a rationale for the persistence as was asked of him. When it was pointed out he was restoring material he obviously hadn't read since it contained poor grammar anyone would sight, he told us to clean up the grammar ourselves of an bad edit he persisted in posting without correcting ( = 'I edit. You clean up after me, and don't revert it, except for improving it'). In other words, he refused to correct one of the many objectionable things about his edit. Remonstration finally got him to do this, but he still plugged away, and would supply no substantial reason other than his own definition of what is RS. It's one thing to be sucked into an edit-war reluctantly, while repeated requests for dialogue have been ignored. It is another to persist in edit-warring while showing a complete contempt for the objections raised by your interlocutors. One judges not just edit numbers, but attitude. Or I hope some administrators do this.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Talk page in question, your explanation does not seem to hold up to scrutiny. NC has provided numerous explanations for his edits - here, here, here and . In contrast, User:Tarc has not participated in any Talk page discussion since January 22nd, and during that time has reverted the article 4 times, the last 2 within the last 24 hours. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to what Nishidani said: If one editor is reverting three or more times, and two or more editors are each reverting less than three times, I'll only warn the one, because to me that looks like that one person is reverting instead of discussing, which is disruptive. Hope this clarifies matters. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarc has thrice reverted on The Serenity Now - why no warning? On Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, The reverts of Tarc and NC appear to be on par - both have reverted 2 times in the last 24 hrs, and NC appears to have been discussing things much more actively and more recently on the Talk page. Your actions seem quite one-sided to me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about the importance of this user being issued a warning, feel free to issue one yourself. My reading of the article history - and I looked back further than 24 hours - is very different from yours. Bias on my part is certainly one of the plausible explanations for that difference. Per MastCell's excellent suggestion, I'm not going to follow that line of reasoning. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I, too, looked back further than 24 hours. As my post above indicates, I looked as far back as January 22nd, and found at least 4 Talk page contributions by NC, and none by Tarc. On the article itself, from Jan 18 until today, I found 6 reverts by NC and 8 reverts by Tarc. So yes, while your reading of the article history is very different than mine, it is not clear at all what your reading is based on, and it is that which I'd like you to explain. It is of course quite possible that bias on your part is the explanation for that difference, but if that is the case you should probably not be issuing one-sided warnings, certainly not in an administrative capacity. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into another Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Excessive block row (which I refrained from weighting in on) where all the usual I-P ducks get in their respective rows and poo-fling, please. I have had a history with Canadian Monkey, dating back to the Rachel Corrie stuff from last summer. These attempts to get me warned, or worse, are appearing to be a bit petty. I reverted 3 times, which I have rarely, if ever, done previously, due to the egregiously bad faith that NoCal100 was displaying by even being at The Serenity Now in the first place, as detailed here. Obviously there's never a good excuse for revert multiple times except to protect BLP or remove vandalism (which this was not), but it is nonetheless the reason that I did it, and stopped at 3. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You came here with a self-proclaimed goal "that NoCal100 simply be admonished" - and you are now complaining that people are attempting to get you warned, over actions that you concede "there's never a good excuse for"? Please take the beam out of your eye before pointing out motes in others'. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

← Some suggestions, in no particular order:

• YouTube generally isn't a great source. Material should probably stay out of an article until properly sourced. Don't edit-war to reinsert poorly-sourced material; spend the effort on locating a better source instead.
• If someone pisses you off, don't follow them to an unrelated article to disagree with them. It's textbook Wikihounding, or whatever we're calling it these days, and it's obnoxious.

As for the rest, nothing short of a steel-cage match is likely to resolve it, so I'd suggest it be ignored. Serenity now, people. MastCell  20:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this balanced response and insights. Though I have crossed paths with both Tarc and NoCal before, my interest in this thread is a personal one, relating to wikipedia policy, rather than in either one of these editors. I have very recently found myself hounded by an editor who exhibited more egregious behavior than the single-article-following which is the cause for this current complaint. The editor who was following me around to numerous articles was explicit about his actions, in one case undoing my edit with an edit summary that said 'I spotted this just now, and thought I'd revert you here too.' I posted a notice on this board - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181#Wikihounding by User:Nickhh, looking for nothing more than to get that behavior to stop, perhaps by having an admin pronounce, just as you have done, that "It's textbook Wikihounding, or whatever we're calling it these days, and it's obnoxious". Instead, the responses I got were 'I do not think any reasonable user would consider a review of the contribution page of someone you had contact with stalking.' and 'simply following the work of another editor and occasionally dropping in to oppose that editor is NOT harassment.'. Needless to say, as he was not admonished, that editor proceeded to follow me around to another article in the next few days, in order to oppose me there. Perhaps there could be some clarification on what wikihounding actually is, and why these two cases are being treated differently. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite so, and this is the point I was making earlier. As a person who has been wikistalked by experts (and my complaints met with yawns and giggles), reverting a copyvio(?) YouTube link is small potatoes. IronDuke 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On the YouTube issue, there's a high probability that the video is a copyvio and so should not be linked at all: see WP:YOUTUBE. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably willing to concede that at this point, yes. Honest input into the matter was always desired, but the problem was that that was not given by the presence of Nocal100 on that article. As far as I can see, this is probably wrapped up, AN/I-wise. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Without comment on the merits of other issues, if the YouTube hosting is copyvio it must be delinked per WP:COPYRIGHT. YouTube itself is not a hosting service, not a source, and legitimate YouTube material must be weighed upon the reliability of the uploader. Durova 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is copyvio an issue if a person or group releases it on youtube or similar venues themselves? I'm not clear on that. And if a reliable source could be found that covers the event, the video itself wouldn't even be needed. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

John254 and Kristen Eriksen

This case goes back a few months, and has left some of us scratching our heads, but I think I've come to a conclusion. There is extremely strong evidence that John254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been abusively sockpuppeting with the account Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the past several months.

User:Kristen Eriksen joined on 2008-08-14, and immediately started editing like a seasoned user: her first edit was to add Lupin's tool to her monobook.js, and within her first day started fighting vandalism with automated tools, requesting permissions, and adding userboxes to her userpage; within two days of registration, she was commenting on ongoing arbitration cases. All not exactly hallmarks of a new user.

A couple weeks after this, an account was created impersonating yours truly - Crimp It! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who tried to MfD "Kristen's" userpage on mock puritanical grounds. A private checkuser inquiry found that Crimp It! was a confirmed sockpuppet of Kristen, though there was no clear connection to another master account at the time. Thus while I blocked Kristen at the time as another sockpuppet, it was decided to unblock as no clear evidence as to who the master was.

But since then, I've found many instances of evidence identifying Kristen Eriksen as a sockpuppet of the user John254.

• From August 12-14, John254 commented many times on a deletion review over some userboxes I'd deleted ("this user loves shemales," "this user loves blondes," etc.). One of his comments:

Furthermore, even if the "female editors' objections" inverse ad hominem argument against these userboxes were deductively valid (which it isn't), the fact that some female editors have placed these userboxes on their own userpages undermines its central premise (see, for example, and ). While the fact that female editors have employed these userboxes does not, by itself, establish that the userboxes aren't "sexist, divisive, and pointless", it serious weakens an argument for deletion that is predicated entirely upon the gender of the editors criticizing the userboxes. John254 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• A couple hours after John254's last comment at the DRV, User:Kristen Eriksen was created. As mentioned above, one of the account's first edits was to create a userpage, claiming to be an eighteen-year-old female editor and adding userboxes claiming to enjoy nudity and body painting, as if to validate John254's assertion that "some female editors have placed these userboxes on their own userpages."
• While the two had never interacted on the project in the past, six days after Kristen had joined, after returning from a 24-hour "extended wikibreak" John254 presents Kristen a barnstar out of the blue "for your kindness in helping me to resolve Misplaced Pages-related stress." He also created a monobook.js for her.
• When the Kristen account was questioned about the confirmed sockpuppet Crimp It!, John254 immediately sprung to her defense and refactored her talk page. The Kristen account only responded several days later, on the 29th - a day that John254 did not edit at all, but at a time around when he would normally.
• Expanding on this last point, John254's contributions and Kristen Eriksen's contributions fit the classic pattern of sockpuppets, in that the periods of editing are constantly interwoven but never actually overlap. For example, John edited on the 18th of August, Kristen on the 19th, John on the 20th, etc... sometimes replying to each other's comments or giving each other a barnstar. On the few days where they both edit, their bursts of editing are still separated. (See November 23, for example, when both edited Covert incest, but at different times of day; or January 10.) This pattern seems very consistent with use of multiple computers, which would explain the inconclusive checkuser results back in August.
• But the final nail in the coffin: John254 stopped editing January 11th. The very next day, Kristen Eriksen copied his monobook.js and continued editing where he left off in the same times, in the same areas.

The evidence that John254 and Kristen Eriksen are one in the same seems extremely strong. What is the community's opinion? krimpet✽ 09:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like it is. Maybe a trip to WP:SSP will do. However as per her edits are concerned, looks like it is constructive. Also, from this user's edits as User:Kristen Eriksen, it looks like that there is an another account (probably the master account also with the Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool) that can justify this user's edits. I'd say make a note on her talkpage and block the puppets. E Wing (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These are some pretty strong accusations, and I think it may be worth hearing some explanation from the users mentioned; I notice this has come up for discussion before, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive164#Accusation of abusive sockpuppetry and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177#Inappropriate block (both threads started by John254, looks like). As far as checkuser goes, I'm not finding any direct overlap, but the IPs involved geolocate similarly. The behavioral cues Krimpet's mentioned here do seem to suggest some connection between these accounts exists, regardless of whether the nature of that connection is malicious. Could be that someone's editing with one account from Location A, and the other account from Location B; could be that they're friends offline; could be something else entirely. Whatever the case, I hope we can see some productive discussion here with a minimum of drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Certain aspects of the evidence I provided lead me to believe they are the same person, rather than two people who are acquaintances offline: it seems a bit improbable, for example, that the same day John254 was protesting the deletion of several sexual userboxes, that he convinced his eighteen-year-old nudist female friend to join Misplaced Pages and add those userboxes to her userpage. That he managed to explain to her the workings of ArbCom cases within the next few days seems only more puzzling. krimpet✽ 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That does seem pretty remarkable. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have thought there was something up with KE since (s)he? arrived. No strong comment on whether it is the same person, but it certainly looks suspicious. Viridae 10:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • OK having read the evidence through properly now I agree with Krimpet that the evidence seems strong. One thing that eluded me was a reason for the noob mistake of having the sock appear out of nowhere and suddenly participate like an old hand. But as we have seen in the past, sometimes these things HAVE no good, well thought out reasoning. Viridae 10:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Well, one thing that I note is the common habit of doing Non-admin closings on AfD at the same time of the day in the 00.00 - 01:00 UTC range, and more significantly almost always early on the fourth day of the listing. Now, to hear their point it is necessary to notify in any case KE as well. If they are the same, which seems at least possible, we would certainly have to look into the resulting disruption and deception, but the actual amount of abuse isn't obvious to me. One 'double' vote I came across was on a DRV, incidentally regarding a deletion by Krimpet, and endorsed by both. In other cases they qualify each other.. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is being investigated by various CUs. I ran some checks back in the Crimp It time period as did other CUs. That's all I am prepared to say at this time. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i actuall dealt with this user briefly while we were both editng acovert incest. she Seemed capable, thoug her userpage made it hard to communicate (all those increadably large image slow up my computer a lot!) but now that i have ereviwed User Crimpits evidence i can see that, even if kristen and john231 are different peple, kristens acctions re: the fake account user: Crimp It merit some action since that cna possibly have a negative aimpact on another innocent user:crimpit. kristens insisted on inserting himself or herself into major dbates could be also a clue of either meatpuppetry or suckputtering. Smith Jones (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please define "suckputtering." Edison (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, is it something from one of Kristen's movies? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Last time I suckputtered myself, it made me go blind. – iridescent 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Golf course sex? Edison (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably related to token sucking. --NE2 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, its something that kiss-up caddies do. Schmidt, 02:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

however, due to kristens lack of vandalism (appearant), iw ould like to present this WP:SOCK#LEGIT link. in it postulates that sometimes sockpopers are allowed in certain cirucmstances such as to avoid scrutiny or perform security agaginst the main accont. krimpet mentioned that htis user seemed to be operating from different computers; perhaps the acocunt User:Kristen Eriksen was devleoped for editing when at a public computer where it is probable that htis accounts informatinoa could be stealed. in this case thaen this mightbe a legit use of a sockpuppet, or although i understand if this iseems impalausible. Smith Jones (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To veer straight off the topic, your new terminology has me grinning madly. I hope there are more opportunities in the future to refer to suckputtering sockpopers. rspεεr (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone who has interacted with Kristen Eriksen has come to the conclusion that the person operating the account is not new to Misplaced Pages. I had hoped to research their edit history to try and figure out who they were, but it appears Krimpet already did it for me. After reviewing the evidence and hearing Luna-San's negative assurance (there is no evidence that indicates Kristen Eriksen and John254 are not the same person), I would agree with the conclusion that for Misplaced Pages's purposes, Kristen Eriksen and John254 should be treated as the same person. MBisanz 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If they are the same person, it is likely that the checkuser result will be inconclusive, unless he has slipped up recently. It would be useful to have someone independently analyze their edit times. Assume that they are the same person, and that he travels to a particular location to edit as KE so that there will be no IP connections between KE and himself. Can this hypothesis be disproved by an analysis of their edit times? Thatcher 14:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If he lived in an apartment/dorm building he could use one account from a wired connection and a second account piggybacked to a wireless connection that would route to a neighbor's wired connection, which could be on an entirely different ISP. And of course he could be using some for of VPN/secure proxy to come in through a hosting server, etc. Edit times are likely to be inconclusive at proving guilt or innocence IMO. MBisanz 14:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I checkusered KE some time ago. I never had a reason to check John, but I know where KE edited from and that there are no other interesting editors at that location/IP range. Therefore, unless there is a recent slip, current CU results will also be inconclusive at best. Thatcher 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had all just listened to me and deleted userboxes when we had the chance, this wouldn't've happened. Just saying. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should bring that up again??--Tom 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it - if this had not come up about userboxes it would have been something else. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, if these are two different people editing from two different locations who tend to make similar edits at similar times, then it must be likely that on at least one day the two of them were online and editing at the same time. The sockpuppet theory is falsifiable, in other words. Reading the above analysis, I'm leaning towards sockpuppetry on the balance of probability, but I do not have enough time to examine their contribs in detail. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that it what I said. Unless there has been a recent slip-up, the technical evidence will be inconclusive as Luna said above. Therefore, the hypothesis that they are the same person is not provable but may be falsifiable. CHL has now made an attempt at doing so. Thatcher 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i have refiewed Mr John's block log. he has an expired 24 hour block for inciviliy that was 2 years ago. is it possible that hei si sin fact relapsing into his old ways? some of us sohould ty and review his contribs to check for any vandlaism or inciviltiy connected with User:Krsten Eriksen and copared it to John's incvility. often sockpuppets have the same writing style or patter n of abuse as the sockmaster. Smith Jones (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They never edit at the same time (no interleaving). I think they're socks. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see here. There are 451 pages that both accounts have edited. Take special notice to those edits in the Misplaced Pages namepace (i.e.: AfD, Featured Picture and other votes) where both accounts were used. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless a checkuser says otherwise (i.e. that they're unlikely to be the same user), I'm prepared to tag them and block them indefinitely, which appears to be the correct course given the nature of the socking. Objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means block KE, but I don't think John should be blocked - see below. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Per what I interpret as consensus here (both as to the existence of sockpuppetry and the proper solution) I've blocked KE indefinitely. I still support a comparable remedy for John - when established contributors use sockpuppetry abusively and deliberately violate the community's trust, we should punt them - but won't take any action given the lack of consensus on the subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't block John indefinitely, but I'd definitely give him a lengthy block, as his socking violations were quite flagrant. Gaming the system by participating twice in many discussions? he doesn't have my sympathy. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note also that both accounts were posting to the workshop of the Scientology arbitration case, playing different sides of the fence and even arguing with each other. The space taken up by John254 in particular nearly made the page unreadable. He appeared to be highly partisan and aggressive for no apparent reason, but if both accounts are him that's outright trolling. See:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Proposals_by_Kristen_Eriksen
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Proposals_by_John254

Disrupting arbitration is a serious matter. Durova 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Smacks of a Locke/Demosthenes powerplay. –xeno (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For those of you less versed in great science fiction, Xeno is referring to manipulating a debate by becoming the figure head of two opposing sides, and then using your influence together later.--Tznkai (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fooled me; I thought KE was a honeytrap of some other account, and that John254 was a potential victim (I have to say that I wasn't following the events too closely though). From the evidence of no overlapping, similar interests, and the matter of KE having the details of where that account and John254's disagreed so readily to hand does suggest a co-ordinated campaign... Anyone have any particular idea what the objective was, since there is an apparent divergence of intent between the two personae? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  See the diff posted by GTD above... –xeno (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Am I the only one who finds anything ironic in the user warning Kristen against "erotophobic bigots" being the same user who wanted a health warning added to "Masturbation"? – iridescent 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume they are the same

Let's assume it is the same person operating the accounts (the evidence looks strong to say the least, especially when you compare edit times). What sanctions to people actually think should be placed on the accounts? I think it's clear that the KE account should be blocked and John limited to one account, but does anyone believe John should be sanctioned? Now that it's been found out, John should be strongly cautioned about sockpuppeteering and that in the future he would be blocked for a long time should he caught using socks. John has an extensive editing history and most of his work is very much productive - I see this as a severe lack of judgement, but not something that should see him hang. In the mean time, I do suggest we look over discussions that both accounts have participated in to make sure that their comments haven't affected the outcome of them. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Rjd's evidence above, this is the kind of socking that I think merits (and usually gets, when engaged in by less established contributors) indef blocks all around. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or at least a punishment that's very severe. --Cyde Weys 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Men pretending to be women and trying to sexually titillate other editors, we've been here before! As Sarcasticidealist, others would be blocked for this. At the time measures are being taken to make Misplaced Pages more respectable, we have editors on here making a joke of other editors. Disgraceful behaviour. GTD 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with GTD. This isn't by any stretch a legitimate alternative account, this is an established editor votestacking after already being caught socking once with the Crimp It! account. – iridescent 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indef both accounts and formalise it with a ban. This was not harmless socking, it was entirely abusive including vote stacking etc. We have plenty enough users that we can do without those who so blatantly and wilfully flout our rules. Viridae 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the one AFDs and two DRVs where there was duplicate participation. In the AFD KE participated and John closed, but it was the only possible closure given the other participants opinions, so the right outcome resulted. One of the DRV's KE nominated, John participated, and the close would have been the same had John not participated. In the other DRV the close would have been the same had neither participated.

I don't much care about the two WP:RFAR Workshop pages where they both participated; the effect of their action their would have been at most minimal.

I am most concerned about the RFA, where both accounts were more vocal than the typical RFA supporter in their support of the candidate, and persuaded at least one opposer to remove their opposition, and who knows what the effect of the discussion was on later opiners. I'd suggest that be fully reviewed. GRBerry 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support an indef block, but saving that, at least 90 days block on John254 for deceiving the community, socking, etc. MBisanz 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They both should be indefinitely blocked, per my comment above. It would be a different story if the two accounts did not edit the same pages, but voting the same way on RfA's, AfD's, Featured picture candidates, etc. is far too disruptive and a blatant abuse of alternate accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been noted elsewhere, this edit suggests serious foul play, if the two accounts are indeed the same. I would suggest a ban is considered. GTD 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now blocked John254 indefinitely. I would be glad to be proven wrong here, but the evidence strongly and substantially suggests not only the use of alternate accounts in a deceptive manner (talking to each other, making political points, etc.), but also abusing multiple accounts in various on-wiki votes. This type of behavior is simply unacceptable, a principle that has been re-affirmed countless times over the past years. If significant evidence comes to light that disproves what has been said here, the indefinite block can be obviously be revisited. But, frankly, I doubt that will ever happen. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Vote stacking RFA, AFD, DRV, and featured processes is a standard cause for sitebanning. If there are reasons why this should be any exception, please bring them forward. So far I see none. Durova 18:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If true, this was a pretty serious and pathetic abuse of trust + lying about themselves + sockpuppeting + occasional vote stacking + deliberately winding up Krimpet + attempts to get one to pass RFA + general patheticness, this isn't really some minor error Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with above comments and support the indef blocks of John254 (talk · contribs) and Kristen Eriksen‎ (talk · contribs). Disruptive behavior at an active Arbitration Case, RFA, AFD, DRV, etc, is indeed cause for sitebanning. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with indef of Kristen Eriksen - abstain on John254 for now except to say I find the deception inherent in sockpuppetry to be the problem, and a serious one. I'd like for a CU to weigh in.--Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What would you like a CU to weigh in on? If these two users are the same person, the things done (as Durova listed) are deceptive enough that an indef block/ban for both is warranted. In my considered judgment, having run checks here more than once over a period of time, a CU cannot at this time show they are the same, to the level of confidence used when CUs say  Confirmed. Nor can it show they are not the same, to the level of confidence used when CUs say  Unrelated (I'm not talking certainty here, CU never is certain/infallible). But the time based edit analysis is damning. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Good enough.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll second that, for what it's worth. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Unless we see some clear evidence that these are different people, this looks like a conclusive demonstration of bad faith and as such, according to my understanding of policy, grounds for a ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Well if everyone else is in favor of an indefinite block/ban, I'm not one to argue. That's acceptable to me. --Cyde Weys 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I concur with a block/ban for both IDs. I suspect I'm not the only CU that had suspected something all along. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I support indef block or ban for both. This is pretty obvious, pretty extreme, an overall pretty clear-cut case. Really good work from all the investigators who gathered this strong evidence. delldot ∇. 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• KE is too obviously a false front (in a manner of speaking) and should be indeffed - I think we should wait for John254's response before making a decision on that account, but it would need to be pretty strong for a lengthy sanction not to be imposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'd agree with delldot and preceding - asking oneself to run for RfA...the arguing etc. This is not impulsive nor is it brief, but sustained. I think indef block both is appropriate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Casliber put his finger on the matter. I wouldn't have given two shakes of a USB cable about this sock puppeting, except that one account managed to get the Admin bit for the other. That indicates bad faith here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Well they didn't manage to get it but they were making steps towards it. –xeno (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ban both. We don't tolerate screwing around like this. Plus, the John account was a habitual disruptor of arbitration and a vexatious litigator. He'll be little missed - or she? Ah, fond memories of the PoetBeast flood back...Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Seems like there is community consensus for a ban, so I'm tagging. Secret 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• This evidence while not nailing it to the wall is pretty conclusive. Especially the part about copying the monobook and continuing his edits.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Too much here to ignore...I'm comfortable with an indef block+ban for both accounts. Proffered explanations to this point appear unsatisfactory. — Scientizzle 02:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban on John254, who has done a lot of good work and should have a place here. The best outcome for the encyclopedia is not an outcome that bars this person from volunteering. Everyking (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• ahas john254 ben given a chance to respond this charges? has he ven loged in recently? this is a major deal and would benefit from at least gietng to here him speak. we have heard kristen eriksens defense on her talkapge but john254s silence as well as his history of having at last some contrustive editing makes me want to hold off un permanelty closing the case and indefinitely banning him until he at least says something about this crises. Smith Jones (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I concur with the ban of KE. I currently have no opinion on what to do about John254. GRBerry 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• These things about not banning John254 don't make any sense. John254 and Kristen Eriksen are the same person. Blocks are a technical measure that apply to an account or an IP, while bans are a social measure that apply to the person behind each account. Therefore, banning Kristen Eriksen and banning John254 are exactly the same action.
  It sounds like what some people are advocating is not to ban this person, but just to stop him from using his Kristen Eriksen character. That's a huge underreaction. John (the person) was trying to manipulate Misplaced Pages, trying to make himself an admin in naked-chick form, stacking votes, disrupting discussions, and lying about it the whole time. He needs to be banned, not just prohibited from being "Kristen". rspεεr (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume they're not the same

I'm not saying this to defend KE, or to spite the previous section. I just want to create a space where we can discuss this under the assumption that they're not the same. Please see my little stub of an essay for why I think this is helpful.

AFAIK, the alleged puppeteer has not been banned, so they is not evading a ban, which means we're not making a terrible mistake by assuming they're not the same. That leads us to the most important question: Did the account KE, by itself, do anything that needs to get banned? — Sebastian 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to do exactly what John254 would do in a situation like this: file a request for arbitration . — CharlotteWebb 19:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A valid question especially as this thread has now resulted in both accounts being blocked for which I'd have liked to have seem some more discussion of the impact, possible counter indication, their productive contributions as well as a stronger consensus before the second block. In case there was consensus for one indef block only, I'd have suggested to put it somewhat against usual procedure unto John254. If they are not the same he might be Gentleman enough to take the bullet or simply not care anymore while Kristen could resume editing once the community thinks there is no further danger and if she is still interested. Now both accounts are blocked, but the question remains the same as it is Kristen who asks for an unblock.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite here. If they're not the same, KE is obviously not on her first account. On her third day as an editor, she was already familiar with Esperanza and had a strong opinion as to its inappropriateness. If she isn't John254, perhaps she could disclose previous account(s) or IP(s) to a checkuser for examination? --B (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. It is irrelevant for this section. Please read my essay, which explains why. (I probably should rename this section to "AGF still provides value here", or some such.) — Sebastian 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, the evidence is overwhelming and AGF only goes so far. AGF isn't a parachute for those who decide to blatantly abuse editing privileges. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"AGF only goes so far" - That's precisely the mindset that I'm trying to get out of your head. It's sad enough that you have no better reason than what amounts to "I don't want to". I actually made the experience that it can go a lot further than this! If you have any evidence against that, please show it to us. (Preferably at User talk:SebastianHelm/Sock hunt.) — Sebastian 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that a policy like AGF is completely impossible to abuse, then I'm not going to argue. Besides, this is going off-topic. I don't have the time nor motivation to explain these things to you. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

   (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.) — Sebastian 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone believes this nonsense

I do not know either John254 or Kristin Erikson and recently stumbled across this. But, I have to say this looks like a witch hunt with evidence that wouldn't even hold up as circumstantial. They can't prove they're not socks, so they must be. And any evidence to the contrary is more proof because it must have been deliberately planted. If we ban then and they drown, then they must have been innocent after all. Personally, I've been editing Misplaced Pages since the beginning (late 2001), both as an IP user and with an account that I have abandoned, so I fully understand KE appearing on Misplaced Pages knowing more than you think a new user ""should". I would bet that the vast majority (like 99%) of users spend some time editing as an IP user before they create an account -- the only question is how long they spend that way. It looks like KE didn't bother creating an account until she found a need to do so. That not only is not wrong, it should be encouraged.

Like KE, I have also edited extensively as an IP. For the most part, I found no reason to create an account, but I created a new account recently with my real name and, of course, my new account appeared to be an expert about Misplaced Pages immediately. Like KE, I also dive deeply into things. Were you to accuse me of being John254's sock puppet, I would do the same that she did -- dig into his edit history and compare it to mine to look for evidence to prove my innocence. Most of the contributors here have dug into KE's edit history and now may well know more about it than she does -- are you therefore sock puppets too?

Suggesting that defending herself with evidence, against people who are accusing her with flimsy evidence, is ridiculous. And, to argue that she would have deliberately created arguments with herself and other contrary evidence, over a long period of time, just in case anybody ever complained is hard to believe.

At best, the evidence here looks like collusion, not sock puppetry, and I don't even see that. But, even so, there is no rule against collusion on Misplaced Pages. And we see it all the time, with people cooperating on edits. I personally have emailed people I know to suggest that they edit pages in which I had an interest. Doing so does not make them my sock puppet or vice versa, whether they agree with me or disagree with me.

To me, this flimsy house of cards rush to judgment and assumption of guilt represents the very worst of Misplaced Pages, and I think that even if it turns out that they are witches (uh, sock puppets). And I, personally, do not believe it to be true after reading this and the information on KE's page.

RoyLeban (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:DUCK; the truth of the matter is that if the community is wrong (and that is entirely possible... theoretically) then the project suffers by the removal of two or more potentially useful members, but if the community is right - as it is by a huge percentage - then potential trouble is avoided. Please note that many commenting here are seasoned editors with experience of detecting socks and their masters - and even some who were unaware of the socking situation had concerns about the KE account from some time back. Two last points - don't. go. to. WP:SPI (you won't like it!), and, no relation to Judge Roy Leban then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why would someone with sense or experience create this as a userpage? And use this as a signature? Real women on the Internet get more unwanted sexual attention from deviant males than anybody likes to deal with. And sometimes end up going to the police about it (possibly asking the advice of experienced female editors first). If this were an actual woman it's dubious she'd put up those boxes even if they were true, and she'd likely ask for the page to be deleted within a month. That 'she' kept it up until the sockpuppet template took its place today, and joined so soon after 'her friend' engaged in a dispute about that type of userbox, strains credibility. This is more characteristic of male sockpuppeteers, and a rather blatant example. Durova 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just reading her interactions, it's so obviously a parody it's hilarious. For some reason, I read the mutual gushing with John654 and think encouraging Norwegians love Emerald Nuts. --B (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

People are convicted of murder based on "circumstantial evidence." You don't understand what that term means. Here we're just trying to build an encyclopedia, and we make the best judgments we can. It seems likely that user has disrupted the project, and I can say this is not the only account apparently connected to these two to have done so. It's a pattern of abuse, and it needs to stop, so we're stopping it.

Incidentally, this certainly isn't collusion; the reason sock-puppetry has not previously been established is that the user has employed different computers at different times to edit Misplaced Pages. If they had edited in collusion, they might have once edited at the same time. But they don't; these edits sprang from a discrete human being. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a really stupid question. I'm assuming that the checkusers have ascertained if, in fact, this person is editing from a university and what university that is. Have any checkusers checked that school's directory to see if someone with the name Kristen Eriksen exists? At Tech, we have what we jokingly call Hokie Stalker and I'm assuming most schools have something similar. If this is a real and not a made up persona, it should be that hard to verify. Personally, I think it stretches the imagination. She lives in the dorm, edits Misplaced Pages nude, is 18 (a freshman), and is a pornstar? I don't think so. But in the off chance it's true, a checkuser could confirm it by using the appropriate search engine or asking her to email you from a school-issued email address. --B (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This school does not produce a public student directory, but your email suggestion is a good idea. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have plenty of other things to do, so I'm not planning on checking in on this in the future. Do what you will. But, I feel a couple of responses are useful:

1. I'm not new. I'm certainly familiar with WP:SPI and may other Misplaced Pages policies I disagree with. Just because a guideline exists doesn't mean that I agree with it. Just because mob rule is "legal" doesn't make it right. I see a lot of vitriol in discussions like this and it makes me sick. It is a duty of the citizenry (of Misplaced Pages or any community) to speak out against things they believe are wrong. Otherwise, I would have just let this pass.
2. I don't care what the guidelines say -- asking a friend of mine to weigh in on a discussion is not sock puppetry or meat puppetry or any other puppetry if I don't tell my friend what to say. Those who know me know are well aware that I solicit the opinions of people that I agree with as well as those that I disagree with so as to have more inclusive discussions and we all benefit from such discussions. Any guideline on Misplaced Pages that discourages inclusive discussions should be ignored. I don't like seeing one person take over an article because they have more time to edit. I don't like seeing AfDs that kill significant contributions to Misplaced Pages that only have three people voting on them (or many voters but no actual discussion whatsoever). Etc.
3. Yeah, I understand circumstantial evidence. Saying I don't turns this into a personal attack which is uncalled for (this is the tip of the iceberg of the vitriol I refer to above -- is it really necessary to attack me too?). Notice I said "that wouldn't even hold up as circumstantial", not that it was circumstantial. It's coincidental evidence. They're both in the same city of 2 million. Yeah, right. Kirsten has too much evidence for why she's not John, so she must be John. Yeah, right. I'm not saying that they are different people or that they are the same person. I have no insider knowledge. But, I'm certainly not convinced by the supposed evidence and I don't like this process.

RoyLeban (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review outed them as sockpuppets on August 26. The self-serving arguments with each other and effusive compliments have to be seen in that light. Then they mutually disappear for over a month (ie, enough time for any potential slipups a checkuser might detect to go away), then return. You're not going to get something more rock solid than this case. --B (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence is anything probative in the matter. Editing times are certainly probative into sockpuppetry. I inferred that you misunderstood the word—as most people in the popular press do—nothing personal. I'm sorry you felt that it was an attack. Incidentally, since you're opposed to vitriolic rhetoric, I hope that you abstain from claiming that Wikipedians are drowning accused witches in the future.

As for the case, I made similar inferences to User:B above. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

@Luke: I hadn't planned to come back, but someone told me you'd responded to me. So ... I accept your apology. I intended my own comments of drowning, etc., to simply be in the vein of the metaphor of a "witch hunt" that had been brought up by others, not to be literal, semi-literal, vitriolic or attacking. Sorry if it appeared that way to you or anybody else. And I'll be happy to debate circumstantial evidence with you on some other page :-)

From all that's on this page, it may well be the case that the accusations are true. As I said, I don't know, but I do know that when I see opinions stated as fact, when I see partial research claimed to be complete and unimpeachable research, etc., it makes me distrust the person who's saying/presenting it. When I served on a jury, the judge told us that if we believed a witness was not telling the truth in one area of their testimony, we were free to disregard all of their testimony (and that statement made a difference in the jury's verdict on two charges). No process is perfect, but I really wish this process was better. I do wonder if there is any evidence that Kristen and/or John could present that would be accepted. I suspect that even if they are innocent, no such uniformly acceptable evidence exists. There have certainly been cases of accused puppetry that turned out to be false. Is this one of them?

RoyLeban (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Kristen has complained that there's no link here to her defence of her actions on her talk. So posting a link. Make of it what you will. – iridescent 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting rebuttal . If they are different people I would assert that she knows John better than John knows himself. — CharlotteWebb 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i find it aht it does not beat hte laugh testthat htis user has so quickly acomplied a detailed set of dilinated separatives between herself and John. i am asssumin g good faith that kristen and john are not the same, but the style of which they argue seems increasingly simular -- i compared x here re: to y here (where x = john and y = kristen) and they are strikingly similar in connotative denunciation. Smith Jones (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

further more i declare this kristen eriksen as compared to john254. in this matter, you can see the striking similarities between their edit contributions ratio. kristen has like 46% article contribs to john's 38%, which is only a few percentage points off when revised with the standard mean in these types of cases.

none of this proves byon a shadow of a doubt that they are sockpuppets but it does estlabish a patern of strange and overlapping edits that should be discussed inf urther despite "Nordic goddes" Kristens objections to te contraire. Smith Jones (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by your x/y examples. Don't they look like standard rollbacks? Only neither of them seems to be rollbacker, and I couldn't find these strings in their monobook.js (note that Kristen simply imported John's). It seems unlikely that they were entered manually. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, satire, Hans. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they both had rollback, which I removed earlier. KE / J. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the response. that was weird for me since it impleid that kristen has an inaccurate tag on her account. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a statistically significant finding. The odds that any two random editors' article contribution ratios are within 8 percentage points of each other wouldn't even meet an 80% confidence interval, let alone a 95% one. There are many good pieces of evidence to suggest that these two accounts are the same person, but this isn't one of them. --Cyde Weys 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i see your point, but it does bare scruitiny that a "new" user would spent so much time on non-article space. from my experience, most acutal new users turn up for the articles and only get involved with user:talk and other administrative space s as a result of their work on articles. users who spend most of thier time geting involved in major adminstratve functions as their first few edits is weird; not necesarily indictiave of sockpuppetry but demands scrutniy nontheless. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

People. It's a joke. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for speaking for me user:Cool Hand luke but i can speak for myself. your help is muh appreciated but its geting somewhat irksome. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Chill out, SJ, it's all cool. There are many aficionados of your postings here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Temp wikipedian category

I removed that one bit from John's talk page and notified the person who placed it. Revert at will, the cat with it's possible 30-day deletion just seemed premature. No opinion on the rest of this beyond that its really unfortunate. rootology (C)(T) 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, pages of users involved in sockpuppetry are kept regardless. There are details at the top of this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

what about User:Crimp It? Shhould he be tagged? iam thinkg yes but i dont want to potentially hurt User:Krimpet by assocation Smith Jones (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, tag it. Easy to note the distinction. Durova 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Something else to consider

User:Crimp_It! == User:Kristen_Eriksen == User:John254

User:Krimpets Tasty Cake == User:Mike_Garcia == Prolific Vandal User:Johnny the Vandal

So does John254 == Johnny the Vandal?

I think the MO fits where he would have one good hand account and have other accounts vandalize the good hand account. Also, John254's contribution in the arbritations could possibly be seen as a form of trolling. Thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unless we have good reason to, we shouldn't be assuming that one imposter == another. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No way. If I am remembering my (now deleted) CU emails correctly, JtV is not even on the same continent as Kristen Ericksen. Thatcher 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • A few weeks ago I initially made the mistake of suspecting "Tasty Cake" was another of Kristen's sockpuppets, which may have led to the confusion. CUs confirmed that it was instead a puppet of "Johnny," who is indeed completely unrelated to John254. krimpet✽ 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It is all part of Hephaestos's plan of getting his revenge on the idiots who populate this website. John Guy Robinson, Michael and JtV are one and the same!!! Mike Garcia: Electric Boogaloo (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Of course, the editor here actually is JtV. And no - John254 is not JtV. JtV is also known as "The Italian Vandal", which should explain things :) - Alison 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
          • He likes pizza? ;) --B (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • He's the Pope? Thatcher 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Sock?

139.84.82.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) left a trolling message on my talkpage in a thread concerning KE/John. The IP is from LaSalle University in Pennsylvania. If this is the same school that KE/John is coming from, would a checkuser like to do whatever they need to do with it? --B (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu wants to be unbanned

I present, for your reading pleasure, perhaps the latest chapter in a story long since commenced:

• a "hypothetical" conversation...
• ...pointing me to Wiarthurhu

Personally, I'm unwilling to recommend for unbanning someone who claims to have been simply blocked, when it appears to have been, based on my perusal of the boards, a community ban. I seem to be the second administrator approached on this topic.

On the other hand, this account appears to have some reasonable contributions over more than a year and has stayed under the radar.

I really don't care about the outcome, but I'm certainly not going to act unilaterally. Perhaps some folks who were around for the previous discussions regarding Wiarthurhu could chime in? Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So, essentially, a ban-evading sock puppet is requesting that its master account's ban be lifted? --Dynaflow babble 05:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems that way from here. We can't really do much if it was a community ban without said puppet revealing the identity of the master account. If as the sock says it was an editor of 2+ years good standing who wants to be unblocked then I think the reaction will most likely be a unanimous 'aww hell no'. Any editor with that much experience who is banned tends to accrue a significant amount of ANI action on the way. Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to the indef ban of the original count. It seems to me disproportionate. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand: He/she was community banned. After pleading he/she (for the purposes of this convo, he) was unbanned, and from the start violated the conditions of his unban. After a second chance he was caught using socks to work around it. Sounds proportionate to me. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that those posting above have pretty much summed it up accurately. I'm not seeing anyone either arguing for an unblock, or rushing to block the admitted sock account. So... is this a "don't ask, don't tell" consensus? Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:EstherLois

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

EstherLois is a sockpuppet of indef community banned User:Pastorwayne and is rapidly creating fresh categories. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean? EstherLois (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It means that you're believed to be a sock puppet of an editor who is not permitted to edit Misplaced Pages because of their disruptive history. Don't know about anyone else's view, but in my eyes this quacks, but not immensely loudly - perhaps that's because I don't have a great deal of knowledge of User:Pastorwayne's history, but from a comparison of the number, nature and type of edits they do look alarmingly alike..._Gb 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jc37 made a helpful summary of Pastorwayne's activity in User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne. I have notified Jc37 of this discussion to see if he wants to comment. See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pastorwayne. Since the checkuser data on Pastorwayne is stale, the decision about EstherLois may have to be made on behavioral grounds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am certain this is PastorWayne (on behavioural grounds). A glance through EstherLois talk shows by the number of red-linked categories and by the number of irritated comments that EL's efforts are not wholly successful. (PW's crimes were to create religious categories of dubious value at such a rate that cfd was overwhelmed, and to pay no attention to the views of other editors. PW also never made edit summaries.) Occuli (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus the denial of awareness of the identical behavioral issues. I propose he be indef community banned for Pastorwayne-like disruption. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at Jc37's page, EstherLois has been listed there since at least January 2008 as an "active clone" of Pastorwayne. This appears to be the first second report to any administrative venue about the user.. The first report a couple days ago to WP:SP came up with a result of "stale". GRBerry 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

EstherLois was not particularly active at first; their first 500 edits took from Jan to Jul 2008. Their last 500 edits have occurred this week including over 100 new categories; and these are turning up at cfd with increasing frequency as indicated by their talk page and also by the above link. I expect EstherLois will now disappear and another 'new' editor will spring up and fiddle obsessively at great speed with religious categories. Occuli (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have indefblocked and sockpuppet tagged EstherLois. The duck quacked, and floats. Please note any other new accounts on ANI and I or other admins can respond... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another. Jojopuppy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) To me it's relatively obvious that User:Jojopuppy is another newly-created Pastorwayne sockpuppet—exact same type of articles being editing and exact same type of categories being created. Account created after last edit by EstherLois (which was the inquiry at the top of this section). Esther was working on Caribbean clergy categories earlier in the day and Jojo began working on Grenadian ones. However, Jojo's only made 8 edits. Should I post this at WP:SPI or is anyone else as confident about this as I am? Good Ol’factory 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is PW (slightly disguised with edit summaries). Occuli (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Zzzzzap. Keep 'em coming... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson

This user continues to attack other editors on his talk page, even while blocked.. He already has several last warnings and one admin who is supporting an indef block. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, he certainly looks mad, but I was expecting something a lot more blatant and actionable when I saw this posting here. I don't see anything too out of the ordinary--no reason for unblock, but nothing to extend over. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the length of the block is too short for someone who had 2 last warnings and who knows how many other warnings. I just saw that he continues to be beligerant even after he's blocked. Shouldn't a block stop people from continuing to disrupt Misplaced Pages after they're blocked? I'm kinda new here so if I'm wrong, sorry.--Komrade Kiev (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

They can still edit their talk page to request unblock. If they're not doing that, it should be protected until the block ends. Nm, block has ended. If he's still being crass/rude, a longer block is justified. -Jeremy 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the original blocker (for the 48 hour duration), but am recommending (along with a few others noted on the subjects talk page) that an indefinite block is called for, as it is apparent that JPH is unable to restrain himself from making personal attacks. OhNoitsJamie 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• He's emailed me asking me to adopt him. KillerChihuahua 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only counsel you to read his last adoption page. User:Jeffrey_Pierce_Henderson/Adoption Padillah (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a pretty long fuse if the editor shows any degree of being able to type and source, and my bullshit switch is hard to trip. My bullshit switch has been tripped and this is bullshit. Were it not for KC's offer, I'd 100% support an indef block. With KC's comments, I'm at 95%, and 100% feel that this is the absolute last chance thank you very much. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and have to wonder, after being mentored and "not winning" is this simply an attempt to game the system? The user now knows they will be blocked but that a mentor will "defend them" if they need a little wiggle room. I'd counsel KC to become real familiar with JPH's edit history and his last adoption attempt to make sure he's not gettin' played. I'm starting to notice a pattern: Argument, contrite, argument, contrite... But, it's your call KC. Padillah (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging by KC's comments on JPH's talk page, I'm guessing UCS will be weilded with a mighty stick. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this simply an attempt to game the system? Absolutely it is. Padillah ceased to be usefull to JPH once it was obvious that he was not going to get his way on Talk:Bench press with regards to having his friends "record" added to the page. To me JPH simply fired one mercenary (no offense Padillah) and has now hired another, with the end goal still being the same - to "win the argument". He even states on his adoption page "There is a cabal here, sir, and I am here to shut it down or be blocked in the process. All I care about is winning what I want." Anyone who opposes what he wants on Misplaced Pages is part of this "cabal" and is insulted. Look at Talk:Insanity. Then when he fears he's going to be blocked he's starts apologizing , then later he calls the same user a pest and racist . His edit history is not of somone who is trying to improve Misplaced Pages to better mankinds knowledge - it's of someone who is on here for fun and drama. Hence the disproportionate ratio of real edits to Talk page edits. He has a strong POV on the issue . Yes I know I should WP:AFG, but with an edit history such as this, how can one continue to assume the best? I will say this now: JPH will continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages until either a) He gets the edit he wants on the bench press article or b) He's blocked. --Quartet 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It irks me that he deletes neutral and civil advice from his talk page . I don't see a reason to only accept advice and discussion from people he choses. Misplaced Pages is made up of a diverse bunch, you don't get to ignore people or their comments because you don't like them. That's a recipe for needless, stupid drama. I leave it up to KC to decide how to proceed, but frankly I don't think there's much point. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He deleted it because he's not looking for advice - he's looking for drama. He knows he can't say anything to you as that will be seen as an attack (but we know what he thinks about you and your contributions - so he'll be rude instead and delete your advice. Ignore it.--Quartet 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Never underestimate a user's willingness to persist in pushing a single item, for years if necessary. As with the Rick Reilly and Pioneer Courthouse Square situations, for example. Baseball Bugs 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

Sorry I came here, but it's the best place to get the most replies. What's wrong with the watchlists? It's showing every edit made to pages. It used to show the last edit made to a page. Now it shows all of the last edits made. Also, is there a way to get rid of the rollback button on the watchlist? I'm afraid I'll click it accidentally a lot. :-P iMatthew // talk // 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Preferences -> Watchlist -> Expand watchlist to show all applicable changes (uncheck it). As far as removing the rollback button... Maybe with a monobook hack. Or I could remove your rollback if you like ;> –xeno (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Awful good thing there is a confirmation for the block button.--Tznkai (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, and I just checked that, not over an hour ago. I thought it was something else. Well, now that my stupidity has been established, thanks Xeno. If anyone finds a way to get rollback off of it, let me know! ;-) iMatthew // talk // 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

check out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts and maybe make a request with the wikiproject if you don't find one. We have a lot of wizards who can hack you up a solution in a couple minutes. –xeno (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a quick and dirty script that does the trick. To use it, simply add the following line to your monobook: importScript('User:Gary King/hide rollback in watchlist.js'); Gary King (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:VPT#This week's software updates (permlink). –xeno (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by banned User:DavidYork71

Banned user DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) has returned and continued disruption. Seeking independent review and action with the latest incarnation, ThankYouDianetics (talk · contribs).

He shows up with various sock accounts to the GA article Project Chanology and/or its talk page with the exact same disruptive behavior each time, changing "ongoing" to "was", and other obviously disruptive edits - example.

Prior actions by other administrators: , ,

Most recent diff by ThankYouDianetics (talk · contribs) - .

I think WP:RBI is the best way to go here. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sock. J.delanoy_adds 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A little history, for anyone with enough memory to handle the entire page at once: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71 Sadly (or perhaps thankfully!) he's pretty obvious when he shows up... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation content dispute

Hi, I want to avoid 3rr here. A user is looking to insert content on this template which has seen similar issues prior of adding articles regarding sexuality to this template. I may have come across too strong so would like, presuming someone agrees that consensus should be sought here, if someone else would look at this and encourage discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would I be correct in saying this is the diff and Perceived sexual orientation the "disputed" entry? Protonk (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Looks to me like Perceived sexual orientation belongs there, as it is a valid topic when discussing sexual orientation, and perception colours a lot of how sexual orientations are presented and received. //roux   22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to avoid 3RR, don't revert. Seriously, this is a content dispute. You say so in your header, even. This is not the place for content disputes, please try dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua 22:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have spelled out more. A user who has had a history of being extra bold and perhaps edit-warring in regards to this template is again adding content after it's been removed even though this scenario has been played out out a few times. I would rather not warn and revert them myself as I'm am involved in the issue. Here is the talk page discussion where you'll note a consensus of one. I am seeking that their addition simply be approved first before being re-added. The article in question, Perceived sexual orientation, sounds good but it needs a lot of work before its inclusion on the template, IMHO. This has been a similar concern with other articles that was the source of a long process to get the current template version. If concensus is that the article, as is, is perfect for the template, then great, if not, that's great too, but let's not edit war over it. -- Banjeboi 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't including the article on the template put more eyeballs on the article, thus driving more improvements? //roux   23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By that theory dozens of problematic articles would already be on that and every other template. I guess the closest concern from the guidelines is If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. That particular article was created twenty days ago, and renamed since and is very much in need of notability and sourcing. It's got some fairly significant issues that, IMHO, preclude its inclusion at this time. That last articles added, Environment and sexual orientation and Non-heterosexual were both greatly improved before consensus was that they were reliably sourced. Templates could be used to drive traffic to articles in dire need but in this template i would certainly advise against it. -- Banjeboi 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is an encyclopedic template and topics are not included on it based on their need for improvement. It's not a general-maintenance-consider-helping-out-on-these-pages thing. – Steel 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, yes, but this is hardly the first time Cooljuno's participation at the template has become problematic. Are administrators going to do something about it, or are editors who care for our content left with no option but screaming louder, reverting more often? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pageban...?

Oh look, Cooljuno again. I think there is cause for a pageban here. Every time Cooljuno touches this template there's an edit war and an argument on the talk page. See the edit war in October (talk page discussion), this big one in July/August (talk page discussion), and another last March. This POV fork appeared in October when he didn't get his way on the main template. Two previous blocks haven't solved the problem.
The underlying issue is that Cooljuno has very strong views on this topic and how information relating to it should be presented - views which are frequently not shared by any other editor here, the media, or academia. His responses to objections exacerbate things since they're often irrelevant, flawed or just nonsensical . I invite discussion. – Steel 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think they mean well just mistake the whole working together thing as a mere suggestion rather than a core principle. I'd rather see a stern warning about edit-warring as that doesn't help thoughtful discussion. Sexuality issues, in general, seem to stir the passions in editors so extra caution would seem to make sense. Cooljuno, IMHO, has the markings of someone who's accustomed to more rough and tumble online venues and needs to dial down a bit when on wikipedia. I wonder if a restriction on reverting of some sort may be more helpful? -- Banjeboi 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the standard revert restriction? One revert per week? I wouldn't be against that. – Steel 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a limit to one revert on pages each day with the understanding that does not allow the same content to be reverted each time over multiple days and the goal is to improve dialog and working with other editors even if disagreements arise. They should also be given support or some way to sort out obvious vandalism and non-obvious vandalism. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert restrictions never apply to reversions of obvious vandalism, from what little I know of them, since they're essentially extensions of the 3-Rev-rule. -Jeremy 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree: after having worked with them before, Cooljuno's behavior around this template has consistently struck me as less than collaborative. Repeatedly inserting fringe opinions, such as the suggestion that pedophilia is on par with homosexuality, then cherry-picking references when several editors have patiently explained your error, is pretty disruptive. With this latest incident, waiting a few days for comments on a proposal does make sense; claiming other editors are "too late" to object after the change has been made is obvious nonsense. I'm sure that more than a few people have simply given up editing that template, given the constant combativeness. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I share the concern that a template talkpage was essentially a battleground repelling the very people who are needed. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

COoljuno's behavior is some grand POV push, but I've never been sure if hes' a far right wing extremist, hoping to bring all forms of sexuality repugnant to the masses to an equality with homosexuality in that 'gay marriage leads to marrying dogs and raping kids' right wing meme, or some ultra leftist free love mindset, or he really just thinks all sexual congress is equal no matter what, but he's excessively disruptive, and ought not to be revert restricted, but topic banned from articles dealing with sexuality, interpreted liberally, for a period of not less than six months, to be reviewed then if he requests. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If their userpage is to be taken as is, they seem to be a young lefty of the ultra hippy (or your choice of broad characterization here) with a flair for anarchy. Having had a ban dropped on me like a house on my wicked sister, I'm willing to assume good faith they are trying to express some more radical views and need guidance that bold and civility need to co-exist; that revolutionary actions sometimes help but consensus is actually more radical than being hardnosed and agro about content issues. Also that wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a social forum to work out contentious issues. I think they may specialize in sexuality issues here but, IMHO, basic working with other editors may be the underlying problem. Even the best editors don't work independent of everyone else in a vacuum. Are they editing in other areas with no issues? -- Banjeboi 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a conduct RFC on the editor before moving to restrictive sanctions? It certainly looks like the behavior is problematic, but if it isn't outright trolling a run through dispute resolution is worthwhile. If that solves the problem, great. And if it doesn't, consensus for community action would be easier to build afterward. Durova 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible socks trying to disrupt article Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Guido-s Revenge(obviously not a new user) started makingPOV edits to the article Chronic fatigue syndrome.Jfdwolff blocked this user butIP 87.112.34.51 seems also to have edited the Guido-s Revenge user page. This follows about a month after IP 87.115.17.165 &IP 87.115.17.124 (same provider for all IPs I believe) made the same sort of disruptive edits to the article. The editsaggravating becauseanother editor with a similar POV had been banned. However, it appears the new editor (similar name to the banned editor) and its puppets, are not the previously banned editor because they live in different countries. The new editor appears to want to stir ill will among the editors of a difficult to edit article. For this reason I am requesting if checkuser or other appropriate method could be used to stop the editor and puppets trying to disrupt the article?Ward20 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably want to check out WP:SPI. //roux   23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For now, WP:RBI seems to have worked, i.e. there's no disruption since Guido's Revenge was blocked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it's GDB anyway, he knows his edits have no chance of standing without sourcing and this is blatant WP:PROVEIT material. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist continuing misconduct

User:ScienceApologist continues to generate complaints from editors who have better things to do.

• ScienceApologist has again been criticized for making personal attacks against individuals, see "BLP violation" and "Problem with Paton" . Both User:KillerChihuahua and ScienceApologist have tried to justify the contentious remarks by confusing an author's sources with the individual. WP:BLP clearly forbids contentious remarks about individuals, even in talk pages. A previous ArbCom found against SA, that "ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories" We may disagree with people, but we don't denigrate them.
• Since becoming the subject of an ArbCom case on Dec 29, 2009, ScienceApologist has received complaints:

• In an earlier AN/I on a series of AfDs., plus further complaints.
• Restoring poor sources, even though discussed otherwise with another editor.
• Tagging articles with poor or contentious category tags.
• Trying to make major changes guidelines with no conensus.
• Being disruptive.
• 3RR warning.
• Even more editor warring."Identified flying object"
• Reverting other editors' changes without discussion."Atropa belladonna"

• The current ArbCom case,, the long list of blocks,, and the many previous Arbcom cases, shows that these are not isolated incidents, and ScienceApologist is not picked upon by just one or two disgruntled editors. --81.131.6.69 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, Mr. Phi. Skinwalker (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy now. No accusations without proof... trace the IP.(olive (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I'd like to see this accusation against a banned editor justified; and SA's behavior needs to be investigated. Dreadstar † 01:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... dread, you are either defending an obvious IP sockpuppet, who is familiar enough with a dispute to cite diffs extending back months, or you are defending a user who was banned for repeatedly outing other editors. Nice going. SA's behavior has been investigated ad nauseum here and elsewhere, and I fail to see what yet another instance of forum shopping is going to accomplish. Skinwalker (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you've made a specific accusation and I'd like to see you prove it. If it's a sock of another user, then it should be dealt with properly; if it's not a sock of the one you accused, then your accusation needs to be withdrawn. Dreadstar † 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is nothing more than a dramatic thread, I'll point all parties to two active RFAR cases:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification

The more important question is, who is this IP a sock of? seicer | talk | contribs 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I asked for the accuser to make a checkuser request, instead of blindly accusing someone. Dreadstar † 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Going by the writing style, it's probably Davkal rather than MartinPhi. Shot info (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Davkal usually creates throwaway accounts, and doesn't use British Telecom IP addresses. Could be a proxy. Skinwalker (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but let's blame Martinphi or even me. Great. Dreadstar † 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing arbcom, or people could make an Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/ScienceApologist if they're really that concerned. I'm surprised there hasn't been one already with the amount of editors who, rightly of wrongly, have it in for SA. Sticky Parkin 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed.(olive (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

SA is taking a break "Until 15 February 2009 due to being tired of one-sided enforcement and wikistalkers," so let's drop this now, let the arbitration finish, and see how he acts when he returns. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of these accusations are dated and were previously addressed. Others seem a bit bogus, for instance noting he received a "warning" accusing him of 3RR by an editor he was in dispute with. So? He works on contentious articles and has been closely and aggresively monitored. I think the title and tone of this section is inappropriate and provocative. If there is a specific complaint of wrongdoing let's hear it, or better yet take it up in the appropriate fora that are already dealing with the situation, but this looks like muckraking where the anonymous accuser is the one making trouble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Without commenting on anything else, this IP's post deleted a section. I need to run out the door, so I'd appreciate it if someone could restore the thread. Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. NJGW (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing arb case. Evidence is best presented there. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Link to CU: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/81.131.6.69 Dreadstar † 03:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's like socks are all given pitchforks for mob behavior, but try to create a mob by stirring the manure piles ,to dig up old crap. BOR-ing. I think the most interesting thing here is the zealotry with which some people try to defend bizarre fringe theories and defend their honor on the internet. It's like arguing with pigs, but they keep on screaming nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a crazy den of pigs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

<ec> Should that be in WP:NOT? Not sure if it would pass the trades descriptions act, given the repeated tendency to enable fringe pov pushing. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist contacted me this evening to inform me of the intended wikibreak, although not its exact duration. Time off seems like a very good idea for him right now. A few suggestions: information relevant to any ongoing arbitration is best submitted at that arbitration, or via email to the Committee (which anyone can do and is the appropriate route for blocked/banned users or editors in good standing who wish to avoid associating themselves with the dispute). Sockpuppet suspicions are best routed through CU and/or SSP rather than upfront attempts to guess a username. SA was quite helpful via chat this evening researching historic astronomy data for potential featured picture candidates. A change of pace to low stress content work can be refreshing; might be a good idea on all sides. With respect, Durova 09:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear that, it's a good idea all round but perhaps rather impractical in light of the deadlines for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement. No doubt teh drahmaz will continue. . dave souza, talk 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since these issues regard current arbitration cases rather than AE, that RFC isn't directly relevant. Durova 09:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of a case I'd been ignoring while *gasp* getting on with article content work. The RfC does seem relevant in setting principles, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science looks like one I should add info to, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification ended up being referred to that RfC, unless I've misunderstood. Any other current cases? . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've mostly followed the former. Either way, with an open case addressing the matter it's possible the Committee may resolve this definitively. Or at least the RFC could settle out before the fringe science case ends up at AE. IMO for some time now the Committee has overused and poorly crafted its discretionary remedies. From early 2008 onward it's taken on overtones of passing the buck. There's even a proposal in Fringe Science to grant me extraordinary powers; I just won't have it. The arbitrators ought to be making those tough decisions, not a non-admin. Anyway, good night. Very late in this time zone. And best wishes. Durova 10:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

← The appearance of IP's and socks presenting "evidence" against ScienceApologist is about as surprising as sunrise in the east, whenever he's involved in any sort of proceeding. A reasonably self-aware individual might eventually realize that this sort of obnoxiousness actually deflects attention away from SA's alleged misdeeds, and onto the even more disruptive behavior of some of his opponents. But then, self-awareness has always been in short supply on Misplaced Pages. MastCell  18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mast Cell, you've got a good point about the self-defeating element of strange IPs popping up at an out of process venue to present detailed evidence (especially while they could present the same stuff legitimately to ArbCom). The way it's expressed, though, looks like a put-down. Hardly anyone rises to their better self in response to a put-down. Let's mark this thread resolved, since there's nothing much positive that can come out of it here. The referrals to other locations have already been made. Durova 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. MastCell  22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

disruption on Battle of Holowczyn

After having been warned on Jan 25, Nikitn (talk · contribs) continues to edit war on that article, including this most recent edit in which he threatens to retaliate in another article if he doesn't get his way. I believe this calls for, perhaps not yet a block, but at least intervention. Looie496 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, enough is enough. MBisanz 03:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption on Rick Santorum

We've got people edit-warring and announcing that they will violate WP:3RR. Mayday, mayday! Spotfixer (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No such problem. Spotfixer sought to include material which was not cited, and another editor took it out. No announcements of 3RR, unless Spotfixer is declaring intents here. The material was, in fact, not cited, and probably shouldn't be in. (it's about the relative GHits and Yahoo hits of a certain terminology related to the Senator, which isn't relevant for purposes of this AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean Santorum (sexual neologism)? AnyPerson (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Want to add some signal to your noise? ThuranX (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Caution please Thuranx - comment on content not on the editor. I request you please strike through the above attack comment.--VS 00:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you referring to me? I pointed out an article that is in Misplaced Pages, and asked you if you are objecting to an edit in the Rick Santorum article which relates to that other article that I pointed out. And your assumption of my age is not only insulting to me, but an assumption of bad faith, and an insult to the many teenaged editors who do fine work on Misplaced Pages. Racism and sexism are not allowed on Misplaced Pages, but apparently ageism is all right? If you have a problem with Santorum (sexual neologism), then I suggest you nominate it for deletion, otherwise, it's perfectly within the rules of Misplaced Pages to refer to it. AnyPerson (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX has removed the comment that I objected to, not striking through it, so my comment now makes no sense, but see the page's history. I note that ThuranX has yet to explain his objection to linking to a valid Misplaced Pages article. AnyPerson (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn’t going to reply, VirtualSteve implied that I should leave this be, but now to get attacked for removing the offending attack? Then here is my Response:

And other than shock value, what, exactly does saying it here do? It's irrelevant WHAT it is, what IS relevant is the facts of the case, which can be told without mentioning it. Just because Misplaced Pages is not censored doesn't mean we can or should be vulgar for its own sake, and since that particular term is the subject of extreme and near constant disruption, I chose to focus on the circumstances of the case, not on the word, because it was irrelevant. Shame that that sort of behavior now results in warning and blocks, instead of editors and admins actively examining the case brought here. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That was good advice from VS, I think. Kevin (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:TALK#Own_comments AnyPerson (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So anyways, Anyone else have any comments on the actual case presented? ThuranX (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Having found a couple of minutes to look at this - at this time I do not see any material to support Spotfixer's claim that We've got people edit-warring and announcing that they will violate WP:3RR. Diff's please Spotfixer?--VS 03:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • That's what I said in the beginning. ThuranX (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If you have no response Spotfixer - I am prepared to close this thread.--VS 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war at Rick Warren

--VS 01:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an edit war in progress at Rick Warren over - believe it or not - the inclusion, or not, of the origin of the term saddlebacking in the article. Multiple editors have now violated 3RR on the supposed basis that this is a WP:BLP issue, but the validity of that claim is not clear. Anyhow, I've requested temporary full protection over at WP:RFP but that board is backlogged some hours and I thought I should bring it to admin attention here. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for now, and will look into the 3RR/BLP issue shortly. Kevin (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar edit war is also in progress over at Saddleback Church over the same matter. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one of the perpetrators already filled me in. Thanks Kevin (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Give that I unilaterally disarmed and took my grievance to the admins, I think that calling me a perp is kind of harsh, don't you? Spotfixer (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Manutdglory (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Manutdglory also loves to call people "vandals" when they make edits which don't jive with his personal tastes. Manutdglory revealed himself as a member of a particular megachurch which is the subject of controversy, and he's been trying to WhiteWash articles which might criticize or suggest infamy about his church. Then Manutdglory declared other editors were unfit to make edits because of "Conflict Of Interest", while still making edits to the articles about his own church and pastor. This is a situation repeated several times in less than a month. Teledildonix314 06:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you would also think then that 48 hour blocks all round is a bit harsh also. It's only the though that some may have acted under the belief that this is a WP:BLP issue that I haven't yet. And that possible saving grace does not apply to those reverting to add the section. Kevin (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Input regarding whether User:Lyonscc had a genuine belief that this was a WP:BLP issue, or was just removing unliked material would be welcome here. I need to be offline for a couple of hours. Kevin (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is among the dumbest things I have ever seen. The term "saddlebacking" was allegedly coined less than a week ago - there's no way there should be an article on it. I don't know that it's a BLP issue, but it is a "remove stupid stuff from articles" issue. --B (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the term was coined over a month ago but it took awhile for the definition to be decided upon by Savage. It may be dumb but I am unconvinced that this does not merit an article. I am rather stunned at the urgency with which editors want this article done and added to tangentally related articles (the subject church and its head). With respect to Lyonscc's making this a BLP issue, I'll point out that this term is not specifically referring to Warren himself but is a play on the name of his church. Contentuous? Sure. Poorly sourced? It seems to have been mentioned in The Economist. But there is some divergence between the church and the living person, though of course when it comes to things religious and the casting of those things in an unflattering light, sometimes those things are improperly merged. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would note that I engaged on the talk page why I believed this was a significant violation of WP:BLP, specifically the section on speedy removal of poorly sources, contentious material. In this case, what was being inserted was a brand-new, made-up term for "the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities". I think any reasonable editor would agree that it was a) not notable to the subject of the BLP; b) poorly sourced (two opinion pieces, and an article referring to the opinion piece, noting that no definition yet existed for the term); and c) malicious/contentious. I tried to get the editors on the talk page to wait 24 hours for consensus, but they continued to revert, leading to my reporting this on a couple of noticeboards. I don't make a lot of edits to Rick Warren, but just happened to be reading my watchlist yesterday, and saw a lot of unusual activity. I have no axe to grind with this article - it's about a guy 2000 miles away that's not even in my religious denomination--Lyonscc (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail reading comprehension - I thought this was about the link in the article on the church itself. I didn't realize it was this edit from the bio on Rick Warren. No way in heck does this belong in a BLP and you were absolutely right to remove it. --B (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi protect this page

Too much IP vandalism, and a lot of edits that need to be removed from the edit history, too many edit conflicts because of the vandalism. AnyPerson (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For one hour, done. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Teledildonix314

--VS 07:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs) has made uncivil personal remarks to Manutdglory (talk · contribs)

Teledildonix314 made this highly inappropriate personal comment about me (below). Also see his above comments on the Rick Warren link. Oh yeah, he's also caused the Rick Warren article to be fully protected not once, but twice. Manutdglory (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::And now Manutdglory is trying to push for violation of the 3RR. I would like to point out: Manutdglory has openly mentioned that they are a member of the Saddleback Church and thus it seems there is a Conflict Of Interest when they try to delete anything which might go against their personal preferences for how to portray the Church with puffery and WhiteWashing. Teledildonix314 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn we just watched this show a couple days ago. And a few days before that. And the week before that. It's winter; we should be getting new episodes, not stale old reruns. Can't you two just leave each other the hell alone? //roux   06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't want to deal with him ever again. A few weeks ago, his behavior caused the Rick Warren article to be completely protected (see the history page), then after nearly getting blocked, he apologized and promised to refrain from editing the article. Yesterday he returned to editing the article which resulted in it getting fully protected a second time in a month. Then he starts attacking me again with personal uncivil comments. I'm all for being moderate, but how is any of this my fault? Manutdglory (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless Manutglory is an official of the church, I don't see where there is a conflict of interest. Such an interpretation would potentially prevent Catholics from editing articles about the Catholic Church or Catholicim, Jews from editing articles on the Jewish religion and culture, and Muslims from editing articles about Islam. I don't believe that's a reasonable interpretation of what WP:COI intends. That's not to say that the edits made by Manutglory are necessarily good or proper, just that they should not be rejected on the basis of COI. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you, Ed. I've asked Teledildonix314 for some kind of clarification on what he meant by his comments. If Manutglory is a member of the church, him edit warring to keep something out of the article on BLP grounds seems like a COI to me. If I were in that situation, I'd immediately take it to an admin's attention rather than risk COI allegations. It seems like we need more information on this one, and an admin's attention to whether or not this is firmly BLP enough to overlook 3RR.Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If he's edit warring, it's rather irrelevant what his motivations are, so invoking COI seems redundant. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Manutglory has had a history of editing that in my opinion sometimes seems directed toward adding peacock terms and numbers to articles about churches and church institutions, such as this edit. Beyond that, I've seen nothing to indicate which church he is affiliated with, if any. I should also point out that both recent instances of full protection of the Rick Warren article were at my suggestion at WP:RFP and were, of course, performed at the discretion of the administrators involved. It takes at least two to edit war. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't whether I am biased or not - it's that Teledildonix314 clearly made a highly inappropriate and uncivil personal comment regarding me. I have never "publicly" declared that I was a member of that church and I don't want personal information about my religion being broadcast all over Misplaced Pages. There is no difference between publicly "outing" someone's religion and "outing" someone's sexual preference on Misplaced Pages when it's clearly against their wishes. Teledildonix314 has repeatedly infringed upon my privacy, and that is why I made the complaint against him. Manutdglory (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know why he's accused you of having a conflict of interest in this matter? Dayewalker (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Only because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Saddleback_Church&diff=prev&oldid=234207404

Teledildonix314 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Manutdglory This edit seems to show that you did declare publicly that you are a member of the Saddleback Church and that you are gaining emails from Mr Rick Warren?--VS 06:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Given your edit summary Manutdglory can you tell us why we should not think that your edits at this page (and at Saddleback Church) are a Conflict of Interest?--VS 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously digging up a minor edit summary from months ago does not constitute "openly" wanting private information like my religion to be publicly smeared all over public Misplaced Pages pages, which Teledildonix314 has done. What is this - it's a clear violation of Wiki's privacy regulations! Manutdglory (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And Steve, as I already stated above, this doesn't have anything to do with conflict of interest. I reported Teledildonix314 for violating my privacy! Manutdglory (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He did not violate your privacy. See WP:PRIVACY. You clearly divulged your membership in an attempt to justify an edit. It is reasonable to bring that up surrounding concerns over a possible WP:COI. Please read the policies. --ZimZalaBim 06:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC-OD) Sorry, but you claiming you're a member of the church and you received emails from Warren to justify your edits is a very valid point to bring up. You can't claim inside information, then be upset because people were listening. Teled is correct to bring this to our attention. Dayewalker (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Manutdglory, as you know I have tried to assist you over the past few weeks/months but pointing to an edit summary that you personally wrote, which declares in your own words i'm a member of the church and got an e-mail from rick warren stating this - only members would know this (i.e. "inside information" is hardly a breach of privacy regulations - but it does seem to point heavily towards you having a strong conflict of interest.--VS 07:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, then why was I blocked for 24 hours simply for referring to someone as a "radical activist" when their personal pages and user history proudly demonstrate this? There's obviously a double standard and you know what I'm talking about. Manutdglory (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdented - I propose at this time to block Manutdglory for 3RR violations and should he return with edits in breach of COI to instigate a further block or alternatively a topic ban discussion. I will welcome other thoughts for the next little while please?--VS 07:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral wrt to the block, but this thread certainly should be closed as the statement from Teled, while not as friendly as it could be, isn't an "uncivil personal remark" nor a "highly inappropriate personal comment", as Manutdglory has claimed. --ZimZalaBim 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second? What 3RR is he talking about? Manutdglory (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point Manutdglory. I withdraw that suggestion but will close this thread. I will also provide you with a caution regarding Conflict of Interest editing. Other editors will understandably be able to complain at ANI or at COI as the case may be should you again edit in breach of that guideline.--VS 07:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote to close the thread, and anyone who has edit warred over adding or removing the term on either page gets a block as usual. I don't see it as being a BLP violation, at the worst it's silly and the article will be deleted soon. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One more quick question - I'm being totally honest here and not trying to be smart. How am I more biased in editing a church article than someone who according to their user page is an atheist? Manutdglory (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• You will need to read and understand WP:COI to answer that question. I am now going to close this thread and provide you with a suitable warning per that guideline at your talk page.--VS 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to point out, as I have done multiple times before, that I'm still looking for some indication from you that you clearly understand that there is such a thing as Misplaced Pages policy, and that there is a distinction between editors, their beliefs and preferences, and the content of their edits. You seem to militantly avoid one of the cardinal rules around here, that being that you should comment on content, not on contributors. The problems that you seem to repeatedly have around here in my opinion really do center on your avoidance of policy and your insistence that everyone's edits must be a personal matter. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Because you're not just a member of the religion, you seem to be a member of that specific church who receives private emails and information from the pastor. Would you feel comfortable adding information that could be considered negative to the church's page? Have you done so in the past? Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have. And I don't even live in California anymore. Manutdglory (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please note this thread is closed. Manutdglory has been warned. All other interested editors should attempt to reach consensus on Rick Warren and Saddleback Church as those pages are currently fully protected. Editors involved should note that patience on incivility, edit-warring, potential 3RR violation etc has warn thin. Please move on nothing more to see here - try and find consensus at the article or if not then there are about 2.7+ million other articles that can use your useful support.--VS 07:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at users named Dukeclass#

No reason except gut feel, but we have a set of users Dukeclass1 to at least 6 (eg User talk:Dukeclass6). Is this normal username proliferation or silly sockpuppetry? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask at the users' pages. I'm willing to assume it's a class period mistakenly setting up an account for his whole class; only if there's no response would I suspect sockpuppetry. -Jeremy 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking request User:LincolnSt

The user is making a large number of changes to articles not in accordance with WP policies and which deplete the usefulness of the encyclopedia to its users.

The account was created about a week ago and, inspite of a break in editing for 3 days, the editor has made over 400 article changes in the namespace. As far as I can see the editor has made all of these changes without reference to the rest of the editing community. See http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=LincolnSt&auto=auto.

The speed with which changes are made to various articles indicates that the user is working to an agenda and using a pre-planned list of changes he wishes to make. As a result it is almost impossible to keep up with these changes or understand why they are done.

Edit summaries usually explain what has been done but mostly not why they have been done. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/LincolnSt. Often the reasons are spurious.http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universal_health_care&diff=prev&oldid=267150282

Some of the edits show subtle and sometimes extreme bias. For instance the article Health Care Systems, before the editor started making changes was an honest attempt to describe the different health care systems around the world, of which there are many, but most having minor variations in the the way they work. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Health_care_systems&oldid=262189507 (I cannot explain the bizzare picture but the rest of the article is fine). The editor User:LincolnSt has now stripped out the international countries list on the spurious grounds that there are too many countries in the world to list. The editor has also created many new articles called "Health care in Xcountry" and put links in the Health Care Systems article. But then he has created "Health in Xcountry" and pasted in some statistics about health care outcomes in those countries and further down information about the health care system in that country. The net effect of these changes is to change the bias from giving information about health care systems and pushing the reader towards ubformation on health statistics and not health care organization. The article now mostly discussing financing systems and not health care systems at all!

A more blatant example of bias occured in the Socialized medicine article. Socialized medicine article describes a pejorative term which in the U.S. is often associated with the health care systems in the UK and in Canada which are often accused of not delivering effective health care, especially timely health care. User:LincolnSt cut an entire section from the article which gave a summarised picture of the UK health service and statistics about choice and waiting.http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialized_medicine&diff=266596725&oldid=266594495 and pasted (without any attempt to integrate the information into another artice http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Healthcare_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=266597646. The user also made a similar change to the section on Finland's socialized health care system and that of Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialized_medicine&diff=266444342&oldid=266436619 These and many other examples lead me to believe that this user has a connection to the health care industry and in particular to a certain institute that actively advocates maintaining the status quo in US health care policy. He clearly does not want WP readers to discover the truth about different health care systems in other countries where costs are contained by government action. For example the user has deleted links to certain healthcare reform articles and external links.

The user also deleted links in Universal health care to other WP articles and external links from certain groups, most those in the US advocating a switch to Universal Health care and also to some that do not. These links would have allowed the arguments to be read if the reader wishes to do so. The removal of these links on the grounds that they are US based is frankly ridiculous as the US is the only major western industrial country that does not have universal health care. The arguments are bound to be heard mainly in the US.

Today the user has been busily changing article categories of long standing. The reason for this is not clear and I have yet to look at the possible intent of these actions. Some though are frankly absurd. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Healthcare_in_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=267141244.

In summary, the user is not following two of the key guidlines for editing. NPOV and editing in a spirit of co-operation with other users. Also the rapid nature of these edits franks smells of a concerted campaign to radically alter WP's articles on healthcare and makes it hard for other editors to keep up.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's attack on me was apparently sparked by "citation needed" templates (which he tried to remove) and my criticism of spreading articles such as Healthcare in the United Kingdom over a dozen articles (oddly, he argued that Healthcare in the United Kingdom does not "suit" for information about the UK health care system). What comes to removing inappropriate links in articles which are not directly related, cleaning up linkfarms to American health care companies / lobby groups was strongly supported by administrators at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#American health care lobby related spam.

Cosmic Cowboy (talk · contribs) and his other accounts, who appears to be "teamed" with this user, was identified as a possible spammer account. However, I do not believe this user is.LincolnSt (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The motive attributed is untrue. I leave the administrators to check what I am saying and the examples I have given. I have no desire to get into any personal spat with this user about motives. I will say though that the user is ignoring what I have already said to him here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&diff=prev&oldid=266752323. I am not "teamed" in any way to Cosmic though we did have a brief discussion about this users edits and possible motives. Cosmic has asked me to patrol LincolnSt's changes but I am short of time and cannot do this. It seems more sensible to demonstrate the size of the problem to the Administrator community and leave it with them to judge whether the user's activities should be curtailed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs)

Your links seem to be related to the main article question. It is a highly appropriate to suggest that each country's health care system does not need to be detailed in every health care related article, and instead, articles should focus on the subject suggested by their title. The article can link to the country's article (some 60 articles in the category) For some reason, you have argued that "The English NHS was the first G8 country to fully implement a digital Picture Archiving Communications System (PACS) to store and retrieve x-ray and other scans in all of its hospitals nationally." needs to be copied in all those articles (and for some incomprehensible reason, you tried to delete it from the article Health care in the United Kingdom).

If you can show me a single mistake made in recategorizing, please share it with us.LincolnSt (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there are a lot of problems here. There might, as you say be more to this, but given that LincolnSt is a new user & this is a contentious topic cld we please remember WP:BITE & WP:AGF? Misarxist

09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The widespread use of specialist tools in his editing and quick refrences to WP policies and use of templates seems to indicate that this user is NOT a new user at all but more likely to be a sockpuppet. User:Freedomwarrior for example had a similar style of editing. There are others but I'd prefer if we focus on the evidence I have laid down.--80.221.152.186 (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to repeat the same pattern of Cosmic Cowboy (talk · contribs), accusing other editors of being enemies from "American health care companies" and accusing me, Freedomwarrior (talk · contribs), Doopdoop (talk · contribs) of all kinds of things (and now even the administrator Hu12 (talk · contribs)). You should ask how constructive such behavior is. For constructive behavior, you could help by adding citations instead of always attacking other editors. Leaving citations needed templates does not mean anyone is attacking you.LincolnSt (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please withdraw that last remark. I have made no accusations about the administrator Hu12 (talk · contribs) nor would I wish to.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, could you make a short summary of your points in the article's talk page? I have told you before that you can go ahead with including every country as long as you know that it will be long (what you did, was that you removed Elizabeth Docteur and Howard Oxley (2003). "Health-Care Systems: Lessons from the Reform Experience" (PDF). OECD. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)).

The proposal for huge articles covering every country in details is contrary to articles such as "education", which does not try to cover Education in Nigeria, Education in France, etc. in the same article. However, your argument is valid and you should argue in the talk page of healthcare, healthcare system, etc. As for your accusation that other users are, "NPOV" or "have conflict of interest", you could try be more detailed. Expansions I have done are sourced from World Health Organization, Health Affairs journal, etc.

As notified in the lead, "this page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues".LincolnSt (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for assessment of my conduct: warning someone when I'm involved in a content dispute

Bittergrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I've placed a very stongly worded warning to User:Bittergrey on the talk page of Diaper fetishism (including suggestions a topic ban was possible) after he restored this geocities link as a source. However as I'm the one who removed the link this is a content dispute.

Nor is it a new content dispute. While I had no real recollection of this editor, in January 2006 his first ever edit was reverted by me in a only a few minutes.

So, Admin Corps, I'd like a quick sanity check on my conduct. Thank you.

brenneman 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NB: I have advised the user of this thread.

I note that you didn't threaten to use tools yourself against this user. On that basis, I don't think the warning is a problem. However, insofar as this is a content dispute, I myself must admit to a bias, since I agree that a geocities link shouldn't be used as a source. Hmmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so hope my commenting here is acceptable. This, to me, does seem to be over-the-top. The source in question is a user group survey that is now web archived. This can be used in the article if it is attributed as such so the reader understands its use. The reference desk or RS noticeboard may be able to help if that is indeed the source that needs to be used. I wonder if a "kinder, gentler" approach would make more sense and get better results? To me it seems like they will be blocked from editing if they oppose you and I'm not sure that's the way to bring about stronger sourcing on the article. Are we publishing false or misleading information? If so maybe peel specific statements to the talkpage and state this can be re-added if sourced to wikipedia standards or reworded to match the sources already cited. Bittergrey has this as a focus of their work here so prompting them to improve the article would make sense, instead they have been publicly, well, threatened. I've seen many articles under attack and it's no fun to stress over what someone else decrees as your work as a volunteer editor. Even if you didn't intend to do that, it might feel that way. -- Banjeboi 14:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just an automatic archive of an unreliable source. It doesn't remotely belong in this article. Its an unreliable source allegedly holding a survey about some subject. Its not remotely scientific and there is nothing to back any of the claims made in the survey. Its probably one of the worst sources that could ever go in to an article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This admin has now accused me of "consistantly re-insetered links to a website you own or moderate" but is "to worn out" to give examples. Am I alone in thinking that evidence should have been found _before_ the accusation was made? BitterGrey (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I either need to find easier users to deal with or quit bringing my conduct here for review. - brenneman 03:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No...you are just not hearing what you want to hear. Tiptoety 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now we are getting somewhere. It seems that the admin thought the survey reference I put back in was a link to my survey. My survey <original research> is at http://understanding.infantilism.org/surveys/</original research>. The British survey is long closed and archived. Dave didn't have the time to keep it running. Mine is active and being run in the US. I would hope that administrators would set a good example and check references before deleting them, as well as checking accusations before making them. Those that don't understand the need to lead by example shouldn't be in leadership.BitterGrey (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Incivility

Per ] and] I'm half of the mind to ignore, but this IP has been warned by an admin already ] and he's wading into an area that already has some small amount of drama; if this stuff is allowed to fly, others might start taking their cues from this user.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For instance, like this new IP seems to be doing ].Bali ultimate (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch conversation at User talk:Daveneijsen (restored from archive for context)

Would someone have a quick look at User talk:Daveneijsen (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) especially the history. Probably a quick block/protect and delete is needed. Thanks --triwbe (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, why does this bother you? What do you care if someone speaks Dutch? Posting a xenophobic warning tag on that editor's talk page was rude but then to follow it up with a complaint at this page is the height of chutzpah. L0b0t (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's simply the fact that they communicate in Dutch, but that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. User:Onsjoe, User:Daveneijsen, User:Leonieeshuis, and their various IPs are using Misplaced Pages as a chat service. --Onorem♠Dil 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case then I stand corrected. However, that was not made clear by the poster, and the placement of a warning message admonishing the target to speak English was something I found rude. It seemed to me to be a case of Waah...I can't read it even though it it doesn't concern me, wasn't written to me, and is in someone else's user space. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Onorem, you got it exactly. Applying wikipeida policies is not xenophobic, neither is bringing up the case here. Please stop with the personal comments L0b0t. --triwbe (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As they say, it's not that it's Dutch, it's that they are using the talkpage for chatting in Dutch, and those are the only edits that any of those editors are making. Delete the pages, and put a notice each of them explaining why.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a warning (in Dutch) about Misplaced Pages not being a webhost. I have placed the same warning on User talk:Onsjoe and User talk:Leonieeshuis. The IPs used seem pretty static (User talk:80.127.156.245,User talk:81.204.77.234, User talk:85.159.97.1) so if the same behaviour continues on other pages, they should be warned and eventually blocked. Fram (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above remarks, I would point out that communicating in languages other than English on talk pages is distinctly frowned upon. See Misplaced Pages:TALK#Good_practice. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would have to add that there is NOTHING xenophobic about asking people to use English on the English Misplaced Pages. See Xenophobia and explain how it applies to asking users to post in English. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it kind of sad that so much of that sophomoric discussion was actually in English...nice, very good, gefixed, but especially "chill." Brr. Spreek je moerstaal! Yes, WP is not a chatroom. (And I'm going to clean up the Dutch messages I've left on talk pages...) Drmies (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, I find it handy. When I break down and cheat by inserting an English word, a lot of time no one seems to notice at all.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs has responded by vandalising Fram's warning. I would suggest deletion of the page, and short blocks against

• 81.204.77.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.159.97.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 80.127.156.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daveneijsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Leonieeshuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It may seem like an overreaction, but take a look at the contribution histories. Not a single useful contribution from the lot.—Kww(talk) 14:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jameskrouse

See Special:Contributions/Jameskrouse. User has created two articles (Paul Callan (attorney) and just today Devon reiff), both of which are blatant-self promotions of non-notable injury lawyers. I tagged the second one as per WP:CSD (which he later removed). I think the first article should be up for WP:PROD as well. §FreeRangeFrog 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They may indeed be self-promotion of some sort. But there appear to me to be claims to notability in Paul Callan (attorney) and in Devon reiff. I suggest that if you have real concerns, you take them to AfD. I doubt either will be deleted, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Paul Callan, but just out of curiosity, can you point out where notability for Devon Reiff was established in the article? Also, the author keeps deleting CSD notices and edits by bots related to the image he uploaded. If nothing else, he should be blocked while the article goes through AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what, on second thought, I don't really care that much. This is blatant enough to be evident, but if it's that much of a problem, and someone like you tells me "it probably won't work" based on who knows what criteria, then who cares. §FreeRangeFrog 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim you asked about is in the sentence "and is on both the board of directors and the executive committee of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association". What may be blatent to you is not to me. If that makes you flounce of in a huff, well, that's sad. But as you now "don't really care that much", and as the contributor has been asked not to remove deletion tags, I've marked this entry as resolved. If the contributor continues to remove tags, then further actions should be taken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken both articles to AfD and given the user a final warning about removing tags. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They look OK to me too, but I could go either way regardless. If there were no citations I would say to get rid of them, but both are cited, so I don't think they will get deleted.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, OK. Thanks, I guess. I don't get "in a huff" because I have a problem with attorneys at law or this particular user, but common sense tells me that this is nothing more than blatant promotion of a non-notable subject. The citations (IMO) simply do not establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you take your doubts about the articles to the two AfD debates. Self promotion is not (afaik) grounds for deletion, little as both of us might like it. Notability, per this discussion, is borderline. AfD is the place to seek to win the lack of notability article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the Devon Reiff AfD but not in the one for Paul Callan. A google search on the latter seems to support the article's claims re: OJ Simpson and so on. My comment about it going to PROD was biased by the author's editing history and attitude (removing tags) than anything else. I am not qualified to comment on whether or not the legal prowess of Mr. Callan is enough for inclusion here. §FreeRangeFrog 19:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP problems at Peter Falk

I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on this. Editors keep adding an allegation that Falk suffers from Alzheimer's on the basis of allegations contained in an court affidavit filed by his wife. For various reasons, I do not regard this as a reliable source. Even if false, the allegations would appear to breach WP:BLP and WP:RS. Until this is resolved I have reverted those edits and fully protected the article. Any Admin is free to undo this if they feel I am incorrect. --Rodhullandemu 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm only asking because I don't know - not to be smart. The history tab of the article seems to show that the edits are from an IP address. (at least in last couple days) Don't those kind of things usually get a semi-protect first? Doesn't really matter to me, I don't have any information I could add to the article or anything. Ched (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If I had semi-protected it, that would leave me open to accusations of bias against the anon editor. Although, as an Admin, I could still edit through the full protection, I consider myself responsible enough not to do so. It's a matter of appearance, that's all; and the anon IP could still have registered an account and edited through semi-protection. --Rodhullandemu 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim is by Falk's daughter and seems to be widely and reliably verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem: it's a claim. Consensus at the talk page seems to be that it's insufficient to support a contention that Falk has Alzheimer's, and as a claim it's arguable self-serving and WP:UNDUE when it monopolises the "Personal Life" section. I don't think we print "claims" willy-nilly, wherever they come from. Isn't that the whole point of BLP? --Rodhullandemu 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know Falk was sick. If true, this is a worthy addition to WP. We should be sure it's true, first. Chergles (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• fully ednorse Rodhullandemus actions. I would have reverted and protected myself if they hadn't. This isn't acceptable sourcing. If its verifiable then the claim would have been widely reported in the press, since its not I'd say we have a BLP vio on iour hands. If notghing else, let the poor man keep some dignity. Spartaz 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as dignity, the family may not want anyone to know about it until he passes away. So WP can wait until it's widely reported. WP is more of an encyclopedia making a report, not an investigative news reporter and intelligence agency. Chergles (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the editor who originally removed the Alzheimers stuff so, naturally, I agree with Rodhullandemu. In addition to the sourcing issue (and, having had relatives with that disease, I find the allegation dubious), a possible WP:WEIGHT issue concerns me. This is a biography of modest length about a distinguished actor with a career dating back five decades. Doesn't seem proportional that his "personal life" section be dominated by Alzheimer's. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, has Falk or his agent come out and denied any of this yet? Ched (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just ran a Google News check, and that yielded this article in Radar Online, indicating that his daughter's bid to put her father in a conservatorship is opposed by Mrs. Falk. As for Falk's medical condition, Mrs. Falk's lawyer said "Mr. Falk is a private man, and we won't be commenting on his medical situation." This just underlines how this is a tabloidish family squabble, with Alzheimer's tossed in the stew as a weapon by one side of the family. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Stetsonharry's comments above; neither have they commented upon Mr Falk's purported purchase of a second hand flying saucer from Area51 Dealerships and Laundry Services. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good heavens... yep, good call Rodhullandemu, hopefully the stupidity will quiet down in a few days. Ched (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:WELLKNOWN. Affidavits whose contents have not been published in solid secondary sources are off limits for BLPs. Once reports have appeared in good, solid, reputable sources, what these sources have said can be reported. Unfortunately, there do seem to be reports in first class sources that he is ill Jayen466 22:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read your sources carefully: "according to his daughter" and "daughter says". Self-interest? You tell me. And, apparently, a single source. Please see discussion immediately below. --Rodhullandemu 22:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

True enough. Yet the daughter's claims seem to have been reported widely, including the BBC. It is hard to argue that the BBC and Reuters don't fulfil WP:WELLKNOWN, as long as the wording remains clear that these are unconfirmed claims made in a particular context. But having said that, I would have no quibble with editors wanting to hold back until there is more definite news. Jayen466 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another story casting doubt on the claims. Jayen466 23:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; despite the strenuous attempts to avoid tabloid toss, it remains tabloid toss, as examplified by "As the tabloids continue to speculate wantonly about the 81-year-old Falk's "sad last days" and alleged Alzheimer's disease, his daughter, Catherine, has filed for conservatorship of her father." Toss about toss is still toss; we remain an encyclopedia, and the day we stop being one is the day I get my hat and get my coat, and fuck off out of here. --Rodhullandemu 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• My closest and most recent comparator to this situation is when allegations that Michael Jackson has converted to Islam were made in The Sun, a UK tabloid. Mr Jackson and his substantial team were silent on the point, yet the claim was picked up on by numerous secondary sources. Several editors sought to use this faux multiplicity of sources to somehow imply verisimilitude for the original, dubious claim. In a sense, this is what is happening here, although on a somewhat smaller scale. It seems possible, however, that there is an issue within the family, and we should not rule out self-interest in sourcing. As for the status of an affidavit, whereas there are sanctions for knowingly mis-stating the position, it is little more than a statement of "this is what we intend to prove". In that sense, we should not regard such documents as reliable sources; they are necessarily polemical. In Mr Falk's case, it is a little bit of a cleft stick, in that if he has sufficiently advanced Alzheimer's, he is unable to effectively refute the allegations- but that seems to be the whole point of the proceedings at hand. I still regard WP:BLP as being paramount here, less on the grounds of WP:V and ] than on the point of human dignity, which should prevail (per Argumentum ad Jimbonem). If we need to deal with this, we should do so with scrupulously sourced information, not mere allegations. --Rodhullandemu 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no question that his daughter filed papers on the matter, on or about 12/16/08. The missing piece is independent verification that he really does have alzheimer's. Baseball Bugs 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a claim, and introduced in what appears to be a fierce family dispute by the daughter, who is not on good terms with the mother. I do not know if that specific claim is disputed, but given that this is an ongoing legal matter I think that it is probably best to wait until there is legal confirmation. Mr. Falk is kind of caught between the two. It is not a fair situation. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Misplaced Pages should leave this alone until we have that "just one more thing". Baseball Bugs 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many of those above; this looks like a classic example of when not to use a primary source. We need a reliable secondary source to evaluate the material in the primary source. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Endless personal attacks from User:Xenos2008

Xenos2008 (talk · contribs) seems like he has not make a single edit the past few weeks without personally attacking someone (mostly me). There is a lot of censorship in his comments, too, which is very agressive. This is impressive for a user contributing exclusively to one article's talk page.

First edit that involves (to an extent) both censorship and personal attack:

For a period after, he was civil enough (although still making bold comments about some sources and national institutions, that might seem offensive to some) but then a debate started about renaming the article. This user starting defend one version of it (although 2-3 days before he chose the other, but that is Ok) and that is when thiings started to get worse. From this point and forth, the user started some very offensive accusations of political motivation and POV (even if there had not been enough discussion prior to POV accusations to determine wether it is POV or not):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Deleting another user's comments:

The peak:

The warning:

And the answer: (malakia is a Greek word...)

Please check this out and act accordingly. Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a single-purpose, POV-pushing account who has made it clear that "truth" overrides "pedantic rules" of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this say about my recent NPA fiasco but, I gotta be honest Bugs I don't see it. Which user do you think is POV pushing? I see heated exchanges but nothing I would construe as being a personal attack. Sure, calling the WP "wanking" is not the best attitude but I saw it as directed toward the process, not the people. Don't tell me I've become jaded? Oh, crap. Padillah (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The repeated accusations of "political motivation", the overall behaviour and this last "malakia" (after the civility notice) are enormously agressive. The accusations of political motivation are personal attacks, I think.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As is implying s/he is the only one on the article's talk page with a brain. Which can be seen here. Landon1980 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008, the edit-warrior prince. "malakia" is Greek for "bad kia". Hope that helps. The main problem is that SPA Xenos is apparently smack in the middle of the situation (literally) and that could tend to bias his approach to the subject. However, this appears to be more of a content dispute than anything - such as whether to call the riots "riots" or "civil unrest". Baseball Bugs 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apa aff os

• Apa aff os (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned by this editor's contributions. They seem to have gone to a fair bit of trouble to get this complicated URL exactly right before posting it at Barack Obama. Harmless hijinks, routine spam/SEO efforts, or something more sinister? I can't tell. Posting here for some more tech-savvy opinions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like simple spam to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Icanbuy.com spamming

Edicanbuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is extremely desperate to have the spamtext currently viewable at User:Edicanbuy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) appear somewhere on Misplaced Pages. He has created/recreated Icanbuy.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) three times in the last three days, and when G11'ed there for the third time, created Talk:Icanbuy.com (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) to host the same content. When that was G11'ed, he recreated it on his userpage. However, between the time Talk:Icanbuy.com was speedy-tagged and when User:Edicanbuy was created, Edicanbuy was given a 4im warning about creating inappropriate pages, specifically referencing the icanbuy.com article. Can someone block this account and salt the pages in question? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, spam connected with his newly-created article Building Industry Association. Baseball Bugs 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by PMDrive1061 as G12, copyright infringement, but it's already been recreated] on the user's talk page. That would be three disruptive acts after a final warning and no helpful contributions whatsoever. --Dynaflow babble 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Black Kite 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for extra eyes

Borderline content dispute, possibly not appropiate for ANI, but...

Snowspinner/Sandifer appears to have some problems with my recent edits to Tori Amos and Talk:Tori Amos. In short order I've been blindly reverted, called a "blatant lie", accused or personal attacks, and told that he'll not discuss his edits on the talk page and that any further edits by my he'll consider personal attacks.

Given that Snowspinner has in the past both blocked me without warning over a content dispute and brought arbitration against me without any previous attempts at dispute resolution, I feel placing a notice here is appropiate.

I'd appreciate an objective set of eyes (or six) on the situation, as well as welcoming any input on my conduct. (As always.)

brenneman 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Aaron, you accused me of canvassing when I pointedly did not mention the article or direct anyone towards it, and you suggested that one of the problems with a source was that it was only "ostensibly" peer reviewed, which, given that you knew full well I had been the editor of that source, was a suggestion that I might be committing serious professional misconduct. Frankly, I've got to wonder what you *expected* me to do, especially given that this was a basically settled matter that, after discussion and editing a while ago, had stabilized on what appeared to be consensus. So showing up and reactivating a settled discussion by throwing mud at me, especially given a past history of conflict seems to me... well, to be honest, I'm really having to stretch to assume good faith here. Were it not for the fact that I can't think of anything I've done in years to piss you off, I'd assume this was just retaliation for something, but honestly, I'm at a loss. Perhaps you can explain - why reactivate a settled dispute on an article you've shown no prior interest in via mud-slinging against a user you have a checkered history with? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was a request for additional input. This is neither the article talk page nor my talk page. Please use an appropiate venue. - brenneman 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Very little about this seems appropriate to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you might want to reforumate your comments about the peer review the article has undergone. Phil does have a point there.Geni 01:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From an uninvolved admin - Phil, Aaron, all I see here are wrongs. I've full protected the article for 3 days to end this back and forth (though Aaron already stated he was done reverting). I can see no logical reason not to formally warn both of you - everyone involved has enough experience to know not to edit war, and yet you clearly did, up to and including stopping use of the talk page and sterile reverts recently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Locking the Amos article prevents other editors from being able to edit it. Wouldn't it be better instead to block Phil and Aaron for a day or two? That would be better for the encyclopedia if we believe the encyclopedia to be more important than the feelings of a couple of warring editors who should know better. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that protection is not needed here, brenneman has agreed to stop edit warring and I think Phil is a smart enough guy to stop too. If they keep it up, then I will block. So, I don't really see a need for protection here...but that's just me. Tiptoety 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? Block me for a day or two for edit warring? If "they keep it up"? This appears to be a wildly inaccurate, given that I

• Stated on the talk page my intetnions to edit the article,
• Edited the article per my stated intention,
• Missed (while section editing) a single blind revert by Snowspinner, which I at once noted on the talk page
• Made a single revertion,
  • after being told on the talk page the other editor would not discuss it
  • I said in the edit summary I wouldn't revert again
  • I said in the edit summary I would open a thread here
  • I opened a thread here, and
  • I continued to use the talk page.

(diffs for all the above happy to be provided if requested.) In contrast, Snowspinner has been blindly reverting changes to this section since December 10th, including three times today. Please, please tell me you're kidding.

brenneman 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to be basically two reverts plus you two have traded insults . So, I think Tiptoety is correct. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Brenneman, maybe I was not clear enough. Had you been edit warring, you would already have been blocked. The statement I made above was an attempt to say: "if they continue down the road they are on, then a block for edit warring will be the correct course of action." Tiptoety 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I been placed on 0RR Parole that I'm not aware of? I'm dissapointed by the level of attention placed on this prior to commenting. My first reversion (Revision as of 10:22) of his blind revert was missed in section editing (as I state that right above this) and when I noticed it I at once placed a note on the talk page "Care to discuss instead of reverting?". As I also state right above this. Snowspinner's response was "no, I don't want to have anything to do with you" and he continued blindly reverting. Also, I fail to see how the third link provided shows me trading insults.

To be frank, I feel as though I attempted to deal with someone agressive and belligerent in a reasonable manner and I'm getting a trout for it. I'm open to suggestions as to how this could have been handleded differently, given the long-term and agressive editting combined with the combative discussion style on the talk page.

Here are Snowspinners recent edits to the page: . That's twelve blind reverts. Three today, while stating that he would not discuss it. While "wrestle with pigs both get muddy" etc, is the suggestion that Snowspinner be allowed to force his prefeered version onto the page? (This is becoming a content dispute, but I'm also questioning the level of adminstrative responsibility at play here.) I can easily imagine a new usr in my situation saying something like "Are you all fucking nuts?" and then getting blocked for incivilty.

brenneman 02:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Complex thread from WP:AIV

• 75.108.73.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandalism after recent release of block. User had previously been on a month-long block for edits like these, user continues to vandalize pages and has been given a full-set of warnings. User doesn't seem to be changing behaviour after warnings and block. Requesting admin attention, please. NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 22:55
  • Vandalism continues well after the last warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:09
    • Vandalism continues with the user removing warnings from his talk page. Admin assistance is requested. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:31
      • I'm sorry, can you point me to what edits are vandalism here? I don't quite see what the issue is that needs to be reverted and blocked. Thanks, either way (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (not reverted by me), 11 (also not reverted by me). So....there are some vandalism there. Plus the block log showing this isn't a new thing for this anon user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:38
          • I'm not 100% convinced this is pure vandalism. Why is it vandalism to remove the (19xx-present) in the infobox? I don't think the removal of the subsection headers is necessarily vandalism either since it seems odd to have that subheading in such a small section as it is. either way (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, other users and one other admin think it is. 90% of stations have the (19xx-Present) text in the infobox. Removing it in one page and adding it in another (which this user has done) is pure and blantant vandalism. The "Digital Transition" section would only go under the "Digital Transition" header, not anything else. Removing it is pure and blantant vandalism....which again, other users and one other admin thing it is. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:51
              • The (19xx-Present) text isn't displayed on the infobox on the WikiProject page, so that's why I ask. He could be doing it to conform to what's on the WikiProject page. either way (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Metros...I have to ask, are you trying to make excuses for this guy? Someone who after a full set of warnings today, a couple dozen in the past months, and several blocks....this isn't a user who is interested in "conforming" to a WikiProject. To me, these seem like User:BenH style edits (a blocked user, by the way) but a checkuser wasn't able to confirm (nor deny) that. Why are you defending him when you are so quick to block the others on this page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:57
                  • I'm not defending, just saying I'm not convinced it's vandalism. either way (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • What would convince you? Because all those warnings, blocks and reverts obviously aren't. I am being serious, what would convince you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:02
                      • Edits that look like pure vandalism. You can warn and revert someone without it being pure vandalism. This is my final say on this, I leave it to other admins to decide. either way (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                        • I kinda figured you would do this. You are letting your issues with me cloud your judgement. Any uninvolved admins, assistance would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:33
• I'm also not convinced; at the very least, this isn't blatant vandalism. Have you asked the IP to explain their edits? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Many times, the anon user either doesn't answer or removed the post from the talk page. Not the best of making me feel good about the user's edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 00:50

The above thread was getting into back and forth a bit much and beyond the scope of simple matters for the WP:AIV board. Posting it here for additional eyes. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To some it up from my view point, as a declining admin, I don't believe that the IP is committing obvious vandalism (as per the AIV standard). I don't believe that the removal of dates from the infobox is obvious vandalism, especially when the WikiProject doesn't include it in its infobox. This is why I declined it on AIV, though Neutralhomer will insist that I declined it for personal reasons against him which is a false accusation. either way (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, ain't getting in the middle of it with you again Metros. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 01:21

I ask you again, please stop calling me that. If I wanted to be referred to as Metros, I would have retained that name. either way (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is not blatant vandalism on a first run through of the contributions. Please see WP:VAND#NOT. Editing against consensus, disruptive editing, edit warring, etc. are NOT vandalism. And I'll note that it is not warnings, admonitions or declarations that make edits vandalism. It is the content of the edits. Looking again more closely in a sec. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • HOW is this vandalism? Ditto this. Hell, show me one edit that is blatant vandalism. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Because it is removing sections of text for really no reason what-so-ever. In a couple days or weeks, the user will come back and rewrite it the way it previously was. This is what this user does....writes, rewrites, writes, rewrites the same thing over and over and over and over to multiple pages. One admin already considered it vandalism and blocked the user for a month. Several users (outside myself) have considered it vandalism and warned the user, tons of edits have been reverted by other users....so it isn't just me who things this is vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 01:59

I see a lot of template warnings with no rationale on the IP's talk page. Why not write out your rationale for reverting on the user's talk page? If the user continues editing in the same fashion without replying to your message, I'd consider that to be disruptive. A Train 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did write a "hand written" message at the very very bottom. Essentially saying "please stop or you will be blocked" and the user has continued. I haven't been able to get any response from the user except for blanking the page or just plain ignoring the warnings. I have honestly tried. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 02:12

All right, after a second look, I think the anon user is being decidedly uncooperative. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, failure to communicate with other editors about contentious edits is unequivocally disruptive. I'll block the user for 48 hours and invite them to respond to messages on their talk page. No prejudice against unblocking if the user explains his/herself. A Train 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • It isn't vandalism. They have a specific editing style and as A train points out, they are extremely uncooperative. But uncooperative, disruptive, tendentious, even pathologically incorrect writing, isn't vandalism. It isn't a bad faith defacement of pages. The questions "should we block this user" and "are the edits of this user vandalism" are not one and the same. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • As a note on the "other users have said this is vandalism". I'm not trying to string you up here. I'm not trying to say "you, Neutralhomer, are screwing up". Those admins and editors who marked his contributions as vandalism may have been wrong as well. Maybe he did make some vandalism right before being blocked (distinct from the edits we have been shown). But pointing to that determination doesn't justify one made in the present. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • If you want to call it disruptive editing over vandalism that is fine with me. Whichever you call it, it is annoying as hell and having to see the same things over and over back and forth on a page is annoying to say the least. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 30, 2009 @ 02:40
            • It is more than a semantic difference. Calling something vandalism, especially sending it to AIV, sets into motion a process whereby editors and admins act fairly mechanically. AIV is built for speed, not nuance. It isn't designed to judge the merits of contributions, just to literally check that you aren't fibbing when you say "this editor added "poop" to Bob Dole after a final warning, here is the diff". When you introduce non-vandal edits into that mix we slow down the whole process and we run the risk of blocking an editor without a fair look at their contributions. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

need IP block for ban-evading editor

 Done 31 hours --VS 03:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give a short block to 208.89.102.31 (talk · contribs). He's indef-blocked editor User:JedRothwell, evading his topic ban from Talk:Cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:TCO

This user has been previously blocked three times for disruption and WP:POINT on Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth. He seems to have not gotten the point of the blocks, and is still saying odd things on the talk page, among other places. I honestly don't know what to do (ARV would be a bad place)...so I came here. Thanks everyone, —Ed 17 02:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pussy. TCO (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards