Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.240.174.194 (talk) at 14:49, 26 November 2008 (→Ponty: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

WP:UP#NOT

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

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a link to an off-wiki website entitled "Jennifer J Dickinson and Mark Bellinghaus cyberstalking on Misplaced Pages" on their user page. I am pretty sure this contravenes our user page policy; Bellinghaus is a real person with an article here, and Dickinson is his colleague. I removed it once after discussion with the user, and the user has now restored it. Rather than block I thought I would bring it here for others to review, as I have been involved in editing the Bellinghaus article and am therefore not disinterested. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block? For what? I restored the userbox after reviewing WP:UP#NOT and finding nothing that seemed relevant. I asked you in the edit summary to bring it here or MFD if you continued to have concerns. Your comments on my talk page were added after I had restored it, fully 20 minutes after you had removed the material from my userpage. I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your comment about blocking me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than repeat the discussion here, please see the discussion on my talk page here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a block is premature until DC refuses to take down the link. This link is definately bad; one should not game the system by linking to pages that merely exist to contain information that would not normally be allowed at Misplaced Pages. We do not allow this sort of information on a userpage, so we also should not allow links to this sort of information. A userpage is not about discussing the behaviors of other people in this way; we don't maintain lists of "perceived wrongs" at Misplaced Pages, and therefore we should not also link to such pages from our userpage. The link should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The very short version of this is that I am falsely identified in several places on the internet, including Bellinghaus' own blog as Pauline Berry. I am not Pauline Berry. I have linked to the page on Berry's site where she addressed this misidentification. I do not control the content of the site. Most of the page is actually just cut and paste of WP discussions. I am not refusing to take down the link, but I don't have time for this discussion at the moment. If a consensus is reached that the link must go, please leave the userbox intact and just remove the link. Thanks. 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since DC is being falsely linked to Pauline Berry on other sites, it is not unreasonable for him/her to want a denial on the userpage. However, DC, I wonder if you might be willing to remove the link. Perhaps people can e-mail you if they want more than just your denial. Let's leave aside hitting DC with policy, and just ask nicely. Would you please, in the interests of reducing drama, be willing to remove this link?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hey, if I say my name is Xing, will you do as I ask? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Having read all the proof (following the links on DC's talk page)((PS: I read it a long time ago)), I was astounded at the attempts to identify DC, and the lengths someone went to in order to trash them. I have NO issue with DC defending themselves. You insist they remove the link, then DC can just copy and paste a whole whack of it ... and place <ref> </ref> with it, so that it's properly cited. ►BMW◄ 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est folie ! L'escarboucle doit utiliser tous les outils il ou elle a à leur disposition pour se défendre du "bellinghaus" d'équipe et n'importe quelle suggestion autrement serait comme mettre un tas des briques sur un hamster et l'instruire au " équilibre, " de monsieur. Les tendrils de la marque Bellinghaus vont loin et profondément. Cahiers du jason (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Parlez en anglais, s'il vous plait. C'est la "English" Misplaced Pages. (Putting bricks on a hamster and telling it to "balance" - have to remember that one.) Avruch 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloqué pendant une semaine pour perturbation, je suppose avec Google translator. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacré phoque!!! ►BMW◄ 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest resolving any off-wiki problems off-wiki and just doing stuff on here that is designed to improve our encyclopedia. I don't think this falls into that area which is why I raised it here, after my attempts to persuade Delicious carbuncle to remove the material were unsuccessful. And, although naturally we are all highly able linguists here, this is best resolved in English. --John (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki things are often brought here, such as threats, etc. We have a policy against WP:OUTING. Editors may also defend themselves. They're not spamming/advertising. Case closed. I see very little support for your attempts to remove their defense. On top of that, I know that I am a cunning linguist, and the block of a user noted above is partly because of comments made in this thread, so relax a little. ►BMW◄ 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place for this sort of "defense". "He did it first" is not a defense against WP:BLP. I am relaxed about most things but this is a flagrant breach of a policy which exists to keep our organization safe from being sued. I am not relaxed about this. I do not want to see anyone blocked over this, I just want the offending and unencyclopedic content removed in accordance with our policy on user pages. --John (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to settle any dispute through having this link on my userpage, either on- or off-wiki. I'm simply trying to correct the misidentification by pointing to the web site of the other person being falsely identified. Let me point out again that what you refer to as "the offending and unencyclopedic content" isn't on my userpage. People coming to my userpage will not see it unless they choose to click on the external link. I don't think there's anything even remotely actionable on the external web page, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really qualified to offer an opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BUt the whole point is, if its information that would not normally be allowed on your userpage, then its not information you should be able to link to from your userpage. The distinction between "actually printed on my userpage" vs. "printed in a link from my userpage" is moot, and attempting to claim that the former should be allowed where the latter is not is simply gaming the system. The link should come down! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, either, but there are tons of editors linking to their personal blogs on their userpage. Instead of racing to claim the lofty moral righteousness of Policy, why can't people start off with the basics - that the page linked in DC's userpage makes them feel uneasy; nothing more, nothing less - and then have a level, paced, reasoned discussion from there? Part of what's dragging the project down (as well as many other Web 2.0-style projects, I should add) is this notion of discussion as a "race" of some sort. If people could feel comfortable asking for clarification and/or elaboration ("What do you mean? ~~~~") without being looked down on as trolls or threadshitters, not only would we all collectively end up with a lot more clarity and elaboratification, but long-winded folk (*cough*) wouldn't feel as pressured to address every single conceivable point in one long mass of tl;dr, perhaps skipping over important nuances in our drive to explain all. Focused conversations are good, but there's such a thing as too focused. Badger Drink (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I think there's a difference between the content actually being on WP and being on an external site. If the guidelines are to protect WP from being sued, as John suggests, there is good reason to disallow certain content on user pages, but that no longer applies if the content only linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it makes any difference? More importantly, what is this contributing to our mission to build an encyclopedia? If you cannot answer convincingly, you should take the link down. --John (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES was rejected. --NE2 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur though. I am not objecting to this because of BADSITES but because it contravenes WP:USER and WP:BLP, neither of which has been rejected. --John (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as you suggest above, WP:BLP exists to protect WP from potential legal issues, then there is no issue here since the content is not on WP. I still don't see any part of WP:USER that applies here - can you be more specific? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. WP:BLP exists to ensure that this project does no unnecessary harm to living individuals. It way beyond what might be legally actionable. It certainly does apply to userspace, and can at times apply to links that contain libels, or other grossly unhelpful material. We don't link bios to attack blogs for instance, and we don't link the names of private individuals to unauthoritive attack pages. BLP is pertinent here. Please do remove the link.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:USER that may address the charge from Jayron32 that I am attempting to "game the system": "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it." The clear implication is that content which is not allowed on user pages may be freely linked to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well and good; but BLP trumps USER I'm afraid. Please remove the link. --John (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I know you've corresponded with Bellinghaus and you may feel that you need to protect him. If he were simply posting nasty remarks about "Delicious carbuncle", I really wouldn't care. Sadly, he is targeting an entirely innocent party and claiming that we are one and the same. Bellinghaus' account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here for similar comments. I am simply linking to the page on her site where Pauline Berry defends herself against Bellinghaus' accusations. I don't feel that the content of that page is offensive, but it's a moot point since it is a private website and WP rules don't apply. She has, as a result of the discussion on my talk page and unbidden by me, changed the title of the page to "Mark Bellinghaus Accusations Addressed". I don't feel that I am violating any policy or guideline by linking to the page, but does the title change alleviate your concerns? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. If somebody accuses you of something on-wiki, we can deal with it, as you have seen. Off-wiki stuff doesn't need to be dealt with on your Misplaced Pages user page. I find it astonishing the amount of time and energy you have spent defending this link. It contributes nothing at all to the reason we are here; why is it so important to you to keep it? --John (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The time I've spent defending it is only as the direct result of your attempts to have me remove it. I've explained several times now why the link is on my userpage. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I will remove the link if that is the consensus that is reached. I honestly don't see that consensus here, nor do I feel that I am in violation of any WP rules, but I'm sure there's an admin or two who will weigh in shortly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm growing rather tired of John's continual one-sided arguments about this. It's starting to look like a jihad witch-hunt relentless-chase-very-much-along-the-same-line-as-the-hunt-for-the-one-armed-man. We got your point from the start. Further repetition of the same point, although with different wording, is not swaying anyone. I see no real consensus to take punitive action, and I really still don't get why there was any feeling that immediate intervention was required. ►BMW◄ 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A link on wikipedia to a web site, where someone complains of "being harassed by telephone and being defamed online as a 'criminal'" by a named living person is completely unacceptable. It is indeed a one-sided argument and is spelled out clearly in WP:BLP. We do not allow such links. Ty 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review this entry on Bellinghaus' blog entitled "Pauline Berry, 45, the Cyberstalker & Marilyn Monroe mocker is bored to death in New Zealand and hiding behind names like Delicious Carbuncle on Misplaced Pages and more of the hired haters, freaks & creeps". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite irrelevant to our policies, which are not dictated by people's blogs; nor is wikipedia a place to promote off-wiki attacks on people, whether justified or not. Your implication about John above is quite unfounded. Both he and I have had email correspondence with the individual in question, and both of us in the last 24 hours have received what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life, so I can assure you there is no motivation for personal favours. I am, for the record, apparently John, as well as some other people I've never heard of before, and am in league with Delicious Carbuncle. Now, will you kindly remove the link. Ty 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Through no actions of my own, my username has been inserted into a pre-existing off-wiki dispute between two people and my userpage linked to by one of those parties. As Bellinghaus' own blog entry shows, the parts of the linked web page that you picked out as offensive are factual. I don't think that it is accurate to characterise Berry's site as an attack page, nor is it reasonable to expect that any external site will follow WP policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External sites can follow whatever policies they want, but users on this site have to follow wikipedia policies. That is a requiring of having the privilege of editing here, and that is why one of the individuals involved in this dispute has been blocked from this site. It is not appropriate for a user page to direct people to extreme accusations in a vicious blog war. As you don't seem to be willing to take the link off, I am making a proposal that it is removed regardless. Ty 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated at the very beginning of this pointlessly long thread, I am perfectly willing to remove the link of there is consensus for me to do so. Despite John's constantly shifting reasons for deleting the link and your assertion that this is in violation of WP:BLP, I don't believe that I am in violation of any WP policy and I don't see any consensus for removal of the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To date those asking for removal are John, Jayron32, Scott MacDonald, Tyrenius. The only clear supporter (in English) of this link is BMW. It's quite obvious that the consensus is that it is not appropriate. Ty 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I took Scott MacDonald's comments as a request to reduce unnecessary drama, and I think I addressed Jayron32's concerns about WP:USER#NOT earlier in this thread. NE2's statement is pretty clearly against removal. I don't know how to take Badger Drink's comments. BMW also finds that no consensus has been reached. You and John have dominated this thread. Given that both of you have been involved with Bellinghaus' bio and have off-wiki communication with Bellinghaus, I question your neutrality in this matter.I think I've said everything I need to say here and I'm tired of repeating myself, so my only request is that someone other than you or John remove the link if they decide that there is consensus to do so. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my 10c worth as owner of the site pointed to from DC's page is this: since both Ty and John are in contact with Bellinghaus could they possibly suggest he could solve his own problems by removing HIS accusations on his blog? I know its almost too simple a solution to consider. Then DC I am sure would have no problem removing the link, the same as I would have no problem with taking down the page itself referring to this wiki dispute. I have to say there is nothing attacking in my page, (Ty said "vicious" - I am really confused about that, as I think that word applies in a "Godzilla-like" way to the above link on the Bellinghaus site about myself). At most, there a little sarcasm on my page, which outlines my looking into the reason for the phonecalls etc. I don't see how it can be viewed as "accusatory" either, as it simply reproduces "on record" wiki conversations between myself and DC including Bellinghaus's own words. Accusations? I am not accusing him of making a threatening phone call, it actually happened and you can hear a recording of it on my page. Yes the text is somewhat damning - yes, the text gives a very bad impression of Bellinghaus - but he authored it and admitted his wiki ids! He is the author of his own bannings all over the net. No, the page is an explanation for anyone catching a very bad impression of DC and myself via highly critical and incorrect information on Bellinghaus blogs.

Furthermore, I dare not communicate with Bellinghaus myself, as anything I could possibly say (and I tried total understanding and kindness, believe me) will be twisted against me and reproduced a 100 times on various blogs.

On another note; Ty and John are worried about threats of Misplaced Pages being sued, rest assured Mark's threats are simply that. I have heard all that before (as can you if you listen to the recordings on my site). Now a question: is the threat of a lawsuit an actual threat? i.e. an empty lawsuit threat is simply a tool of intimidation, thus a threat, is it not . . . . ? Restawhile (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Restawhile. If you read upthread a few posts you will see that Mark Bellinghaus and I are no longer in contact with one another as a result of some highly abusive emails he has sent to me and Tyrenius, accusing us of both being one and the same and also being someone who he has been in conflict with, so the idea of me or Ty asking him to do anything like that is out of the question. Let me also clarify that I have no interest whatsoever in your blog, Bellinghaus's blog or any other blog. My interest has only ever been in removing this offending material from Misplaced Pages. Once that is done the matter is concluded for me. Furthermore BLP is not entirely predicated on the likelihood of a user actually filing suit against the Wikimedia Foundation, but simply in preventing harm to living people. However ironic it may seem after MB's abusive behavior, I remain committed to correcting this situation on-wiki. --John (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that John or I are not neutral because we have received emails from MB to be absurd, unless it means we are biased against MB, which I don't think is what was intended. I mean, DC, please actually read the post you are answering: it describes the emails received as "what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life". So I am under no illusion about the nature of the aggravation involved. But it has no place on wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia. WP:BLP mandates that no contentious material about living people has any place on the project, unless it is properly referenced by reliable sources, not personal interpretations of the blogosphere. That includes links on wikipedia which go to such material. Find acceptable sources which think it is a sufficiently important matter, and then it can go in the article. Until such time, wikipedia does not provide space to promote it. Ty 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "basic human dignity" goes both ways: if someone's pointing people to a user page, saying that user is someone, that user should be able to deny that. And for everyone that says BLP requires removal of links such as this: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statement, March 1st, 2008 --NE2 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an objection to a simple statement of denial (especially as the RL person mentioned is supportive). It's the link that is problematic. The linked page had an extremely inflamatory heading, which has now been toned down, so it is an unpredictable page (just the reason blogs are steered clear of), but essentially geared to negative information about a third party. Jimbo's statement is not criticising a third party: it is defending his own actions and relationship to wikipedia. Had there been a litany of Rachel Marsden's perceived flaws, it would have been received very differently. Ty 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

John apparently has a problem with more than just the link. --NE2 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The diff shows him removing the link(s). If you mean he removed the user box as well as the link in it, well, that's just nit-picking, and is not going to help reach a solution, which seems to be evolving further down the discussion. Ty 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a highly tenuous connection for you to make for two reasons. One is that the Jimbo sex scandal was a major gossip story back in March, placing it in a different class entirely from these people bickering over who said what about Marilyn Monroe's dress. The other is that while people half-jokingly refer to Jimmy Wales as a god-king, we all know that he does not create policy or precedent by his actions.--John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how someone's user page can be considered part of the building of the encyclopedia, its simply a user page, of no consequence to actual articles on wiki Restawhile (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, BLP does apply everywhere, including user pages. The question is whether it applies to this statement and link. --NE2 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess Jimbo Wales is in trouble too. I am for the general consensus bearing the weight of decision. If my vote counts, I say "keep". However, I didn't ask DC to link to my site and am well used to my stalker, so I don't really mind what happens here. I do however, thank DC, if chivalry was behind the linking, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about my real name and his/her user name forever being linked on the internet in such a negative way.Restawhile (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to make a signed statement on DC's page that there is no evidence that DC is Pauline Berry and all the evidence indicates that (s)he is not, and that DC is a respected editor on wikipedia. If some other editors provided something similar, it would be immediately informative to anyone going to the user page, having read about it elsewhere in a negative way. Ty 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great solution to me. Perhaps mention there is no isp number in common? Restawhile (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I too would be happy with this solution. Far better than linking to an attack blog out of some misguided sense of equal time. Misplaced Pages is not here to provide equal time or to address perceived wrongs off-site. --John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what people's IP addresses are, but for the rest I have the evidence of my own eyes. Ty 06:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This solution has been rejected by Delicious carbuncle. Ty 05:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This link is not acceptable

This page would not be permitted on a user page. It violates WP:UP#NOT and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space. It is not acceptable to game the system by posting an external link to it instead. The page concerns a banned editor, and a real name, where the person is said to be "a deranged fan" with the comment "I couldn't have agreed with this statement more", who "writes new lies about you daily", and who makes phone calls "in a menacing manner": the commentator states, "I was being harassed by telephone." It mentions the real name of an associated third party, who is accused of being a "co-harasser". The fact that some of this was stated on wikipedia is irrelevant. Some of it shouldn't have been in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be compiled and attention drawn further to it. All of this is far in excess of Delicious carbuncle's purported motive of simply asserting that s/he is not Pauline Berry, which can be achieved by a plain statement to that effect. If Dc, as appears the case, is not willing to voluntarily remove the link, then it would be best done by someone not significantly involved in this discussion. Dc has indicated that this is acceptable, but if they then replace it, they should be blocked for doing so. Ty 05:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would second the above. The link is not acceptable merely because DC has found some random line on a guidleline page that may be used to kinda-sorta justify it. WP:OUTING is a sacrosacnt policy at Misplaced Pages. We cannot control what happens off-wiki, but we really should prevent people from making any attempt on-wiki to out other users, and linking to a page which outs a Misplaced Pages user is the same as outing on the wiki itself. If the link is removed, then there would be no problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread I'm being unnecessarily threatened with blocking (both times by admins who have off-wiki contact with Bellinghaus). I've made my position clear in my earlier comments. If quoting the guideline that I'm supposedly breaking is finding "a random line" and wikilawyering then there's little I can say in my defense. I'm making no further comments here so that I won't be blocked for being "disruptive" which is usually what comes next in these kinds of witch hunts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at resolution

I personally believe that this does not need to be solved at an administrator level. As I'm officially a neutral party with no real previous interactions with either, I have offered to John and DC to informally mediate. If they both agree I would personally like to put this ANI issue on hold until then. To start, I would like to only involve the 2 original parties, and will involve additional comment later. I am awaiting response from John and DC on my talkpage in order to move forward with a resolution that is acceptable to WP and all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)

A mediator should be neutral. I do not regard Bwilkins as neutral, so I reject this offer. The consensus here seems reasonably clear in favor of removing the attack link. I suggest that Bwilkins or another party remove the link, and that DC be blocked for a short period if they restore it. DC has rejected what seemed to be a reasonable compromise offer in favor of the status quo, which I don't think is acceptable. --John (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a sad understanding of both WP:CONSENSUS and of my own neutrality, if the above is actually what you believe. I'm actually quite blown away that you have no realization that your "opponent" is also a human being with feelings, and that I (as about the 4th person who was disagreeing against only 2 others) was somehow against "consensus", and is anything other than neutral. Wow. Good luck with your future interactions with the human race. ►BMW◄ 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT Marking as resolved as the link no longer works from DC's page. ►BMW◄ 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion (related issue)

Mark Bellinghaus' self-identified account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here. An account previously part of this Bellinghaus-related SSP case has recently begun editing again, on Mark Bellinghaus. Anyone having read the above thread should understand and recognize the accusations made here, even though they didn't make sense to me at the time. Weareallone (talk · contribs) is quite obviously Bellinghaus evading his block. SPA TerpischoreMuse (talk · contribs) is a likely sock as well. Can someone please look at blocking? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban for Weareallone and Delicious carbuncle from editing the Mark Bellinghaus article, in the interest of reduced dramah. MB should not be editing his own article, and DC has amply demonstrated that a conflict of interest exists for them on this subject too. --John (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to get into this debate too much, as it looks like many concerned are getting very caught up in it, but I think it's worth pointing out the state of the article when DC made his first edit on it: 1, at a point when seasoned editors John and TY had made edits but not had an issue with the content. To me, that looks like an article with need of a lot of improvement, and looking at the history, not only has DC patrolled the page, removing both unreasonably positive comments and negative attacks, s/he has also incurred a great deal of abuse from the parties involved in the page simply because s/he was following WP guidelines. To prevent anyone from editing the page if they have been contacted by Mark Bellinghaus would first exclude practically everyone who does, as MB seems to get in touch in most of these cases, and secondly would definately exclude DC, TY, John, Pauline Berry especially, all of whom have confirmed that they were contacted by Bellinghaus. If DC is to be banned for COI issues, then surely John and TY must undergo the same sanction. You can't just have one rule for one in this case, surely? Fantastic Work (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Get the facts right. The article as lasted edited by John and myself was nothing like the version you linked to. It had subsequently had multiple edits by Weareallone to bring it to the version you cite, whose contents I would certainly have an issue with. You might like to be more specific about and substantiate "s/he has also incurred a great deal of abuse from the parties involved in the page," as this casts a negative light over anyone who has edited the article. What COI exactly do you think I have? I have no involvement with any of the RL activities of the people involved, nor any particular interest in the subject. Ty 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This is Fantastic Work's first edit. Who are you a sock of? Ty 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very simple request to look into block evasion. It's not drama and it's not in any way, shape, or form an attack on the individual using the accounts. Bellinghaus has never contacted me off-wiki. Can we just deal with this like any other admin request, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI does not just mean that though. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". It is a line you have crossed with the user page comment and (now-dead) link you are still fighting to keep. There are plenty of other editors who can work on that article. You should not, and neither, I agree, should its subject. --John (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Weareallone has now been blocked. I'm not sure what I'm being accused of here. I have no "outside interests" in Bellinghaus. Bellinghaus inserted my username into a pre-existing off-wiki dispute between himself and someone else after I nominated the article for deletion many months ago. That was nothing to do with me. My interest in the article is exactly the same now as it was then, except I now know more about Bellinghaus. I'm happy to treat the article as fully protected and make suggestions on the talk page. Will that satisfy you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban on Mark Bellinghaus proposed here--I broke it off because this thread is getting way long. Blueboy96 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it just below. It belongs with the rest of the talk here. Ty 03:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Mark Bellinghaus/Mmmovie/Weareallalone

Since it's obvious that Mmmovie=Weareallone=Mark Bellinghaus (see above), I've blocked Weareallone indef. And given that Mr. Bellinghaus has been inclined to harass Wikipedians offsite, I also propose a community ban. Blueboy96 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some past history--Mmmovie, alias Mark Bellinghaus, was blocked indef by me for an attempt to out another user's real-life identity. A discussion on the above-linked thread reveals that Mr. Bellinghaus has made several atempts to harass other Wikipedians offsite. While I agree that Delicious carbuncle probably needs to take a long break from editing Mr. Bellinghaus' article, harassing other Wikipedians offsite is not acceptable. Ever. Therefore, he needs to be sent on a permanent Wikibreak. Blueboy96 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to derail this discussion before it starts, but I want to repeat the suggestion I made at the other thread above: I'm more than willing to treat Mark Bellinghaus as fully protected and make my edit suggestions on the talk page. Since I seem unable to make even the most mundane and uncontentious change to the article without it being scrutinized and revised, it's probably better for everyone involved. Is this a reasonable compromise? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me ... but my point is that his off-site harassment would not be acceptable regardless of the circumstances. Blueboy96 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could deal with Delicious carbuncle's insistence on maintaining a link on their user page to off-site harassment. The discussion in the threads above on this— which I see as a consensus that the link should not be kept—was closed by Bwilkins on the basis that the matter was void as the link was dead. However, simply copying it into google brings up the cache of the page. I can see no reason for maintaining a dead link unless to guide people to where to find the cache. As I have pointed out earlier, the page which the link refers to is about the banned editor and real name, where the person is said to be "a deranged fan", who "writes new lies about you daily", and who makes phone calls "in a menacing manner": the page owner states, "I was being harassed by telephone." It mentions the real name of an associated third party, who is accused of being a "co-harasser". There is some degree of reconciliation between the page owner and the target of the page, so to keep the link is doubly provocative as a sabotage of the page owner, who no longer wants it to be online. Ty 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... good point, Ty. To my mind, this now becomes a "two wrongs don't make a right" issue. Bellinghaus' harassment, on- and off-wiki, is miles beyond tolerable. But there's really no reason to have a dead link on a userpage once you know it's dead. I'm removing it.Blueboy96 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why I can't have a dead link on my userpage? I've already had this discussion with Tyrenius on my talk page. The page that Tyrenius refers to no longer exists, there is nothing offensive or even suggestive about the URL, and the idea that people reaching an error page will then Google the URL for a cached page seems somewhat ridiculous to me. Google's cached page will likely be gone in a matter of days anyway. There may be no reason to keep it, but surely that's for me to decide? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised the link hasn't be redirected to GoatSE yet. Suffice to say, you have no idea if it'll ever link to anything else. And a dead link is useless to any reader. At best, it's confusing; at worst, it could be misleading. Finally, we don't own our userpages, though editors tend to get some leeway. If consensus is you shouldn't have the link, you may as well take it down. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right - the woman who was previously using the page to defend herself against some pretty awful online accusations will probably redirect the link to a pornographic shock site. I'll restore the userbox without the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the ban discussion get moved back to a separate thread? No one with any sense will touch it here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely offended by Hands that Feeds You's suggestion. Just goes to show perhaps that Mark Bellinghaus has indeed marred my reputation and perhaps someone has read his webpages and believed that perhaps even some of what he said is true. I thought his internet abuse was only hurtful to me if I came across it and had no bearing on real life, but judging from the above person's comment I feel it has damaged me after all. I have been very forgiving of MB against a mountain of abuse and I would never, ever dream of linking to extreme pornography or anything else remotely like it. Did Hand That Feeds actually read my page about MB and wikipedia? if they did I think their comprehension is dubious. I had to google to even find out what a GoatSE was. Hand that feeds should also see this page: www.marilynfansunited.com I think HTFY should retract the above disgusting suggestion about my possible behaviour! One more time, all the quotes from my page describe actual events and are/were not accusations. All these actual events were admitted by Bellinghaus himself! Its what I actually suffered and now it is being used against me! Restawhile (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Restawhile (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Another troubling user page - Judge Florentino Floro

I just removed a whole ton of comments. Here is why: WP:BLP applies to *all* pages of Misplaced Pages, not just articles. This is a real person we're talking about, or a name that belongs to a real person, and we don't even know if the editor using this name is actually the individual it belongs to. Can folks please, please stay away from drawing conclusions about the personality behind the account, and try to keep in mind that we should treat all BLP issues with seriousness and respect and not disdain or deprecating humor? Avruch 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro -- I blocked this user indefinitely for outing (and you should see what he's written on this talk page now), and never looked at his user page. Is it a record for weirdness? And is it acceptable? He talks a lot about other people so I'm a bit worried about BLP. If I type his name into Google, his user page is the first hit (hey Diligent Terrier, you're in the snippet!), which doesn't seem too good. And our article (Florentino Floro) on him is 2nd, which is no problem obviously. dougweller (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that fact mentioned on his page, but anyway, wouldn't it be better if Misplaced Pages prevented user pages from being indexed by Google? Surely such an action would prevent certain Misplaced Pages admins from bragging on slashdot that they're more popular than other famous people with the same name, but I don't consider this side effect a bad thing. Pcap ping 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

o_O I had no idea that we actually had an article on him... Wow. And Cortez, I'd be glad to remove your brain :) Anyways, what is it that we should do? ♫ IceUnshattered 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read the last version of the mainspace article that was written mostly by Floro himself . Quite different from the current article, isn't it? He was clearly using his user page for more of his POV. The article and his user page are the top 2 hits on Google when searching for "Florentino Floro". Indexing of user pages makes soapboxing too easy for all but banned users. Of course, given his psychotic antecedents, Floro just embarrasses himself on his user page, probably without even realizing it. I don't think that facilitating self-ridicule of the mentally ill is a goal of Misplaced Pages. Good job blanking the page, but not allowing Google to index such pages would be better. Pcap ping 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention what I actually came here to say. Users LUIS_Armand_and_Angel and Judgefloro are two of the dozen alternate accounts he claims to have. This is in addition to the now blocked Juanatoledo. They haven't been active since 2007, but should something be done about those accounts? Especially since he declared his intention to keep editing either anonymously or under another name. --Migs (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, it is good to see this issue (finally) getting some attention from the community. I think the proposal to prevent google from indexing user pages is a really good one. Where could that be taken up? xschm (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins may also want to be aware of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Florentino floro, which he has recently been claiming that he won (presumably on the grounds that his account wasn't permanently banned on the spot). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply, deeply upset by the comments I'm reading above. It's completely inappropriate to talk so disparagingly of someone who has worked hard on Misplaced Pages for quite some period of time. Can we consider unblocking him now? Have any conditions been discussed? If there's anything I can do, I'd be happy to help. At the very least, let's restore his user page and quit adding insult to injury. Everyking (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoring his user page would in no way be in the interests of Misplaced Pages. If we did that, it would be a statement that almost anything except attack pages is acceptable in userspace. dougweller (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so totally pleased that people are now finally talking about how crazy this is. For so so long, I thought no one else could see it. TheCoffee (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wake up, and smell the coffee! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Pcap ping 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody mind if I IAR and delete the personal images? We (and I suppose, he) don't really want anybody out there to turn some of those into some internet meme or something, do we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dang, they are all on commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we just need to find a commons admin. I don't know if the user is even blocked over at commons yet? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are, uh...nice pictures -shifty eyes- , but I really can't see any encyclopedic value in them. I'm not really familiar with the deletion policies, but I really feel uncomfortable with just letting those images sit there. ♫ IceUnshattered 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone has the time and patience to go over his uploads, I think most of them can be tagged for deletion because they fail . Pcap ping 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

When someone devotes a year or more of their own time to help us build an encyclopedia, that is something worthy of our respect, not ridicule. This discussion, filled with claims of mental illness and insults, is wildly inappropriate. If we cannot agree on unblocking Florentino, we can at least treat him with some measure of respect. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Everyking. Respect for everyone, especially the weaker members of society, should be a motherhood issue. Understood and followed by everyone. Dr.K. (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax people. He's indef blocked, we're not going to unblock him, and arguing over semantics here isn't constructive. Concerns: 1) have all his socks been blocked 2) what are we going to do about his upcoming unblock? — sephiroth bcr 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If yer not gonna unblock him, why should we be concerned about his "upcoming unblock"? X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm wary of another thing like this. And I won't be the one handling the upcoming unblock because I recused myself by declining the first unblock. — sephiroth bcr 06:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested on my talk page that if Floro agrees to be more civil we should unblock him. It is my position that given his behaviour in the past this wouldn't work and that he is not in control of himself enough to do this. And of course that there are other reasons why an unblock would be wise, which we don't need to discuss unless someone seriously starts a new discussion about unblocking him. dougweller (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Everyking, I don't think anyone else is pressing from an unblock. Given a review of this archive, I don't think an unblock is warranted in any situation. I don't care that he suffers from a mental condition. I care that it clearly affects his editing, and in the end, it's a giant net negatitive. He's clearly not responsive to any attempts at reasonable discourse to change his behavior. — sephiroth bcr 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What should we do if he tries to subvert the block by using a sockpuppet, maybe User:Lux Lord? xschm (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch, how did you find that one? I'm blocking it indefinitely. TheCoffee (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Better keep an eye on this fellow as well. I suspect this is Floro, though I have no evidence other than the speech patterns on the few talk page edits he has. --Migs (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And created just about 5 hours after Floro's block. Remember, we know that Floro has created sockpuppets in the past, there is every reason to believe he is likely to be using them now. dougweller (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely floro. The MV Sirius Star is one of his obsessions. xschm (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My position is that we ought to outline conditions that would make it at least theoretically possible for Florentino to resume editing, if he is willing to modify his behavior, rather than saying, like Doug, that he is fundamentally incapable of working within the environment and should never be allowed back under any circumstances. As I pointed out on Doug's talk page, this is only Florentino's second block ever. Florentino has been around for quite a while, and if he's such a difficult and troublesome user, why hasn't he been blocked more often? It's not normal to move straight to an indef when dealing with an editor like Florentino. Why don't we try short blocks to see if his behavior can be guided in that manner? Everyking (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just tossing off some ideas for unblock conditions:-

• F. Floro acknowledges that the behaviour that got him blocked for harassment was unacceptable and undertakes not to repeat it;
• F. Floro accepts an experienced editor as a mentor;
• an experienced editor volunteers to mentor F. Floro.

How does that sound so far? Sufficient, or is there more? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Those seem like reasonable conditions to me. The fundamental thing--I think--is that he face the fact that he has behaved inappropriately. Also, since I have seen him be adopted before, I think we need assurances from the adopter/mentor that floro will be closely supervised, and actively coached on what constitutes good editing. I think the indefinite block is unnecessarily harsh, but if he comes back, I think it is reasonable for the community to expect a more conciliatory tone from him and a willingness to listen to criticism. I have been among the harshest critics of his editorial style, but all along I've said that I don't think he is unredeemable (if that's a word). xschm (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This will not work. Check his talk page archives yourselves and see. He refuses to be adopted by Filipino editors because he believes there is a conspiracy against him. He also believes his first adopter resigned due to being harassed by said Filipino editors. When criticized, he does not respond with anything constructive but rather says "DENIED" and asks us to course our complaints through his adopter instead. It's clear that he thinks of adoption as protection. This is supported by the fact that Floro began looking for a new adopter and canvassing for help at the same time the ANI discussion began. He even titled the heading "Help me, then, adopt me, if you please"!

As far as asking him to acknowledge his own behaviour, I need to remind everyone that this is only one of the reasons the block was made indefinite. Again, check the previous discussion for the full breadth of Floro's faults as an editor. Not only that; even if he does refrain from harassing people on Misplaced Pages, he will continue to do it offsite. I had previously linked one of his many blogs where he quite publicly discusses the lives of several Misplaced Pages editors whom he's encountered, and I can personally attest that Floro has been pestering at least two editors on other websites. Sure, this may not be happening on Misplaced Pages, but it's clearly a related matter and I think several people are uncomfortable enough with that as it is.

Lastly, the discussion about his self-admitted psychosis has been removed. I don't know why so many people are unwilling to hear this. It is not irrelevant at all. We have never opposed Floro because of his mental problems but because these mental problems are very clearly reflected in most of his edit history. He accuses editors of conspiracies, "outs" them as being connected to real-life disasters, and defends his non-notable edits by saying his psychic powers told him they were notable. This is not something that can be fixed by reprimanding him. And yes, we know he's the real deal because his uploads to commons are pictures that only the real Floro would have. --Migs (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a whole ton of comments. Here is why: WP:BLP applies to *all* pages of Misplaced Pages, not just articles. This is a real person we're talking about, or a name that belongs to a real person, and we don't even know if the editor using this name is actually the individual it belongs to. Can folks please, please stay away from drawing conclusions about the personality behind the account, and try to keep in mind that we should treat all BLP issues with seriousness and respect and not disdain or deprecating humor? Avruch 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef is just that, Indefinite. It can be hours, days, months, years. The point is to protect Misplaced Pages, right? I think he has shown that he is incapable of working within the environment (indeed, I don't think he really understands the environment) and I'm unhappy about his blog where he discusses the personal life of Misplaced Pages editors - do we welcome him back and ignore that? And recall that he is evading the block in any case. Do we just ignore that and unblock him? Is everyone happy with his edits here ? It isn't quite as simple as just acknowledging that the behaviour that got him blocked was unacceptable, not any more. I just had an edit conflict, if we think the editor using Floro's name isn't Floro then we really should be concerned, but I doubt that is the case. dougweller (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the link to his blog here had been removed. dougweller (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think blocking him permanently is the best solution. He reason he's even lasted as long as he has is because so many people have assumed he has the ability to listen and adapt to criticism, which he has not demonstrated. At least two people have formally acted as his mentor and have been frustrated to the edge. At least two more people have scrutinized his edits obsessively and provided a wealth of criticism that he simply outright rejects. He is nearly impossible to deal with using logic (for one, see his edits on Jimbo's talk page). This is a guy with serious mental issues, and should not be writing an encyclopedia. If you look at his history with the Philippine Supreme Court you'd empathize with them... he's frustrated them to the edge as well. He'll listen to nothing less than a block, which is exactly what the SC did to his career as a judge. I oppose a move to unblock. TheCoffee (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When I gave him an Indef block, I expected that he'd apologise and stop the behaviour that led him to being blocked. Which was fine with me. It was only after the block that my position changed. Before we can seriously consider an unblock we need to examine his apparent use of sockpuppets and his seeming willingness to out Filipino users (and others), both on Misplaced Pages and off. dougweller (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone request/run a checkuser if there's concern about him abusing sockpuppets? Pcap ping 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

hijacked RfC

This is the sequence of edits which are wrongly described by Caspian blue as harassment. A simple question about the need for a credible citation consistent with WP:V has been twisted into a Gordian Knot for which I am not to be blamed:

• 1. diff: In order to avert a continuing edit war, I initially posted an RfC-template at the top of the article, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies.
  • EDIT WAR development: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

• 2. diff: In less than one minute, I discovered to my surprise that Caspian blue had hijacked the RfC

• 3. diff: I posted a disclaimer on this page ... and the subject was simple: whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?

• 4. diff: I manually posted a non-controversial statement of the RfC subject on the appropriate page ... but this effort was subsequently hijacked as well.

• 5. diff: Caspian blue defines the RfC as harassment, when -- as shown by the edit history -- this is naught but another self-created charade.

PROBLEM: Caspian blue alone deserves to be held accountable for disingenuous complaints which Caspian blue has created.
QUESTION: What about the initial RfC issue? Without credible citations supporting the use of the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital," is it not "trolling" and not disruptive to delete the unsourced phrase after repeatedly asking for compliance with WP:V?

I do not know how to address this needlessly complicated mess. ---Tenmei (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone else agrees, but I for one would welcome a request for arbitration at this point, involving everyone involved in the relevant disputes. Let's get this issue settled once and for all. //roux   10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux's otherwise commendable suggestions about WP:Arbitration assumes that this is a mere conflict between two editors; but that mis-reads the broader scope of a battlefield in which my trivial involvement is somewhat insignificant. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a broad issue, and ArbCom handles broad issues. Several people are involved, and I've counted numerous edit wars, AN/I posts, a current MedCab, I think an RFC/U at some point... it's getting ridiculous. Someone please take this whole mess to RFARb. //roux   20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux, I thought you have been retired from Misplaced Pages. Before commenting something drastic, why don't you do some research? --Caspian blue 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to do any research. I've seen forms of this dispute going on for ages, I was tangentially involved briefly, the whole Korea-vs-Japan thing needs resolution. I didn't comment in any way on who was at fault here, I just said that arbitration seems necessary to end the ridiculousness. //roux   04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux -- I doubt that your carefully bland suggestions have fallen on deaf ears.

Despite Caspian blue's attempted diversion, the fact remains that your non-confrontational, moderating language in the WP:Mediation Cabal-thread which unfolded on November 12th does stand out as a kind of hortatory illustration, albeit an ineffective one. I would have thought the tenor of this exchange adds weight to your expressed point-of-view. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deaf's ears? Tenmei, retract your personal attack here

Retract your attack here. I wonder how you're saved from every single chance from blocking. You made this hoax/false report that I hijacked your alleged RFC in 23 second. Why are you so quiet about your hoax allegation? You must prove it by diff. I saved your clear 3RR violation, but all you have done to me is constant harassments and personal attacks. I'm not tolerate about your behaviors any more. --Caspian blue 07:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue proffers examples of extravagant language:

• " ... attack ..."?
• " ... harassments ..."?

A line from William Shakespeare comes to mind:

Gertrude says: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

-- Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230.

While Caspian blue may or may not appreciate the aptness of this Shakespearean quotation, it is reasonable to expect that many who read this thread will understand it -- which becomes a non-controversial point worth making. In this setting, I would have thought it axiomatic that every new posting is likely to be read, considered and evaluated by a wide range of thoughtful, engaged and well-motivated administrators and others. That said, it is also becomes demonstrable that nothing in this thread falls on deaf ears. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer the initial question. Why did you falsely accuse me that I hijacked your RFC in 23 seconds? You're certainly blaming that I rightly made the RFC on the talk page. I don't get what is your problem with my filing. Your tagging templates to the aritcle is trolling as other said so. This irrational fiasco should be answered. You're surely harassing me as turning several talk pages into personal attack site. Answer the initial question that you've brought up.--Caspian blue 23:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're demanding a retraction of a personal attack? Cut this out. Both of you. This has been going on for far, FAR too long. Caspian, you've subtly (and not-so-subtly) disrupted Misplaced Pages for months now - it stops. Now. Any further disruption, accusations, demands, or harassment will result in a block. Period. End of story. We've all had fucking ENOUGH of this. Tan | 39 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39, you're ignoring the fact that this disruptive baiting hoax report is made by Tenmei, not me. I'm defending myself from the absurdity. That is my valid right. I did not know that retracting personal attack is disruptive. You're also responsible for your previous "false" accusation: you blame me of assuming bad faith on some user (actually long-term sockpuppers) are all blocked. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse I would appreciate your insight than your current warning/threat ignoring real disruption. If you do not want to see this thread spanning further, please achieve this.--Caspian blue 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 -- No. The POBYH approach is unbalanced, unfair, unworkable; and POBYH is effectively unavailable in a wiki-context. --Tenmei (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To be unequivocally clear, the acronym POBYH comes from Shakespeare:

Mercutio says: "A plague a' both your houses!"

-- Romeo And Juliet Act 3, scene 1, 90–92

In this play, Mercutio's argues that everyone is tainted by association in the context of the Capulet-Montague feud, that both disputing factions are wrong and culpable. When Tanthalas39 declares, Cut this out. Both of you ..., the gambit assumes that whatever is going on in this thread is a lot like the classic Capulet-Montague rivalry in Romeo and Juliet. Quite simply, I don't think the edit histories will support this attractive solution to a seemingly intractable problem. --Tenmei (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanticipated counter-intuitive consequences

It is possible to summarize this thread simply: Misplaced Pages is a battlefield ... despite the obvious reasons for such contexts to be disfavored.

Does even-tempered reasoning help move us beyond this kind of problem? Or does moderate, thoughtful commentary only exacerbate the evolution of strife in a counter-intuitive fashion, as in this measured exchange? diff PLUS diff

Something isn't working out well.

In my view, Caspian blue has not been well served by previous dispute resolution processes: Far from fostering a trend towards moderation and restraint, the demonstrable effect seems to have been to encourage extravagant language? provocative comments? confrontational threads? escalating tactics?

The corollary question becomes these:

• What could anyone have done to avoid this? ... ANSWER: Nothing.
• How could anyone have mitigated escalation? ... ANSWER: Nothing.

This doesn't need to be construed as an intractable problem. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked RFC in 23 sec.? No more personal attacks

Tenmei, you're still attacking me as depicting my RFC filing as a "robbery". Your behaviors are really out of line. I'm the one who should report you for your constant harassment and personal attacks.

As soon as seeing your absurd tagging again to the article, I filed the RFC with several lines at *2008-11-22T15:13:47

Unlike me, your RFC without any reason on the main page was at *2008-11-22T15:13:24 There is 23 seconds gap between mine and yours. You did not even put your reason. Do you reall think that writing several lines and putting the RFC and finding a fitting RFC category would take only 23 second? Be logical. Your constant false accusation and personal attacks constitutes "personal attacks" and "harassment". I gave you a chance to redeem your bad faith comments and personal attacks against me as not reporting your clear 3RR violation to AN3, but all you gotta do is this fiasco? Very good one.--Caspian blue 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of extravagant language:

• "... false accusation ..."?
• "... personal attcks ..."?
• "... harassment ..."?
• "... bad faith comments ..."?

Why not de-escalating, non-confrontational, moderating language? --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The hoax report is a false accusation itself, personal attack, harassment, bad faith comments against me. Why don't you "de-escalating, and non-confrontational, moderating language? Think about it, why Taemyr removed your absurd tagging? --Caspian blue 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly clear in my edit summary on why I removed the tagging. The contested fact simply isn't in the version tagged. Please do not construe this as a statement about whether or not the fact should be in the article. Taemyr (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

As Caspian Blue points out, there was less than a minute between Tenmei's RfC and Caspian's. As such it is extremely unlikely that Caspian launched his as an attempt to hijack Tenmei's.

However the text of Caspian's RfC makes it clear that he intend it as a request on user conduct. He confirmed this himself. As such this RfC should be closed as being in the wrong venue.

Tenmei's question, regarding the sourcing of the name "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is probably better suited for WP:RSN and should be pursued there. Taemyr (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The example of non-confrontational, moderating language is very valuable in this context -- far more important than any flaws in Taemyr's analysis. --Tenmei (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What the hell kind of backhanded insult is that?ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that ThuranX's question was more than a rhetorical flourish -- I repeat the same thought in different words. There was nothing obscure, oblique nor offensive in this direct, declarative statement, i.e.,

• FACT: The serial paragraphs of Taemyr's proposal do illustrate non-confrontational, moderating language.
• FACT: Some of the substantive premises of Taemyr "suggested resolution" are flawed, unworkable ... but I'm persuaded that any mis-emphasis on transient issues is potentially short-sighted.
• FACT: The ameliorating effect of Taemyr's use of language does present a focal point which transcends the specifics of this thread.

In sum, a seemly focus on Taemyr's use of language stands up quite well. --Tenmei (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

An additional upside is that my sentence evolved in response to a plausibly facetious suggestion made by Caspian blue, who wrote: "Why don't you "de-escalating, and non-confrontational, moderating language? at diff. It was worth trying to see what might come from taking these words at face value?

Taemyr's use of language stands in stark relief against the backdrop of Caspian blue's heedless invective at Talk:Severance Hospital (diff) and Talk:Yonsei (diff), which are inflammatory, gratuitous, and designed to be unanswerable. --Tenmei (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw

Following this exchange, Montanabw has begun wikihounding me. This includes making insinuations about me on other users' talk pages and recruiting an administrator, Lar, to follow me around too.

• 2008 November 20

• 01:04 User talk:BarretBonden#Weymouth
• 01:01 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move

• 2008 November 23

• 03:14 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dogs#Article request: Heeling
• 03:48 User talk:Hafwyn#FYI
• 03:51 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL
• (Lar) 04:14 User:Una Smith#Friendly suggestion
• (Lar) 04:19 Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move
• (Lar) 04:22 User talk:Una Smith#Weymouth
• (Lar) 04:26 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL
• 04:48 Misplaced Pages talk:Navigation templates#Navigate to topics lacking own article?
• 04:58 User talk:Lar#FYI and kind of an LOL

Please block Montanabw. --Una Smith (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, I invite review of my actions. Frankly, I don't think Montanabw is the problem here, nor are matters as Una has painted them. Not at all, in fact things are rather the other way round. I'd invite readers to review this Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive50#User:Montanabw Wikiquette alert, in which Una tried to make the case that there was a problem with Montanabw's behaviour. My take on the outcome of that was that Una had behaviour she needed to remediate. I believe that Montanabw is not the only person that Una has had issues with, and the Equine project is not the only project where she is viewed as not completely helpful. At the heart, this is a behavioural issue on Una's part, but earlier steps have not been completely tried here. Much of what Una points to is work by concerned editors to try to highlight to Una that she has issues she needs to resolve to be a more effective editor. No blocks for anyone are called for at this point in my view, and certainly not of Montanabw. However, perhaps it is time for a user RfC to be developed about Una. I suspect there would be a fair few folk pointing out things that need correcting. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with Lar's actions. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree an RFC is needed here as an initial step into looking deeper into these issues. This has been simmering a long time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Equine WP, I would back up Lar's statement that Una is not all that useful to our project, while Montanabw is a star member. Montanabw promotes collaboration, works well with others to guide articles to GA and FA status, asks for discussion on controversial changes, welcomes new members who show a genuine interest in the subject, and is generally a helpful and useful member of the project. For examples, see her collaboration in working to bring Thoroughbred to FA this year, our current collaboration on Horses in warfare, or her help to a new member working on Banker Horse, in which she talked three other project members into completing PR's of the article. Una, on the other hand, promotes discord, does not discuss before making large or controversial changes, and rarely, if ever, goes out of her way to help new members. Yes, I agree that there is a problem member in the Equine WP, but it is not Montanabw. Una has been told multiple times by many editors and admins that she is the one in the wrong here, but as she hasn't seemed to take this to heart, I'm going to say it again - Asking for Montanabw to be blocked is ridiculous and Una is the one who is a problem. Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-If I were an impartial editor or admin reading this situation for the very first time, you'd wonder if Una Smith or Montanabw were at fault. I'm not impartial, because I've either interacted with her or watched others do the same, and in general, it isn't positive. I spend most of my time in medical articles. During editing of articles, one runs into either editors who are knowledgeable or those who are not. The problem with Una Smith is that she is not very knowledgeable about medical articles, but pretends to be, and then is very disruptive about it. Most of my knowledge of it is around Herpes zoster. Here and here are discussions about the article. Una Smith tends to be very tendentious in making points about the definition of the word "shingles", "zoster", and "herepes zoster", a point that had be agreed to long ago. And this type of edit just exhibits a lack of knowledge of editing medical articles (both in accuracy and in quality) that is just frustrating. I'll add to this later. OrangeMarlin 17:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the problems are apparently not confined to the Equine Project, as the Medicine Project has also seen some unusual editing and input from Una Smith. The issues Una Smith brought to the Herpes zoster article frustrated several other knowledgeable participants and derailed the FAC, leaving several editors expressing confusion on the talk page about the issues she was raising. I've seen other similar incidents, to the point that I have become reluctant to request help from the Medicine Project on articles, out of concern that Una Smith will get involved, having seen her cause deterioration to articles like Herpes zoster and Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (AT/RT). For example, in this incident, another editor asked for assistance in cleaning up the AT/RT article. After I worked on formatting cleanup (as requested) for about four hours, leaving it ready for further medical input, Una Smith took the article from this version to this: she eliminated the lead, created two Prognosis sections (not in WP:MEDMOS order, one at the top, one at the bottom), and created duplicate incidence and epidemiology sections, and left the article in that state. Yet strangely (in that WP:MED discussion), she claimed not to even see the issues when she later returned to editing. This incident was so bizarre that it discouraged me from collaborating on the Medicine Project to clean up articles and I'm more cautious now about asking for input from the Medicine Project. There were other similar issues. I've also noted that she doesn't have a strong sense of collaboration (see the interaction with Montanabw, for example). I suggest a mentor might be more useful than an RfC, as the basic issues have already been reviewed and I don't think an RfC would produce anything different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Late addition, because I had completely forgotten this incident. Una Smith also derailed a DYK nomination for Retrospective diagnosis with original research that left others scratching their heads. The folks at DYK had little choice but to reject the nomination after Una Smith presented complaints about the hook, based on idiosyncratic original research (the DYK had been submitted by Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), a knowledgeable medical editor). The DYK discussion was moved to Talk:Retrospective diagnosis#Removed from T:TDYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

These same 2 names came up in an unfounded WQA report a couple of months ago. I'll try and find it to provide some background. ►BMW◄ 16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For your reading enjoyment, here is a link to the WQA ►BMW◄ 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, despite everyone telling Una at the WQA that the problem was not on Montanabw's side, she felt that the response there was telling her to take it to a RfC against Montanabw. See . I was asked to provide a few examples of Una's behavior, which, although difficult because it streches over so many pages and often has discussions in multiple areas, I will try to do. First, her quick-failing of the GAN of Horse (which can be found at Talk:Horse/GA1, when she knew that Montanabw was a major editor (and this occured after the WQA). This was apparently a bad-faith fail, because the article was fairly easily passed by a reviewer who is known as fairly difficult to please. Una then argued that because she and Montanabw weren't "allies", there was no reason that she should not review the article, see here. For this action, she was roundly rebuked by involved and noninvolved editors alike, which can be seen on the Horse talk page and her talk page, as well as at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 10#GA review of Horse, where she apparently went to try to get some support for her side of the story. Another fine example is one that she conveniently just created for me - accusing me of biting a newcomer in the subsection right below here this one. I'm assuming she's trying to show a pattern of collaboration between Montanabw and I, and I will admit, there is one. It is a pattern of collaboration that has improved many articles, led to several GAs and one FA, welcomed and attempted to help and communicate with several new editors, and in general done what I hope is a service to WP as a whole. If Montanabw and I have a difference of opinion, we work it out on the talk page of the article, and have so far always managed to come to an agreement. That is the difference between my relationship with Montanabw and the relationship between Montanabw and Una - I am willing to discuss things at length and take criticism, while Una apparently cannot (or sometimes appears to not even read it). I hope this helps everyone to see a broader picture, as that is my intent. Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw and Dana boomer

Montanabw recruited User:Dana boomer to bite new user Sorrel filly 13. --Una Smith (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• 2008 June 13

• 23:02 User talk:Dana boomer#Ahem...
• 23:10 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution
• 23:32 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome but a caution

• 2008 June 14

• (Dana boomer) 00:17 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Proposed deletion of Kool Little Leo
• (Dana boomer) 00:28 User talk:Sorrel filly 13#Welcome!
• (Dana boomer) 00:37 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)
• 01:01 User talk:Montanabw#Nice but firm (I think...)

• 2008 June 19

• 13:01 page deleted

Are any of those diff's supposed to show a problem? If so, um ... they don't. ►BMW◄ 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Una Smith, how on earth do you get "bite" out of that exchange? I'm mystified.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

None of those, I mean not one, indicates that Dana boomer or Montanabw have exhibited bad faith towards anyone. However, the use of these diffs in trying to make a case indicates that Una Smith lacks good faith (in addition to her other faults). This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is from June. Strikes me as vexatious litigation to be bringing it up now, given that the WQA was more recent and it could have been brought up there. All this does, in my view, is make the case that Una is not acting reasonably. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, and I don't have much time to spoare, but I got a mail from Una about this AN/I, and I really feel the need to step in on her side. I have noticed what could well be undue irritation from her side, but Montana is not nearly as unproblematic as she's made out to be. There are also issues of Montana's acting as a constant gatekeeper for just about any horse-related article. I've been confronted with this personally without having long-standing disputes with her. I'm hesitant about getting detailed by posting diffs here, though, since it's not an RfC. I'm awaiting further comments.

Peter 06:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have diffs to share that highlight an issue with Montanabw, you should feel free to do so. We are none of us perfect, and Montanabw is surely no exception. But Una is here asking that Montanabw be blocked (presumably indefinitely), not just counseled not to show ownership. That is a very serious request, and is not to be undertaken lightly. Since Montanabw is a long time contributor with no previous block history, AN/I is probably not the right venue for a resolution, but since we're here, it's appropriate to note that Una (while certainly making some valuable contributions) has a history of antagonistic relations with Montanabw, and with others. With other members of the equine project, and members of other projects, pointing out that there are serious issues with Una, there clearly is an issue here with Una. That's not going to be resolved here at AN/I either though. I'm thinking that an RfC on Una is the appropriate next step. If Una (or others) think an RfC on Montanabw is also appropriate, that's for Una (or them) to put forward. I don't see it, but I may not be unanimous in not seeing it. Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the block request, but like I said, I'm not happy about Montana being presented as a virtually flawless contributor by herself and her co-editors. Ideally no RfC should be filed at all and both users should try to scrutinize their behavior closer. Much of the problem is that Montana is allowed to boss people around, even other high-level contributors, simply because she's so darned active. I've had a few interactions with her, and I've found them all rather troublesome.

• horses in the Middle Ages: I made an uncontroversial, albeit bold, move from medieval horses and got this testy reply.
• mare: Despite being argued against very convincingly by myself and other editors, Montana was more or less unilaterally deciding what was relevant or not in the etymology section. Everyone who disagreed were put on hold until she personally felt she was convinced. I still think that the etymology is one part relevant material and one part dictionary trivia, but I simply ran gave up because of Montana's zeal. This reply in particular is what put me off since it appeared as though Montana's voice was more relevant than that of other editors.
• horses in warfare: I had a crack at helping out in the PR and tried to argue for what I believed was somewhat irrelevant sources and a somewhat Eurocentric tilt to the article. There was disagreement, but I tried to focus on details rather than mere policy interpretations. Montana asked me to summarize my position, and in the next reply I was told to take it elsewhere, even though other main contributors were partially agreeing. The discussion continued on the article talkpage, and again another editor agrees, but Montana defines the whole thing as irrelevant.
• I was also auto-reverted on mere technicalities with the motivation "This was Ealdgyth's work, she has multiple FAs, please leave it alone, take this to talk." When I complained, I only got this non sequitur as a final reply.

The problem as I see it is that Montana is too keen on putting edits on hold for tedious consensus discussions whether they are actually controversial or not. She also acts like a kind of proxy guardian for the work of her colleagues, and appears to insinuate that only the original contributors are really qualified to change her/his work (see the reply to Gwinva at the bottom). Whether or not her co-editors actually sympathize with this, I don't know, but the end result is nevertheless her guarding horse articles quite jealously. I think part of the solution might for members of WP:EQUINE to look a bit more critically on how she handles contributions and criticism that comes outside of her own clique.

Peter 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I grant that the bit I posted about Montanabw and Dana boomer above is old, and in that respect not relevant to this AN/I, which concerns Montanabw's current wikihounding of me. I think Montanabw's behavior toward me reflects the gatekeeping (ownership) that Peter Isotalo mentions. But the proper venue for that would be an RFC/U on Montanabw, correct? Or is AN/I a free-for-all, as Montanabw's supporters here seem to think?

Montanabw's wikihounding of me goes back farther than I showed above. Below are just two other instances, from earlier this month.

• 2008 November 10 23:26 User talk:SandyGeorgia#Two to watchlist, just in case
• 2008 November 16 02:23 User talk:Cgoodwin#Draw reins and running reins, edit summary Asking the "other parent" again, are we?

--Una Smith (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(I refactored the examples to indent, and to go above your signature, for improved readability... the "::" construct can indent bullet points nicely) I'm not the supporter or enemy of anyone. What I support is harmonious, collegial, collaborative, constructive editing, and I'm happy to support activities by anyone along those lines. AN/I is not a free-for-all but it is a venue in which the complainant may well be subject to scrutiny themselves. This is true of every venue, not just AN/I. You have a history of complaining about Montanabw which is, in my view, not supported by the facts. That's worrisome, and suggests that you are deserving of more scrutiny. When I did so the last time you complained, I found a pattern of difficult behaviour in your interactions with others, not just Montanabw. It's not out and out blockably bad, but it is concerning, and I'd like you to seriously consider the repeated feedback you've been given by many folk that the problems in your interactions with others do not lie entirely with others, but in part are your own doing. That said, I think you're unnecessarily polarising this into supporters and enemies. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote nothing about how long a block should be. I would not presume. My concern here was and is to prevent more disruptive edits such as Montanabw made on November 23rd. I figured that if the AN/I notice did not stop them, an admin might apply an immediate block. I agree with Lar that my prior behavior in response to Montanabw's remarks and other behavior that offend me sometimes was less than ideal. I think I am doing better now, although it is difficult in the face of such as Montanabw's edit summary Asking the "other parent" again, are we? --Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so a block NOW for behavior a while back is not warranted, unless there is reason to believe the behavior is endemic and is going to continue and is manifestly disruptice. Tell you what, Una... find an admin or other impartial party, and if you see behavior that concerns you again, ask them to evaluate it and if they agree, caution or counsel Montanabw (or whoever). I'll do so if you like, in fact, although I'm not sure you consider me impartial. That might be a better approach than coming to AN/I. If you're trying to turn over a new leaf with regard to yourself that's also a good thing... if it's for real you can expect my support. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The block I requested concerns Montanabw's behavior yesterday; it certainly has seemed endemic to me, and whether it has now stopped remains to be seen. --Una Smith (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly if anyone needs a block here it seems to be Una. I hadn't realized how widespread Una's disruption was until I saw this thread. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I quit editing horse articles because of the contention between Una and Montanabw. If this should go to RfC on either of them, I'll have more to say.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Response from Montanabw

Montanabw finally weighing in. The other people who have posted have said far more than I can at this point, and have done so far more eloquently. Thank you. The issues between Una and myself have been longstanding, and quite frankly, I firmly believe that she is trying to run me off of wikipedia; this is her second formal attempt (the first was the WQA Lar refers to above). However, to the immediate incident, WikiProject Equine has been having some ongoing problems with Una that are very similar to the problems she appears to be causing at WIkiProject Medicine, namely, derailing articles on their way to GA or FA status, promotion of unusual theories with much Original Research, needlessly challenging terms or art, emphasis per WP:UNDUE on minority or obscure concepts, and very unusual forms of questioning commonly understood conventions of the field. Just in the last couple weeks, Una has edited horse articles to insert techniques that are actually very dangerous ( example) or considered animal abuse in mainstream circles. (example). There is room for debate, of course, but I believe that the requirements of WP:V would resolve these questions. However, Uns often does not provide sources for her edits when requested, or uses them out of context. (example).

As of late, Una has been trying to do some sort of reorganization of some of the horse equipment articles without collaboration with other members of WPEQ. She has created stubs, red links, two templates that are not spported by the project, and has responded to comment from others besides just myself with an unwillingness to change her positions or collaborate. In this process, I noticed that the problem with the horse articles were starting to bleed over into the dog articles and the articles on Weymouth and so alerted some of those editors as well as an admin, Lar, who, unsolicited, had weighed in at the WQA and had been instrumental in resolving this issue.

I have been trying very hard for the last few months to not respond with anger toward Una and pretend that Una she is just another editor and to try and deal with each issue on its own without dragging up the past. So, to stay in the present, within just the last week or so, I have had to deal with the following: , , , . I will defer to those with admin credentials as to how they wish to deal with Una. From my end, I wish that she would simply collaborate in places where she knows other editors are active, avoid inserting offbeat theories and OR, cease engaging in tenditious editing, and ask questions on talk pages rather than engaging in editing disputes that just make a lot of work for everyone else. Montanabw 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, except for some occasional instances where you need to think about WP:OWN, there appears to be very little concern overall for your contributions and actions noted above. I would be careful about reverting any of Una's edits, but try as much as you can to incorporate them with appropriate modifications, if possible. Ensure that your posts on various talk and user talkpages don't have any hints of sarcasm. You are dealing with an editor who has a high degree of sensitivity - that doesn't mean kid gloves, but it means think twice before hitting "submit". Build consensus overall.

Una, you appear to take constructive criticism a little too strongly. If consensus is that your edits do not positively add to the article, then there may be a reason, and it's not simply because it was your edit. Many of your "complaints" were the same you brought up in WQA. They were not found to be overall valid. Even though this is a few months later, it's almost considered to be "forum-shopping" to re-use those same arguments. Many of your edits are fine, but sometimes they are not - that happens to all of us. Work together - again, build consensus.

I'm not trying to sound patronizing to anyone here, just after a WQA and now this ANI, I'm really trying to get people to work together ... ►BMW◄ 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts BMW, and I acknowledge the balance of your comments. I will attempt to watch the sarcasm, I admit it is a flaw of mine, along with impatience. I have actually tried desperately to sort through many of Una's edits to keep what material she adds that is useful and remove the inappropriate material. See for example the recent edit history of Pelham bit. But, sometimes it is extremely difficult to collaborate when everything I try to do is perceived as an attack and I am told to go away from wikipedia altogether. I have repeatedly attempted to negotiate a truce or discuss collaboration and compromise in recent months, to no avail. (In addition to above paragraphs, see also example, example) She now has requested that I do not even post a message on her talk page. So, in short, I would be delighted to see if there is some way to end this constant barrage of attacks on me and engage in direct peace talks, but it takes two to negotiate. I think this is now my fourth request, in good faith, to ask Una to discuss matters directly with me instead of through indirect means. If someone wants to help as a neutral third party mediator/negotiator, I'd be OK with that, too, in fact, I'd prefer it. Montanabw 05:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Small aside to Peter's new comments. Peter's not a bad egg; I believe he and I mostly just are two rather stubborn people who tend to dig in when we interact with one another, probably as much due to mutual tone than anything. His examples must be viewed in full context of each discussion, and also considered in light of this particular user's general pattern of interaction on other articles where I am not involved.(example). I can provide a point by point explanation/rebuttal if requested, but I hope the full context of the discussions noted speak for themselves. BMW, what is the next step here? Do you weigh in?Montanabw 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trying to dig up dirt on me, I'd like to hear why you so obviously went against several other editors over at mare and then called your decision consensus. No one agreed to your conclusions and your argumentation was entirely based on your own opinions. I would also like to hear why you consider yourself entitled to be so uncivil to me at talk:horses in warfare#Length/bias of the Europe section. I don't keep tellign you that you're not serious and the likes. And since you appear to have turned around completely concerning my suggestion on mounted archery, despite arguing fiercly against it, I get the feeling that you're arguing against me as a person, not my suggestions and criticisms.

Peter 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fatal!ty speedy deleting OSU season pages

Looking at Template:BuckeyesFootballTeams, I noticed most of the per-year season articles were redlinked, so I've started creating stubs for them - Fills out the infobox, and the "CFB Schedule" templates for the scores, which is pretty advanced so a good start for the article. User:Fatal!ty has started slapping all of the articles I've created with SD templates, and isn't interested in my "please stop wasting time" arguments. Could someone weigh in on this? --JaGa 10:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a sample. There's a lot of work in that! --JaGa 10:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See here--Fatal!ty 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that while A7 might technically cover these articles, it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what was intended. One could argue that being an "Ohio State Buckeyes football" team is an assertion of notability. I'll wait for other editors to chime in before removing any tags, though. Lankiveil 10:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

That's the thing. I didn't invent the convention of having an article for each year's team; I'm just getting those articles started. The templates were in place - and not objected to - long before I got involved. If Fatality wants to delete those pages, he should get that template (and the other similarly-structured football templates, there's a lot of them) changed as well. --JaGa 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also speedied and then went to AFD on Mario Fernando Hernández & Hilary Teague, both of who pass WP:POLITICIAN, thus not only not speedy but also not AFD. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A notable musician was speedied by Fatality without checking that the article is in good form. Speedy undone, but was he passed it to AfD. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this user also SD'd Eastern Alamance High School. I think Fatality is blurring the distinction between "notablility" and "stub". After all, if 1944 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't exist, 2005 Ohio State Buckeyes football team shouldn't either. --JaGa 10:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They have also speedied several Olympic athletes so I think its time for a short block to get them to stop and read the criteria as their editing has become disruptive. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked more closely into this editor's recent edits, there appears to be a number of, shall we say, ill-considered deletion nominations. I'm going to assume good faith and just say that User:Fatal!ty is either just having a bad day, or is genuinely unaware of the generally accepted notability standards, but at the same time the volume of these nominations is becoming disruptive. Hopefully they will be able to provide an explanation as to why they thought that these three notable politicians would be deletable (other than the obviously shaky nomination statements), until then I would urge the user to desist from starting any more deletion discussions. Lankiveil 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I've removed the speedys on the Ohio State pages. They're stubs, but I feel they're notable. Dayewalker (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are not speedy candidates. We're talking about a team which plays in front of 100,000 people, not some pub side. I'm going to remove the speedy tags. If Fatality really wants the articles gone he could try AfD, but personally I don't see any reason for deleting them at all. Iain99 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed it can become quite disruptive to have new articles tagged like this. I believe he is doing so because he believes that stubs tarnish wikipedia's reputation further. Count Blofeld 10:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

{outdent} I've summed up everything I'd like to say on my talk page. I view my behavior as justifiable and "encyclopedically-correct". Seeing as neither party is willing to compromise, there are a few options to resolve this "dispute". 1. You take the easy way out, and block me indef for disruption. 2. Start a RFC. The choice is yours.--Fatal!ty 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And he has been asking for retractions from people who remind him of the rules. . Time for a block until he learns about our deletion policy. DGG (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I certainly wouldn't consider refering to India as "Wup-Wup" as acceptable behaviour. To be it looks completely racist and narrow sighted that towns with a population of 7,000 are not worthy of encyclopedia coverage. Count Blofeld 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I note to avoid confusion that the Blofield was the ed Fatality asked for a retraction from--it was Fatality who made the wup-wup comment, and Blofield properly called him on it. DGG (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the removed talk page history, we have very recent removed RFA, revoked and renewed denial for rollback rights, and a recent unblocking, so it appears that this is more of some sort of pointed editing that is not inline with their unblock request: I would like to be unblocked so that I can prove to the community that I am a solid and helpful editor, and that from hereon in, I will use my time wisely - to build and expand the encyclopedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

as these continue even as we are talking, I have blocked Fatality for 3 hours. Looking at his block log, with recent blocks for vandallism from several admins, I invite some other admin to extend the block--I suggest at least a month.--I'm about to go to sleep, so if anyone should want to unblock, feel free, but look atthe log first-- Thatcher previously blocked indefinitely. DGG (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll see how he responds after the 3 hours is up and whether he has learnt his lesson. If he continues to disrupt by his mass tagging again then perhaps a more lengthy block will be neccesary. Count Blofeld 11:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I Support this block, and support extending it if he gets straight back to his old tricks. Lankiveil 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've decided to be bold and started closing some of his nomination, for which the consensus is clearly speedy keep and for which the reasons he provides clearly do not apply. (BLP on dead people, WP:RS on articles with sources from NYT or BBC, etc) - Mgm| 11:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• User:Fatal!ty just came from under an indef block on Nov 20 on condition that "he edit productively". In view of the resumed pattern of disruption and belligerent behaviour, I think that another indef block is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note: The day after coming off a 2-month long indef block, this user applied for adminship, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Fatal!ty. I did not vote there since it was clear that his RfA was doomed to fail, but I thought that the RfA was basically a WP:POINT violation. The remark in his answer to RfA question 3, "It is just a website for fuck's sake anyway", was particularly telling. Nsk92 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who lifted that block, I totally agree. The unblock was based on Thatcher's comment to me that since the IP was clean there was no evidence of the sockpuppetry that led to the indef block in the first place. However, it's clear that there are other problems with this editor. This is the first time anyone I've ever let out from under an indef block has abused his good faith. I was tempted to reimpose the block but I am deferring to DGG and others involved in this discussion. But the next block, if there is one, should be indef. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just over at the user's talk to notify them of this clearly incorrect speedy... personally, I'd suggest forcible removal of Twinkle for the time being. — neuro 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If Fatality is going to continue editing, I would ask for a topic ban from deletion process. — CharlotteWebb 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He's back, and although he's made a lot of perfectly good edits, he's been reverting totally valid edits as vandalism, sometimes restoring vandalism in the process, complete with erroneous vandal warnings for the editors concerned, e.g. , , , . I think a longer break is in order.--Michig (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See also this response to one of those editors.--Michig (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From a glance through his contributions, I can only conclude that he's reverting edits more or less at random. This is just yanking our chains. Someone block now please. Iain99 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In view of the above, an immediate block is urgently required, as he is still enageged in a massive reverting spree, using Twinkle. Nsk92 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Having seen this edit go through (complete with vandalism warning), I've blocked for 48 hours pending discussion; it looks to me like he's reverting every IP edit he sees. I appreciate 48 hours is possibly a bit draconian, even in light of his previous warnings, and give explicit consent to any admin who thinks it's too harsh to reduce or lift the block as they see fit. – iridescent 22:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 48 hours is too much. I can't tell if Fatal!ty is being pointy or genuinely doesn't get it, but his first block (and all of the attempted discussion that led up to it) didn't seem to help. He's shown that when he's ready to go, he covers a lot of ground before anyone can check him. It's best if he takes enough time off to learn his lessons before he comes back to the wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The block actually strikes me as unduly lenient (and coming from me that is saying a lot). I'd suggest at least monitoring this editor closely when he returns, and pulling any rights he has to use rollback or other automated tools. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked and protected his monobook, so if he does come back he'll have to do it manually. As far as I'm concerned, any further silliness warrants an indefblock. – iridescent 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the block. It is certainly not draconian but rather too short. Please make it an idef. It will take a long time to undo the damage. This is a user who had come off an indef block just three days ago on the pomise of best behaviour and look where we are now. Please indef block him. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He's come straight back from a block and continued his disruptive editing. As Daniel Case said above, "But the next block, if there is one, should be indef." --Michig (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored the indefinite block. After reviewing his edits since the last block expired, I can no longer assume good faith about him or his editing. Even after the block he was still getting messages on his talk page from puzzled users. Yes, I feel angry because this guy burned me, the first time this has ever happened, but I think I'm not the only one who's exhausted his patience here. Confused? Perhaps, but student drivers don't get to run over this many people and wreck this many cars before they tell them driving isn't for them. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Regretfully, I agree with Daniel's indef block. This is either cluelessness on a truly monumental scale or a deliberate attempt to troll us; in view of the account's history I am unable to assume the former. A shame because he was obviously capable of writing decent content when he wanted to, but there you go. Iain99 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fatal!ty has now implied that another account is "the real Fatal!ty" (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 22:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. – iridescent 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• User 1onepuposeaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now jumped in. — Athaenara ✉ 23:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And a Checkuser has already been requested. If it comes back positive, can we consider a community ban? It looks to me (not that I've been directly involved in any) like one of those cases. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fatal!ty (talk · contribs) looks like the same user as Avi15 (talk · contribs); both have edited similar subjects, Avi15 was blocked indefinitely a few days before Fatal!ty started editing, both used the same welcome template on new users' talk pages, and both added inappropriate deletion templates to articles. Fatal!ty also restored copyrighted content added by Avi15 on the Glen Eira Town Hall article. Avi15 was also suspected of sock puppetry using a vandal account In5ecUr!ty (talk · contribs), and is also a suspected sock puppet of Lsdjfhkjsb (talk · contribs), as are a few other vandal accounts. —Snigbrook 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• He does indeed seem to follow the exact same patterns as the Lsdjfhkjsb (talk · contribs) sockfarm. Self-references, random deleting sprees, similar articles. I've added a tag. Kuru 00:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure this thread is quite ready for being marked as "resolved". In the last couple of hours of editing Fatal!ty was on a mad reverting spree where, as best I can tell, he was randomly reverting edits made by IPs. In some cases his reverts did undo vandalism, in some cases he reverted perfectly good edits and in others he actually restored vandalism. His contrib record really needs to be looked through rather carefully to undo some of this mess. I have reverted some of his edits but this is a rather big job requiring several pairs of eyes. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved marker removed, 1onepuposeaccount is pretty much blatant. — neuro 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Look now, he is actually pointing out damning evidence about himself. Looks like he is only here to cause drama. — neuro 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

notifying editors--I have already sent explanations to everyone--some of them newbies-- whose contribution was incorrectly marked for deletion--could someone please do similarly for the people sent other inappropriate noticesDGG (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In a few cases where his "vandalism" reverts were clearly wrong, I have undone them and erased the warning messages that he left at those users' talk pages (I pointed to this thread in the edit summaries in such cases). But this really is a lot of work since one has to look carefully at his reverts and figure out which ones were undoing vandalism and which ones were random reverts of good faith edits. What a mess... Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we please move on to a permanent ban? This user used up any AGF long ago and has piled on more sockpuppeting, and now I come back from sleep and see s/he is saying I'm him/her!? It is clear that his editing was disruptive (how many of us have commented here/wasted our time here and cleaning up the mess), basically has led to biteing of some newer editors (which obviously discourages them from adding the Misplaced Pages if there perfectly legit work is tagged for speedy/AFD), and now what I will classify as a personal attack against me with him/her saying I'm the real Fatality (and though I can be rude I don't do shit like this and I've never been blocked). Take into account his comment here along with his reply to the block (cya in 3 hours or something like that = fuck you people I'll be back in three hours doing the same stuff), what s/he did do when they came back from the block, and then their last comments on their talk page "I'm off. I guess you guys will have to deal with the fallout. Wiki can get stressful at times - but don't let that hold y'all back :). Oh and WP:AGF - maybe a rethink of policy>?)" Enough is enough. Ban time. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

HalfShadow's {{resolved}} comment was probably fun to add but it seems premature while one or more accounts are still being used in lieu of the blocked Fatal!ty account and the question of a ban is still open. — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed again, there is still a lot going on. — neuro 02:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back as "possible", based on technical evidence, but Luna suggests behavior is more useful. And I think that gives us all we need to block the sock. So I'm doing that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of this editor

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per consensus below, Fatal!ty has been banned by the community according to the banning policy. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: East718 already blocked 1onepurposeaccount indef. Per my comment above, is anyone up for a community ban discussion including Avi15 and Lsdjfhkjsb (If we are, let's start a new section). Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm for it. Feel free to move this comment under whatever subsection heading is decided upon for this extension of the discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in too. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Me three. — neuro 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a community ban is more than justified in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As you might have surmised from my previous statements on this editor, I am in full support as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban, he's obviously not here to help. Dayewalker (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly appears to be a user who Doesn't Get It (TM)--endorse ban. Blueboy96 20:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Me... *counts* eight. //roux   22:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Joining the pile on, make that nine. Horologium (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Banned, overwhelming community consensus. Secret 23:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On NWA.Rep

Seriously, what is going on? By coincidence I saw that NWA.Rep took a leave of absence after a conflict with some admins - well, too bad I thought. I took a look at his talk page and saw his apparent farewell message and noticing a small edit-war, with the result of Swatjester blanking the page, citing personal attacks - which I don't contest. Looking at his user page however, content was deleted by Swatjester (claiming a section was "disruptive to the project" - what project?) and Gwen Gale (called his practical joke "highly disruptive") - in my personal opinion ignoring WP:BLP#Non-article space and in fact censoring Misplaced Pages. Right now a full indefinite protection is on. I hope there is an admin out there who has the courtesy and decency to look beyond a personal grudge towards a feisty Wikipedian and shed some light on the subject. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"The project" refers to wikipedia itself, and userpage editorials about why women should not wear clothes has nothing to do with furthering wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it makes the whole project look exceptionally foolish. This is myspace stuff, kids. Take it there. Friday (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, wait. Bishzilla undid the removal of user content, calling it "dancing on the grave".

So, what if NWA.Rep is of the opinion that women shouldn't wear clothes? Just a matter of opinion. And no, it doesn't further Misplaced Pages, but neither does having a picture of Bugs Bunny on your user page, now does it? I hope it can rest now. Let go of the grudges and let him be. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You asked what "the project" meant, so I told you. The other part was explaining why they (temporarily) deleted it. Whether it's there are not don't matter to me none. And it will all be moot when his block expires. Baseball Bugs 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read what's way up above, or just going by some off-wiki contact that you might have had? My wife, for example, is well-known for many positive things. I know that if she had an article about her, she wouldn't want to be added to "Women with large breasts" category, or having the phrase "she is also known for her tremendous knockers" added to her article. I mean, it's fine to have a breast fixation, but keep it off Misplaced Pages because it's disruption. ►BMW◄ 20:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually did read what's way up above, and it doesn't have anything to do with this. I think its unfair to bash a guy who already left the building, that's is what my argument is about - even if he is somewhat of a pervert. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It does have to do with this, in that his apparent breast fixation is what led to him getting blocked. Also keep in mind that the user does not own "his" pages. However, you're right that it's usually considered bad form to mess around with a blocked user's pages, and that's why the admin restored them. One exception would be if he's indef-blocked, in which case his entire talk page might be cleared and protected, at the admin's discretion. He wasn't indef-blocked, only for a week; and his pages were protected due to fanning the flames (by him and others) and the protection will expire when the block expires. He hasn't necessarily left, he's just angry about being blocked. Check back when the block expires. Baseball Bugs 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, let's clarify: what resolution are looking for? His page is protected as is to allow him to have his "final" say. Those who blanked it got bashed a little. What are you looking for? ►BMW◄ 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the argument above does have something to do with it, but not with the point I'm trying to make. I don't like the tone of that particular section on his user page either, but I, in my most humble personal opinion, believe that it is not up to admins to remove content from another Wikipedian's user page without any discussion, let alone a warning. That's even more inappropriate when he's blocked. Little below the belt, don't you think? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Users do not own "their" pages, those pages are subject to the rules. Tendentious content is not permitted. Personal attacks are not permitted. In general, content that violates wikipedia policies is not permitted. And admins have the right to remove such. I'll concede that there was not enough discussion here, though; otherwise, we wouldn't have admins reverting each other. It would be easier if he actually were leaving, because then his pages could be wiped and it wouldn't matter. As for him actually leaving, I'll believe it when I don't see it. Baseball Bugs 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• At least get rid of the 'New Messages' bar. It wasn't funny the first time some pisswit thought it was 'good for a laugh' and it hasn't improved with age. HalfShadow 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's by no means original with that user. Baseball Bugs 23:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are right Bugs, any Wikipedian should be following guidelines. But I'm sure that you would agree with me that normally speaking any user — admin or fellow Wikipedian — would've asked NWA.Rep politely if he'd either take the section out or change the tone, and if not then other steps would be taken. But that didn't happen, because of that whole fuss ↑.

And a final note, I honestly believe the new message bar practical joke should be left standing. Whether you would find it hysterically funny or annoying beyond comparison, it doesn't hurt anyone and it is just on that particular user page. If WP:LIGHTEN UP would exist, I'd be citing that. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 00:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a little hard to ask him and expect an answer, given that his talk page was locked. Besides, he says he's leaving, so an answer might never come. There's no clear-cut answer to the question, and that's why the various admins should have discussed it first and reached a consensus. If he were indef-blocked, they would have wiped it. It's the short block that's the dilemma. As for the "new message" bar, it's a bit annoying but it's harmless. Baseball Bugs 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And if he does come back, maybe he'll rename himself DELTA, as NWA will soon be obsolete. Baseball Bugs 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someday, someone will take the name Pan Am and do a sub-genre called Juan Trippe-hop. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. The firm that went from a major airline to a carnival sideshow offering rides on domestic animals, hence the term Juan Trippe pony. So, when an airline goes bankrupt, does it de-plane? Baseball Bugs 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fake "New Messages" bars are unbelievably annoying and pointless. But edit warring on a protected page, as several folks have been doing, is strictly against the Code of Thug Life. Please, kids, settle down. :/ krimpet✽ 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Most other users such as User:Editor510 have had these banners removed from them as they're against a policy on media wiki interfaces or something. Sticky Parkin 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SMI ~ User:Ameliorate! 05:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The page called Misplaced Pages:User page points out that offensive material can be removed by any editor, and there is no indication that permission is required. Attacks against other editors (which NWA has many in his "retirement" essay) are also against the rules. Baseball Bugs 06:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is a policy on media wiki interfaces that can be quoted to get rid of those message hoax banners I'd really love to know what it is so I can use it! dougweller (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This - WP:SMI - is on that User Page page, but it's a little vague, as it says "generally frowned upon" rather than "prohibited". My guess would be that going around unilaterally deleting them off other users' pages could be considered as disruptive as having them there in the first place. Baseball Bugs 06:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, Bugs. WP:SMI came out vague because the text is a compromise after a hot debate. If we must discuss these trivialities yet again, please take it to WT:USER, where I have posted on it at boring length. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

Leave that "New Messages" bar. A debate has run through and through. Remove his personal attacks on his talk page instead in some bits I have suggested. Dengero (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're debating the wrong topic. They should clobber (i.e. delete like any user can, not destroy) his narcissistic "retirement" / attack essay, and probably also his entire user page. If he does, in fact, come back then he can simply revert it and/or deal with these complaints directly. Baseball Bugs 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK but User:Editor510 was warned for edit warring, I think his page was protected as admins were determined he couldn't have it and linking to the SMI thing in edit summaries. Just saying, the policy's been acted on plenty of times. Sticky Parkin 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What a discussion I did start, great! Thanks to anyone who participated. I hope everyone has learned from it, I certainly have. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1RR violation report

Violation of User_talk:Boodlesthecat#1RR_restrictions: revert 1: 00:20, November 23, 2008 and revert 2: 10:54, November 23, 2008 (two reverts within 8 hours). That's the third violation of this restriction (User_talk:Boodlesthecat#Blocked, User_talk:Boodlesthecat#Blocked_3) in the past few weeks. PS. Proof of my involvement in the article: ; refer to the discussion of past blocks for clarifications that this restriction generally applies to any article the two of us edit (his last block was for the same article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly? You want to get Boodlesthecat blocked - during an arbitration involving you and also him (and others including myself) - for two reverts in a revert war with a person who originally got into the case with Boodlesthecat thanks to your canvassing in the Poland-related noticeboard (, thus hardly a 3rd party as required) and has furthermore violated 3RR right now (previous version revert to: , 1, 2, 3, 4). You've not even been involved in the revert war. If that's not Wikilawyering, what is? Sciurinæ (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus was also aware of the 3RR issue regarding Radek. After his fourth revert, Radek received a line in Polish on his talk page () that when put into the Google translator says something about "Rule of Thirds rewertow". Apparently Radek doesn't have IM contact with him yet. Sciurinæ (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First, do the math a bit better...the two edits were more than 10 hours apart, not 8. Second, Boodles has a legitimate point here from a policy (rather than a content dispute point of view). The part Boodles was reverting wasn't in the referenced material, despite Radek's assertion of it. What was removed was technically OR, which was a legit removal. I see no justification of any block at this point. AKRadecki 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First I would like to say that I would really appreciate it if when other editors mention me in these controversial and contentious cases they let me know. Otherwise I find out about it through indirect means well after things been said, and what can I say, not having had a say I feel like it's a dishonest use of my edits. It's basically talking behind a person's back. Second, I did not get into a revert war with Boodles due to canvassing by Piotrus. I first ENCOUNTERED Boodles after a post on Polish Misplaced Pages's Board by Piotrus but what's wrong with that? I saw Piotrus post a notice about an article that I thought was of interest, I checked it out, I saw what I thought was POV material I reverted it. Little did I know at the time that I stepped into a nasty quagmire. Boodles (or somebody else, I don't honestly remember) reverted me after which I took it to the talk page and did not revert Boodles (or whoever) again. There was no revert/edit war involved, at least as far as the interaction between me and Boodles (this is also a positive comment on Boodles' behavior). Second, in reference to the current situation over at the Rescue article, I am NOT in violation of 3RR. Please note that some of the edits Sciruinae offers as evidence are consecutive edits - in other words they're on a single edit done in two parts - and the 3RR rule clearly states that "A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

Finally, after my 3rd revert, Piotrus left a message in Polish on my talk page. Sciurinæ's paranoia basically displays his bad faith. What Piotrus' said, verbatim, was "Please watch the 3RR rule. It would be stupid of you to get a block". Basically Piotrus saw that I made 3 reverts and was telling me not to make another one. He's also chastised me for my sloppy referencing (and I am sloppy with the inline references, I admit) in the past. Why the freak out? Now, all of this could be simply ascribed to Sciurinæ being paranoid and ..., well, I don't quite know what his problem is having never interacted with him before. But the last sentence: "Apparently Radek doesn't have IM contact with him yet" is the perfect display of BAD FAITH that this whole situation has deteriorated into. In point of fact and as strange as it may seem to some, I HAVE NEVER USED IM IN MY LIFE. With Piotrus or anyone else. That statement is all about insinuation ("Are you now or have you ever been guilty of using IM?) and completely empty of substance. This is what this discussion has become. Insinuations, threats, accusations and a complete lack of the assumption of good faith on the part of one's "opponents". From people I've never interacted with before. It's Wiki at it's worst.

Sciruinae should apologize for his incorrect accusations, for his assumption of bad faith, and for talking about me behind my back.

As to AKRadecki's point, yes, technically what Boodles reverted wasn't in the reference, if by "wasn't" you mean it wasn't there word for word. But then if we stuck to word for word rendering of referenced materials Misplaced Pages would be one big copy vio. What it was, despite AKR's assertion, was not OR, but a summary of what was in the source. Which is what we do with sources, paraphrase and summarize them. There was no personal opinion (contrary to some false edit summaries) nor 'editorializing' involved. So no, Boodles' revert was not legitimate. It was more of the same "assume bad faith" attitude displayed by Sciruinae above, and then revert away. I have no idea whether or not a block is justified for Boodles, not having kept up with his restrictions or the trouble he gets into. But I do resent the dishonest statements made above.radek (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not digress. This is not about Radek or anybody else. Boodlesthecat is on a 1RR violation yet has reverted twice within 10 hours. What should we do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, would you mind not trying to make out like you're a neutral admin when Boodlesthecat, who you constantly campaign against, is one of your greatest POV foes? It's only fair and honest, as not every admin who comes here will know the background. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, as a person who launched an ArbCom against me, perhaps you should state your likes and dislikes first? I have linked the 1RR restriction which goes into history of mine's and Boody's interaction. This is not a place for anything more.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you may have tried to convince others I (a Scottish phd medieval history student of Irish descent) am a Russian Polonophobe in order to derail that ArbCom hearing, but I can't let that bother me, and I got a responsibility to uphold neutrality and perceived neutrality. Perceived neutrality is exactly why I ignored the Boodlesthecat 3RR report (I was patrolling AN/3 when that was listed), despite the fact that, our relations aside, I'm actually neutral. Was this really necessary btw? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1RR restrictions were on both you, Piotrus, and Boodlesthecat when reverting one another, which did not happen in the relevant edit war, so no more funny arguments. Secondly, tag teaming was declared a focus in the arbitration, so I didn't ignore the unusual sight of a 3RR reminder in Polish, and supporting the argument that it was in Polish so that it would be overlooked by others was also that Piotrus and Radek had no IM contact where such messages would be easy. Thirdly, I'm sick of having to clarify and add things because you, Piotrus, overlook the offenses by certain people while seeing (wrongly) those of others, or at least when you makes those mistakes one could expect a better attitude than hostility for providing missing information. Fourthly, I triple-checked all the reverts, consecutive edits and the time of each, and it was a clear-cut 3RR violation. Lastly, now that the article is protected, the need for the block on Radek has diminished. Perhaps it would be a special gesture of goodwill to lift the block early (though this should not lead to yet more pestering the blocking admin as if he had acted improperly). Sciurinæ (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. 1RR applies to reverts of any other editor in any article both of us are editing. This is a clear violation. Please stop trying to turn this into discussion of something (or somebody) else.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the block was placed on Radek after the article was protected. Since Radek is not cited with edit warring on other articles, the block currently serves no purpose except as punishment. I would respectfully request this block be lifted ASAP. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pietrus, given the general nature of the material in the arb com cases, and the expressed feelings of various parties that there is some degree of collusion (in whatever direction), was it really wise to write the message in Polish? If the translation above is correct, the message seems innocent and proper enough, and writing it in English would have prevented the apparently unjustified suspicion that it was otherwise. When things are as they are, it helps to be utterly straightforward and do everything in the most obvious and transparent way. DGG (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I should have used English; I was tired and forgot. In any case, anybody assuming that Polish language messages are wrong violates AGF. And we people are ignoring the clear 1RR violation by Boody? That's beyond me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What's beyond me is that despite your agreement to stop calling me "Boody", which I told you I dont like, you continue to do it. Boodlesthecat 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User: Mercenary2k

Diff here:

"moron"? "delusional"? "bozo"?

"Indian"??

Similar incivility here , here , and here , repeatedly calling me "Indian" or telling me to "get a life".

Not only is there no evidence that he's going to work for consensus, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's attacking me, and is a racist. Sorry, but I really don't think I should have to put up with this, no matter where it's posted. As I indicated previously, the page protection has done NOTHING to entice Mercenary2k to come to the table, and I think nothing will. Regardless, this is pretty unaccaptable.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

These edits are obviously personal attacks. This user should recant and agree not to do this again or else be blocked IMO. Oren0 (talk)

I had asked Mercenary2k to participate in the discussion regarding his edit dispute with CSHunt68. However, from his bitter reply to that request, it does seem Mercenary2k is not willing to discuss this amicably :(. --Ragib (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the edit war at Inter-Services Intelligence, I would suggest that the two editors pursue 3O and other dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking further, I see Mercenary has been making personal attacks before and some ownership issues. I am going to keep watch. Ragib, I think you can remove the protection if you can get both editors to agree to go to the talk page first before being massively bold. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already posted at 3O, and am continuing to pursue good faith DR of this article. But, that post was beyond the pale. And, needless to say, it's not okay for Mercenary to say that he's now going to make some edits _without discussing things on the talk page_. To me, that would be more of the same - demonstrating lack of desire for consensus, and WP:OWN. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for _some small level_ of good faith - a strikeout of the offending comments, or an apology AT THE VERY LEAST. CSHunt68 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He received a civility warning from BWilkins on November 14th, which was promptly deleted (along with every other comment made about the article on his talk page - mostly by me) by Merc. These defamatory comments have now been up for 24 hours. Any chance of anything happening about this? As indicated, I continue to pursue good faith DR (having just posted regarding a source on Reliable sources/Noticeboard), but I shouldn't have to put up with these personal attacks, should I?CSHunt68 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a final warning to Mercenary. It remains obvious that 3O and additional DR need to be worked on. However, I read complete exasperation on the side of CSHunt68, and Ragib is just trying to come in and prevent overall damage. I am not removing offending statements from any of the locations, even though I would consider many to be outright racist ("an Indian in disguise" is used in a way to say that it's "offensive" to be Indian). I would actually hope someone with a button takes further action. ►BMW◄ 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So, Mercenary2k has now had time to DELETE ALL COMMENTARY related to these incidents from his talk page, including all warnings. And yet, the talk page of the article in question, and all other talk pages, remain unchanged - despite third parties becoming involved. As well, the blunt, racist, personal attacks remain in place, unretracted. Colour me disappointed. Not surprised, mind you, but disappointed. And, yes - UTTERLY exasperated.CSHunt68 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If Mercenary wants to blank his talk page, it's on him. I think we should archive the article talk page and remove the protection, to get moving forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe moving forward is appropriate if Mercenary2k won't strike his previous personal attacks. I think you guys are being too light in tolerating this kind of behavior. Oren0 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am actively seeking consensus for changes to the article as it exists - creating and participating in discussion on the article talk page, asking for outside opinion on WP:3O, asking for outside opinion on WP:RS/N. Mercenary2k has indicated that he is NOT going to do this - either on my talk page threatening flat reverts of any changes I make, or on User:Ragib's talk page saying he'll just add a bunch of citations and be done. So, while I remain willing to move forward, it is very clear that Merc is not. Until those comments are stricken, a recant is issued, and he joins the discussion on the article talk page, I cannot assume good faith on his part. How could I?CSHunt68 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(UI) So ... nothing.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I create a user RfC? I'm honestly at a loss here as to how to proceed. An editor has now come forward on the discussion page, at my request, to provide third opinion. I doubt Mercenary is going to join the discussion, and with his unretracted personal attack still up, I'd rather he stayed away. However, his last comments indicated that he intended to undo whatever I did (with or without consensus) and make edits as he saw fit. What is the proper course of action here? When there was an edit war going on, admins were quick to intervene. Now that there is clear evidence of ridiculous personal attack - nothing? Advice, please?CSHunt68 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat against User:Possum

User threatened, and personal information given, in this diff to today's FA. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, for all the good it will do. The page has been protected and I doubt it's really personal information. JodyB _talk 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT if it is. Pedro :  Chat  12:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Page is not protected beyond standard move protection for Main Page articles. Oversight have been emailed - easier for them to remove one diff than for me to delete the Main Page article and selectively restore. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another threat here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight contacted ... just in case someone hasn't already done so. Anyone with Checkuser access might want to do a sweep of that IP ... sounds like this person knows Possum fairly well. Blueboy96 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually called the number listed in the soon-to-be-oversighted edits? For purely encyclopaedic purposes of course. :) X MarX the Spot (talk)

No, because either it's the number of the editor in question, in which case we're helping the harasser harass; or it's the vandal's number and s/he'll get off on us chasing around after him/her; or it's a made-up number and we'll just confuse whoever it belongs to. Better to ignore it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I 'spose. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who know me will know that I've been the victim of some very serious harassment recently which was one of the reasons I retired in the first place. However, what's happened today is ridiculous. The following 10 edits were made to todays featured article, my number appeared on the main page for goodness knows how long: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. He left similar messages on my talk page yesterday (1, 2 and 3) until User:Garden protected my page. He then went onto posting similar messages on his talk page as seen here and here. I have no idea who it is but I'm pretty sure it's the same person who's been causing me grief all year, he's just taking a different route to harassing me. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what to do. I thought leaving would stop this but it's only made it worse. Whilst in class this morning, I received dozens of text messages and calls from people saying I needed 'smacking.' — Possum (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, how did the nasty little git vandal get your mobile number in the first place? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea but if it's the same person as last time then they also know my address and email addresses. They've been sending me cheques and other mysterious gifts through the post too. You all may find it hilarious but it most certainly isn't — Possum (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, this is worrying. It's also very illegal. You're being stalked, and clearly by someone who knows you (I assume, sorry if you're older) from school. I think you need to tell the authorities. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, I would suggest two things. First, contact a 'crat and ask them for a name change (or just start posting under a different name) If you want to conceal your WP identity from this guy, you might want to lay low on the articles you've been working on. Second, you might want to consider contacting the authorities. If this guy has your personal information, is using the internet to make threats, and sending you stuff to your home address, they might be able to do something.---Balloonman 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I renamed from User:RyanLupin very recently, however I didn't undergo usurpation purely because of this harasser. Second, I have alerted the Police but they've been less than helpful. They think the guy's from Hertfordshire because that was the address on the cheques and originally asked me to contact that force directly which I thought was ridiculous. I eventually had someone pay me a visit who gave me a card with a number to call to help tackle cyber-bullying! — Possum (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Did the card have this guy's number on it?---Balloonman 15:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been getting a lot of instances of the phone number posted to oversight-l - you may wish to ask WMF what paperwork they need from the police to release the IPs to you/them (some of the edits are IP edits, you'll see 'em in the block logs, some are logged-in users) - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being part of the crapflood, David, but better to have each diff a dozen times rather than not at all (I assume). Possum, this isn't cyberbullying, no matter what the useless police have to say: it's real-life harassment. They have your telephone number, email address, home address and Misplaced Pages account details. That's Not Good. You need to do something. An email to Mike Godwin may be a start, to see what info the Foundation can release to you, as David suggests. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possum, I echo Redvers above. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 this is harrassment and a criminal offence that can carry a jail term. I implore you to contact the police again, making it very clear that the "cyber-bullying" is mixed with real world interaction too and that it has escalated. Given the nature of the threats on your talk, you could easily argue that you are in fear of violence, in which case it is also common assault. Pedro :  Chat  15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted the article for about two minutes in the process to get them out of public view (that's the first time ever I've deleted Today's Featured Article), and all the offending revisions have apparently been duly oversighted. The IPs who added this are all blocked for 48 hours, and I support reporting this to the Internet Service Provider. The FindIP resolves the IP to some service provider in London. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just zapped another few. Could someone please put their hand up and step through every single diff during the relevant range of the history of the page(s?), and report to oversight-l a list of diffs that introduce the problematic text. Thanks. John Vandenberg 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I contacted oversight a while ago asking whether they could provide me the material that was posted about me so I could pass it onto the police but I think it was FT2 who replied by saying it's against policy even if it is sensitive data about myself, he still couldn't do it. I then contacted Godwin who pretty much echoed the same. The only concern I have is that oversighted material is kept for 30 days, I live in the UK, if I were to request the material the legal way, surely it would take more than 30 days? — Possum (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted Scotland Yard about this matter since its it threatning , and cyber-bullying.Rio de oro (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contacted Scotland Yard, however, my local force is aware of the situation — Possum (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion and userpage vandalism by User:Ragusino

I know this probably isn't the exact right place to report this, but could someone please just semi-protect my User talkpage ? User:Ragusino is constantly making ridiculous edits and reverting my own (see History ). He is currently blocked one month for block evasion (obviously :P) , and the IP is undoubtedly his. IP 190.21.84.122 is vandalizing my talkpage, while the guy was blocked for using IP 190.21.84.207 (see block ). I gave the guy a period to give up and stop on his own, but he's pretty persistent. I won't pretend I'm not curious as to whether this kind of continued block evasion and userpage vandalism warrants further measures? --DIREKTOR 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, um, could I get a response :P ? --DIREKTOR 20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talk page for 24 hours to try to cut this down some. Looking at the history of this situation, it looks like this one person is using multiple IP addresses which change so frequently that playing "whack-a-mole" with these IP addresses would have little to no effect. It looks like they are editing from a dynamic range that appears to be something in the 190.21.64.0/19 or /18 range. This covers either 8000 or 16000 IP addresses, perhaps a checkuser could look into that range and see if there is likely to be collateral damage from a rangeblock. If harassment continues, a soft rangeblock may be just the ticket to stop this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a "WHOIS" on one of the IP addresses in the range that is harassing you, and returned this: . The smallest range that the WHOIS reports is 190.21/16, which is probably too big for a rangeblock; though we don't know if this range is or isn't subdivided in a way to make a smaller rangeblock effective, as I have suggested above... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I see... perhaps a more extended semi-protection then? I doubt 24 hours will deter the guy, since he's been at this for days. Also, his main account (User:Ragusino) had been originally blocked one month due to continued block evasion, and I'm wondering if an extension of that block is warranted by this kind of behavior? Nothing personal, but I get the feeling he's not getting the message... --DIREKTOR 08:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I'll post another request for longer semi-protection if (or when) the guy once again starts harassing. --DIREKTOR 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM RFC drama, eyes needed

The discussion over the WP:MOSNUM RFC is starting to get a little out of hand, including what appears to be some slow revert warring on the talk page and calls for backup and accusations of vandalism. I don't have time to look into this any deeper than I just presented now, but some uninvolved admin eyes would certainly help. Mr.Z-man 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a subject more unworthy of edit warring--Tznkai (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. My bias may be the reason here, but the whole section looks like it deserves blanking, the application of a wet trout, and possibly even talk page protection. Please, another admin, chime in.--Tznkai (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, my thoughts exactly. I looked, I hit "edit" thinking that I had something to contribute, and then slowly backed away. It's very hard to imagine anything good coming out of that "discussion."

If only a tenth of the effort that's gone into that would be put into coding an autoformat option that doesn't require wikilinks, we'd be past this by now. -Pete (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Update. I've blanked the whole RFC and used a big ugly {{notice}} to get their attention. I've received a fair complaint about that action. That is my attempt to solve the problem, and if it doesn't work, I have no better ideas that I am capable of fulfilling.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not take action (I am an involved editor) but seriously some admin action is needed (if not a form of larger mediation). The situation (besides all the various arguments since the "DA is deprecated" addition around August 2008) is that several editors (including myself) were pushing to get an RFC to completely settle the issue if the "DA is deprecated" part as well as other issues that result when Lightbot et al strip dates from articles. The RFC was developed via community draft and was close to being made live when User:Tony1 put up his own RFC on the main page which, while more to the point, has a very different tone and direction to it. Now personally, I feel that the RFC that was being worked on was going to be much better in the long run to achieve stable consensus for several issues and that Tony's wording is in disagreement with how the scenario developed, but given that people have responded, and it is an RFC (something that hasn't been seen there yet on the issue), I feel we might as well let it run, as we'll still get the answer to if "DA is deprecated" has consensus.

Now, what's been happening after that is that various editors, who see Tony's RFC language as being a problem (in the vein that it would be like an elected official writing up the official ballot for his reelection), have edited it as well as initiated talk page discussion of various accusations, with has been met with similarly borderline uncivil responses. I don't think any side is clearly acting in the best good faith here, but beyond watching for edit warring, there's not much more that can really be done here that doesn't invoke mediation. --MASEM 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, more like the author of disputed legislation writing the arguments for a referendum which would negate it, but the analogy seems somewhat apt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I've reverted Arthur Rubin's addition of a nested template in the RfC that he opposes, since it had the unforeseen effect of removing this from the list of active RfCs. I left him a note on his talkpage to clarify my reasons (see diff). Just an unfortunate accident I'm sure, but it might happen again if a different editor tries to modify the RfC template, so I thought I'd note it here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't think Tony's RfC was done properly, nor the questions posed in a manner which could produce an undisputed result, but I didn't intend to delete it from the RfC list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fru23

Back from a block for edit-warring, has resumed edit-warring on the very page that got him blocked, the O'Reilly criticism page. He also blanked out his own user talk page, so you'll have to look at its history to see. Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Baseball Bugs 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky; on the one hand, I think Media Matters for America is questionable as a source for a WP:BLP, particularly when its criticism is unattributed in the text. On the other hand, this is probably within the gray area that needs to be resolved by discussion and dispute resolution, and Fru23 (talk · contribs) has shown himself completely uninterested in the process or goal of consensus.

I'd propose a 1RR restriction to cap the edit-warring but allow him to at least suggest changes, and I'll (once again) direct him to the BLP noticeboard, reliable-sources noticeboard, or some other means of dispute resolution as an alternative to continued edit-warring. Thoughts? MastCell  18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that he'll continue to remove the Hornbeck criticism from the O'Reilly page until he gets blocked again. Baseball Bugs 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A distinct possibility. The 1RR would speed up this outcome if it is, in fact, inevitable. MastCell  18:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Having been notified of this thread, he has now reverted his deletion. Resolved, for now. Baseball Bugs 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Fru23 has taken to defend himself on Wp:BLP Noticeboards (in addition to arguing for the deletion of the article, despite 5 previous AfD) and considers the previous blocks as if they were unbased. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be this: He's going forum-shopping, and he's getting pretty well shot down there also. For reasons known only to himself, he seems desperate to get that Hornbeck section out of the article. Someone had accused him of being an employee of the show. I don't know what evidence there is for that, if any, but it certainly seems like he's an O'Reilly crusader. Baseball Bugs 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am being "shot down" by you and Noian, everyone else agrees that with me. Fru23 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not being victimized Fru. Constantly complaining of your previous blocks, why you were blocked for disruptive conduct will get you nowhere, especially since your previous unblock request was denied. Please stop attempting to garner empathy as if you were incorrectly blocked. In addition, Bugs, Fru admitted to being a employee of O'reilly on IRC before, but retracted the statement after being called out for WP:COI, which we can only assume his retraction to be true. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm doing this here since I don't want to use the warning template as that'd escalate the issue, but, No Personal Attacks on wikipedia. Thanks. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: Bugs, no need to use the vandal template -- Userlinks gives the same readout. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Rogereeny. Done. Baseball Bugs 02:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Block request: User:Veecort

Veecort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in edit warring on ITT Technical Institute and Sockpuppetry , and has already had a 24 hour block for disruptive editing.

The block occured on 08:35, 22 November 2008, duration 24 hours. Roughly half a day after unblocking, Veecort resumed his edit war, this time using multiple IP addresses (see Suspected sock puppets/Veecort).

• 19:00, 23 November 2008
• 20:31, 23 November 2008
• 07:11, 24 November 2008
• 19:31, 24 November 2008 (fails to break 3RR by 31 minutes)
• 22:24, 24 November 2008 (fails to break 3RR by 1 hour 53 minutes)

Veecort also has one of the most serious COIs I have ever encountered on wikipedia, as seen by this edit from May 2008, in which he claims "I am obviously motivated by something other than making contributions to better Misplaced Pages. Whatever my motivations, the truth is on my side." This would make him the poster boy for WP:TRUTH as well.

My suggestion is a block of moderate duration for Veecort for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, and a total topic ban on ITT Tech and related articles.

As a side note, Veecort has in each case he's received a warning chosen to revert it without acknowledging it. McJeff (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry. I don't deny any of the above accusations. (Except for sock puppetry. If anything they were meat puppets, but their opinions are their own.) McJeff, I think you are giving me too much credit as far as avoiding the 3RR. Nonetheless, the above notes would show that I was engaged in obvious edit warring. Furthermore, it is my fault that the page was locked to new and unregistered users. What should I do now? Veecort (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked up meat puppet and they were most definitely meat puppets. I'm a jerk. At least I am not good at recruiting meat puppets. (Effective meat puppets anyway.) If you look back at my "contributions" you will see that I have at least been genuine. (Genuinely stubborn, genuinely paranoid, genuinely disruptive, genuinely recruiting meat puppets, etc. But genuine nonetheless.) Also, was it wrong for me to revert my talk page? Veecort (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're free to remove comments from your own talk page. However, meatpuppetry is not acceptable behavior, and is very strongly discouraged. Please see this portion of our sock puppetry policy, which notes that their actions will be treated as your own. Especially in this instance, one of your meatpuppets edited while you were still blocked, which would be treated as if you evaded a block (and thus justifies another, longer block), as well as edit warring since you're still at it.

If you're willing to self-revert your last edits to the page to show good faith and promise to seek dispute resolution in order to gain actual consensus for your edits, we can write this off as a newbie mistake and consider this a stern warning (since you seem unaware of our policies and guidelines). However, continued edit warring, including the use of meatpuppets to advance your point of view, will result in blocking of both you and your meatpuppets. --slakr 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slakr here. If Veecort understands and agrees to revert and play by the rules from now on, we'll just call it a day. If not, everybody's been warned and the next step is a block. Dayewalker (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend Veecort's claims of innocence in regards to sockpuppeteering not be taken without his ongoing Checkuser request being cleared. Let's remember that he has admitted that the IP range starting with 151 is him, both it and one of the other two originate from Pennsylvania, and the third is either from Pennsylvania or Phoenix, AZ. Three different IP addresses all from the same state hitting the same article holding the same POV and using the same gramatical syntax does not exactly score well on the duck test. McJeff (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that one sentence. I don't know what it means for my "ongoing Checkuser request cleared." But I don't like the sound of it, so I thought I should tell you that I don't know what that means. I don't really know what an IP range is in the sense that I can admit to being one. And maybe it is just a matter of semantics as in the meat puppets for all intents and purposes are me. Again. I do not have a single sock puppet. Believe me; I wish I wasn't Veecort right now.

I admitted to recruiting meat puppets. More specifically, I went to an online anti-ITT Tech community and flat out told them to be my meat puppets. I just now edited my posts in said community so that they are not calling for meat puppetry or even mention Misplaced Pages. Not that it is proof of anything but these are the threads I used. Here and here. My moniker there is SheepToTheFleecing. Veecort (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note this personal attack laden edit by confirmed meatpuppet 70.190. As the post contains a lie about my block log and a ludicrous Hitler comparison, I would somewhat appreciate it if an administrator removed it. McJeff (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What does "confirmed meatpuppet" even mean? You took two editors who are editing toward the same purpose and confirmed that they're editing toward the same purpose? That's an unnecessarily loaded phrase. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I believe McJeff is using the phrase because Veecort has admitted to canvassing for assistance on this article off wiki, as shown on his comments above (and also his apology for doing so). However, the two editors seem to be getting along better now and trying to seek consensus on the talk page, so I don't think admin attention is needed here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

since veecort has admitted to his wrongdoing, i think he should be given a second chance to make amends by editing better. i also have more to say, except mcjeff keeps removing my comments from this ANI as "harassment and personal attacks". Theserialcomma (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User impersonating an administrator (URGENT)

We have us one User:StevenBuxton who, after logging on for the first time today, has declared himself an administrator and has stolen someone's user and talk pages. He's created at least one sock account. Possible compromised account as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted. This is the second one of these today, there was also User:BuxtonStephen earlier--Jac16888 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to block User:StephanBuxton as well as a sleeper account created by this last one. Thanks.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who did they impersonate? I want to know if I should be trying to be just like them too :-P ►BMW◄ 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:StephenBuxton, user and talk copy pasted--Jac16888 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user twice replaced pages with the IP "134.240.241.2" (see here and here). 134.240.241.2 (talk · contribs) was the subject of the above resolved thread WP:ANI#Anonymous vandals gaming the system. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• An edit by BuxtonStephen (talk · contribs) on the same page replaced letters with similar-looking letters from other alphabets, which is what the IP had done on other users' talk pages before being blocked (the IP was blocked anon only, so accounts can still be created). StephenBuxton (talk · contribs) is the user who started that AN/I thread. —Snigbrook 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me, have reblocked the ip with no account creation, --Jac16888 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the block worked properly, it still appears to be anon only. —Snigbrook 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn damn damn. Ok, it took me three attempts, but I've got it now I think, . Wow, that was stupid of me--Jac16888 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that. I believe we haven't seen the last of this one...he'll be back soon.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah, you know when you are doing something right, when you inspire vandals enough to imitate you and they try to emulate your actions. Quite flattering really, being a role model :-) Seriously though, I've checked my contributions, and I can't see anything in there that I haven't done. To be on the safe side, I'll change my password. Thanks for letting me know! StephenBuxton (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Help, User:StephenBuxton is impersonating me. Someone needs to stop him BuxtonSteven (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's another one at talk. Whack-a-fake-Buxton time, I guess. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Whack. Tan | 39 22:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In the future, let's save "URGENT" for truly urgent things. Impersonating an admin, while wrong, isn't going to cause any damage. John Reaves 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive user ScienceApologist

This seems to have gone on long enough that I need another opinion and would ask for action. The article is List of alleged UFO-related entities. The person is ScienceApologist. He sent it to AFD (no problem) where it ended in no consensus, and closed one week ago. Since then, it appears he has decided to delete it regardless of consensus. This observation is based on the entire series of his edits, not any single one. Including when he redirected it, then began issuing a series of ultimatums, while not actually participating in discussion. Additionally, there have been plenty of rude nonarguments for deleting. Now, I wouldn't be here if the problem was just rude conversation or a lack of rationale. After Zagalejo trimmed all the unsourced fat, fixed the existing sources and found new ones, ScienceApologist made several edits, some honestly valid, but some more POV. Then, in the middle of his ultimatum, he then redirects again to a different article. When that was reverted, he then tagged the article for advert, cleanup, confusing, fansite, globalize, in-universe, introrewrite, notability, original research, peacock, primarysources, refimprove, self-published, tone and unencyclopedic. Yes, all of them at once. I reverted under WP:POINT and have tried to keep a civil tone throughout, as has everyone else. It is difficult to discuss the merits of his suggestions in this situation, particularly when he simply deletes material and is under the impression he owns the right to determine the outcome.

In the middle of this, the original admin who closed the AFD entered the discussion and asked that he take it to deletion review instead, which appears to have been ignored. At this point, I can no longer assume good faith. It appears the user is being disruptive to prove a WP:POINT, ignoring the outcome of the AFD he was nom for, and causing good editors to quit editing the article.

I would ask for a block at least long enough to fix the article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sighhhhh Shot info (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel like directly quoting a bowl of petunias. ►BMW◄ 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate when ANI is in reruns... --Smashville 00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again. Can someone close this down and buy all of us a beer? OrangeMarlin 00:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain the joke to me please? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the block log. Never mind. I see now that we have a group of like thinkers who believe it is ok to use disruptive behavior to prove a point. Ok, when why do we keep doing short blocks on someone who is this disruptive? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The joke is, every time SA cleans up a FRINGE article full of poorly or non-supported information, and those who love the article can't meet the burden of proof, they come here claiming SA hates them, hates Science, hates America, and so on. Then a bunch of people come, look at the complaint, support SA, and we all move on. It's like menstruation, except the bleeding, unless one of us gets an aneurysm again from the hassle or the laguhing at the complaint. ThuranX (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the cleaning up. I don't edit the article. I AM kinda big on honoring the outcome of an AFD. My complaints weren't about editing, it was about the obviously disruptive behavior. Adding every tag, or multiple redirects while demanding reasons. I'm not a UFO guy, and honestly, agree that everything in it should be sourced. Actually, I was ready to listen to why the redirect made sense. The problem is that he has taken a controversial tone since the beginning and basically is just saying "fuck you all, I'm deleting this". DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke ... the bowl of petunias said "Oh no, not again" (well, at least it went through its mind). This name comes up more often than a teen boy's hormones. ►BMW◄ 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's always going to be fun when ANI has SA somewhere in the section title. Thuran, I hear that SA hates dark chocolate too. Just thought you should know. OrangeMarlin 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

don't get taht one, but we've had a dick joke in nine replies, so I think this is over. ThuranX (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Come now, no need to advertise for our rival. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any such block. In reviewing your links, I do see the alleged wikilawyering, I do see a lack of cogent arguments, and further, this list of alleged UFO entities includes a large number of NON alien cryptozoological/mythological topics, like Mothman, Chupacabra, and more. I don't see any reliable sources for the temperament of imaginary space people. The article looks far better now than before SA started cleaning up. One major point he cleaned up? the one essentially asserting that mainstream science is unwilling to admit this is all real, which has way too much 'cover-up conspiracy' feel to it. This stuff is FRINGE to the FRINGE. A list of improbable entities that are being used to fill up an otherwise ridiculously small list? The Atmosphere beast, by the list's own admission, is native, its origin is in our upper atmosphere, so it's NOT an alien. SA fights a long uphill battle here, and all this stuff gets ridiculous. The external links were to fansites, not to interesting, scientifically reliable nor historically vetted reports. His edits look fine to me overall; the biggest problem edit I see is the 96 hour deadlne, but that gives four days for a reply. Plenty of time for any advocate of the page to put something together, but not so long as to allow the issue to cool so he has to start all over again in a week or a month. No problem here. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Mothman nor Chupacabra exist in the article. All the existing material is sourced with reliable sources. So you are saying that disruptive behavior of adding every possible tag, redirecting after you already have an ultimatum, these are ok behaviors? Just curious. So, you are all saying that any complaint about his actions are simply ignored? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They did when I looked at the diffs. ThuranX (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone already agrees the unsourced stuff should go. That isn't the issue. And yes, this article was a POS recently. Many people (not me) have done a lot of work to fix it though, and the overall topic, if sourced properly, is notable since plenty of crazies have reported this stuff in reliable sources. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's stop biting people just because it's a common topic here. ScienceApologist is hardly blameless; there is no deadline, yet SA artificially creates one in effect strangling discussion for his own ends; not to mention he himself professes to throw policy out the window for his own ends. Just because he may be right about the content doesn't give him carte blanche to mistreat other editors and ignore guideline, policy, and common sense. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute????? There are reliable sources that say aliens exist? Do tell. I would contend that there are reliable sources that state that delusional humans imagine aliens exist, and that's NPOV. OrangeMarlin 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But there are reliable sources that describe aliens someone people believe exist and with the widespread appearance of such creatures in works of fiction, they're a valid part of literature, without FRINGE applying in the slightest.- Mgm| 09:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Back to the issue: The actions are disruptive. I have made it as linked/clear as possible. If the admins here feel this is acceptable behavior, please let me know so I can change the way I do biz here. Otherwise, I would appreciate the merits I am presenting to be considered, as I brought them here, documented, in good faith. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I only partially agree with ThuranX. The article needs fixing; he is certainly right about that, and so is SA, & I would support some or all of his improvements. That there is a deadline on fixing articles, he is equally certainly wrong, and the attempts of SA to impose one seem like illegitimate pressure. The redirect without discussion immediately after the AfD close was in my opinion unfortunate, and was properly reverted. The discussion of how to edit the article should be carried out on the talk page, and if necessary--and I think it probably will be necessary--through dispute resolution. But Dennis Brown is wrong to ask for a block on the editor; I think that unnecessarily aggressive. The correct course for such disputes is to protect the article until there can be a resolution of the dispute. As I endorsed the revert of SA's redirect, I ask some other admin to do it. Personally, I think the need to deal with this here is not fit matter for jokes. DGG (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't ask for a block lightly. There were a couple of editors fixing the article, except it kept getting redirected and tagged. Do you feel that tagging the article for advert, cleanup, confusing, fansite, globalize, in-universe, introrewrite, notability, original research, peacock, primarysources, refimprove, self-published, tone and unencyclopedic is not disruptive? And I never have argued the article has problems. I argue, like you did at AFD, that doesn't need deleting, real or virtual. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To add, the reason for the block wasn't the first redirect, which was ok under bold. It was the second one during the middle of his "convince me in 96 hours or else" timeframe. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Biz? What? I'm not reading this entire ordeal, but what's wrong with those those "more POV" edits from SA? I'm seeing the removal of non-NPOV, unverifiable statements. What's wrong with that and how is it relevant? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like upon SA's first edit to the article (the addition of the AfD notice). From what I can see, since then, the article has gained a couple sources and trimmed the vast majority of unsourced material, much of it of questionable relevance. ScienceApologist is certainly brusque, and I would prefer that SA tone it down and drop the ticking deadline clock nonsense. However, I don't see any current need for admin intervetion. There's still plenty of WP:DR left to draw from. — Scientizzle 01:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh. The question is pre AFD, the question is about post AFD actions. It appears obvious that being disruptive is ok for certain people that do it often enough to endear themselves to others for the simple fact of being disruptive and having a block page longer than the average talk page history. Stupid me, I assumed we all participated under the same expectations of conduct. Since this has provided such joy and joke value, although no reading value were it shows multiple redirects, I suppose I shouldn't expect more. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You're asking for a block. I just stated my opinion that, while I don't approve of all of his methods, SA's intervention has sparked what appear to be improvements within the article. Thus, it's not purely disruptive and jumping for the block button is not, in my opinion, a wise choice when there remain dispute resolution avenues to be tried. Now that there are more eyes on the article, hopefully wider input will encourage further improvement efforts. — Scientizzle 01:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I realize we've resolved this issue, but I want to step in and say the best way to resolve an issue with someone who feels shortchanged in a dispute resolution area is not to say "you're asking for a block." It comes off as very schoolmarm/mother, and more importantly, that's not what blocks are for. Let's stop threatening users who get frustrated and continue to talk through issues without resorting to stupid threats. Everything good? Good. Mike H. Fierce! 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally or otherwise, someone was talking on the radio today about how reports of UFO incidents increase during periods of economic downturn or other stressful times for the nation. Baseball Bugs 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Thats quite interesting, because people also turn to religion during such times, and also co-incidentally, I read recently that a survey found people more likely to believe in aliens than god--Jac16888 (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall during the spring or so of 1974 that Harry Reasoner reported that a larger percentage of Americans believed in UFOs than believed in Richard Nixon. His comment: "I don't know what that says, but it says something." Baseball Bugs 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in the immortal words of Porky Pig, "Me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-MEN FROM MARS!" Baseball Bugs 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd just like to say that I agree with Dennis Brown - SA's edits are disruptive and he shows little interest in discussion or establishing consensus. I came across this recently on fractal cosmology, where SA removed large parts of the article while an AfD was in progress without having the courtesy to inform the AfD discussion that he had significantly changed the article. After the AfD was concluded as keep, and several editors, including myself, were attempting to improve the article, SA then performed a drive-by rollback to a 9-day old version. If the community is tired of seeing complaints about SA's behaviour here, then it should think about taking some effective action - although I admit I am not sure what that might be, as SA clearly feels the fault is always with those who disagree with him, and never with himself. As he says at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion) "I come into conflict with the users on this list on a fairly regular basis. I am often mystified as to what justification there is to keep such users on board". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI is the wrong venue for this. If you really feel something needs to be done, start a formal WP:RFAR. However, I don't think that's going to go anywhere. Unless SA does something particularly egregious, he's not likely to have sanctions imposed by ArbCom. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

SA has a tendency to approach every encounter on Misplaced Pages as a battle. He'll start by wiping a page and slapping every tag he can think of onto it. Sometimes he'll move into launching accusations and attempting to tar and feather people as 'fringe advocates' who hate science. As a recent thread over at WP:AN demonstrated (ban Pcarbonn from cold fusion), substantive diffs are not really even necessary. While some good evidence has now been presented at the Arbitration case of Pcarbonn making truly bad edits, if I recall correctly t the above linked thread a total of 10 diffs were presented, 8 of which were of Pcarbonn editing the talk page ("pontificating"). One of the two articlespace edits cited by SA showed Pcarbonn changing the word majority to two-thirds. While nobody seemed to care about diffs, they weren't shy about expressing support for banning Pcarbonn from the page. Anyway, while there is a (diminishing) problem with fringe views on Misplaced Pages, SA doesn't do much to address that problem with his battleground approach. While he drums up constant wikidrama and gets credited for 'brilliant' work which actually amounts to attempting to wipe articles and drive-by tagging, others do the hard work of improving articles through old-fashioned reading and sourcing. Probably the best approach at this point is to do a Requests for Comment/User, cataloging the wikilawyering, petty edit-warring, and disrespect for other editors. I'll admit that he does some good work, but I don't think he's worth the headache. II | (t - c) 05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange edit war

On User talk:Simulation12 with User:Elbutler. Sim12 is not a child as s/he claims to be and pushing disruptive after being warned.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Update...User:Elbutler has filed at WP:AIV.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Were I not involved, I would have blocked this infant back to the preschool from which she claims to have escaped. This is easily one of the most duplicitous, un-helpful users I've ever encountered. Three editors--myself, Elbutler, and barneca---have counseled this user on her behaviour (see her talk page); she's had one short block already; nothing has changed, except maybe for the worse--and she has ab-so-fecking-lutely no intent of acquiring a clue. The edits she's made outside her user page, user talk, or other peoples' user-talk, are...I would say they're 90% unproductive. She says she's 6 years old. If she is six years old, I am an Emperor penguin. Then, today, she added this to her user page: . Needless to say, I'm too involved to block, but I submit that if ever there was a user we could do without, this is her. GJC 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree as I've watched him for a while. The claim to be American is also false (use of "favourite" repeated in today's edits is a telltale sign).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that spelling is a very reliable judge of nationality, as I know several Americans that choose to honour their British heritage by utilising en-uk. However I should point out that the IP listed below (154.20.40.205) resolves to the Canadian ISP Telus. And of course the second definition on the American dab page says "an inhabitant ... of the Western Hemisphere," so it would not technically be false for a Canadian national to describe themselves as being American. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is true, after all we describe Canada as being the 51st state! 8^D
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this ANI report but I blocked her after noticing the userpage edits on my watchlist. I put the account on my watchlist some weeks back when I became aware of the user pestering Elbutler and Gladys. I think s/he's been given plenty of warnings and had lots of advice and assistance from some incredibly patient editors and admins but continues making a pest of themselves. We are either being played games with or being used as a childcare facility and either way I feel the disruptive behaviour far outweighs the minimal mainspace contributions. I feel this user is a serial, chronic pest and so I blocked him/her and I recommend we preferably keep them blocked but at least until there's some indication that the games and disruption are finished. Sarah 04:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

She was also using IP 154.20.40.205, which she admitted on my talkpage. . Not sure what we want to do about that, if anything--I'm happy enough having the named user out of the way. Thanks!GJC 06:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

I could be wrong, but on re-reading it, this edit could be construed as a legal threat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean

This is not the place to publish information that is in breach of the Data Protection Act of Great Britain.

Isn't that as simple as 'ware the BLP, or "obey the 9th commandment"? Now pointing them to WP:BLP to supply them with new verbs, and how better to caution might be reasonable. Shenme (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's intended as intimidation, and it references a legal entity, so it pretty much qualifies as a legal threat. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed- it sounds like an in-spirit violation of WP:NLT; the guideline exists to prevent the chilling effects of using legal threats and "legal advice" (i.e., thinly veiled threats) from interrupting the improvement of the encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef for legal threat, asked them to retract and acknowledge the policy on their talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't dispute that naming this or that law as "why you are in the wrong" (in danger?) is potentially chilling, and meant so. The editor is apparently in peril of COI as being the subject himself. In light of that, it is not unreasonable to have some sympathy for them as the object of attack by means of the BNP tar+feather. What I meant is that three different warnings in combination with efforts by the same editor that to expand the perceived attack, might not have the most helpful, certainly when seen with the wrong version results. Earle Martin and Scott MacDonald have cleaned up much that was fluff, and have mentioned the BLP and other concerns on the talk page. 'twould be nice if someone made some suggestions to the editor, who has not edited in some hours. Ah, too late, blocked minutes ago for the pile-on effect. Context anyone? Shenme (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good gosh. Referencing a law is not a legal threat. Saying you think something is defamation isn't a legal threat. Saying you think something is libellous isn't a legal threat. Saying you're going to do something about it is a legal threat. --jpgordon 07:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The wording of it sounds threatening, though. Maybe not to everyone, but it certainly looked to me like a threat. Baseball Bugs 07:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've got to agree here. There's a big difference between "I think this is potentially libelous" and "This is libelous. Libel is illegal. Do not reinsert that libel." The comment here was an invocation of a law to hammer home a position, and that's exactly what the prohibition against legal threats is meant to prevent. Seraphimblade 07:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Important comment: When people make implicit legal threats, before jumping in with a banhammer take a look at the context. Let me fill this in. The person apparently making the threat is a relatively obscure composer, who maybe just about merits an article, who has been "outed" by one single low-grade UK newspaper as a member of the far-right BNP. No other UK paper has shown any (as yet) any interest in that allegation (Google news only brings up the one story from one source - not even AP cares), and it has nothing to do with the chap's marginal notability. However, Pigsonthewing has been insisting that this negative allegation must be published in our encyclopedia against the subject's wishes. I removed the offending material under BLP, and now pigs is here trying to get him blocked. This is a variation on the WP:DOLT theme - and should be strongly resisted. A block may be needed here, but not on the subject.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• The legal threat is unacceptable, no matter the "wishes" of the article's subject. The issue would seem to be the reliability of sources. That's a legitimate issue to raise, and it's the approach that the article's subject should have taken. There is no "context" in which making legal threats is acceptable. Baseball Bugs 13:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt he understands the relevant Misplaced Pages policies. To me, it doesn't read like an "I will sue you" message. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) No doubt that the legal threat was unacceptable--but considering the circumstances, maybe GWH should have given Mr. Glover a chance to better explain what was going on and retract the legal threat rather than drop the banhammer (though I won't wheel war). I'm going to direct Mr. Glover to OTRS. Blueboy96 13:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Unless his talk page was blocked also, the blocked user is free to explain and to retract. If he can read plain English, then he should now know what the issue is. And if he can't, he shouldn't be editing the English wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The "legal threat" (which is pretty much on a par with writing that Misplaced Pages isn't the place to post information that violates copyright law — which is not only not a legal threat but in fact official Misplaced Pages policy) is an editor who isn't experienced with Misplaced Pages (as per the observations of xyr style of referencing) trying to get people to stop turning a biography into a scarlet letter. Stating that an inexperienced editor should be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages when all that xe has been doing is trying to prevent being lambasted by a Misplaced Pages biography is an appalling lack of judgement on your part, Baseball Bugs. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly, Uncle G. When the subject of an article has a legitimate complaint, we don't whack them over the head with policies they more than likely don't know--we try to help them. Now what they do when we give them that help is another ball game ... Blueboy96 13:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As above, It's time to point to Misplaced Pages:Don't overlook legal threats here. I can understand why someone would be upset when xe has made efforts to comply with Misplaced Pages policy, writing about xyrself using sources such as New Music Magazine, Village Magazine, and the Leeds Echo, only to have such material removed time and again and eventually replaced with a short biography merely listing a political affiliation that the subject has attempted to keep out of xyr public life. Worse, when the content is erased, Scott MacDonald goes and erases the citations for the sources that supported it, too. I think that our behaviour in interacting with this person in good faith has been less than stellar, and blocking has only compounded the fault. Xe made good faith efforts to write based upon third-party sources. That the article didn't use the <ref> tag, but used Harvard-style linking (e.g. "(Leeds Echo 1997)", and "(J. Lander)") was not a reason to erase the content for being unsourced. It was a reason to fix the citations. You are Misplaced Pages editors. You are more experienced with the markup. You are supposed to help when someone who is clearly not an experienced Wikpedia editor makes a good faith effort to cite third-party sources but doesn't quite get the markup right. You are not supposed to erase the content, erase the sources, and then block the user demanding a retraction of threats against Misplaced Pages when xe rightly complains that xyr biography is being turned into a hatchet job. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could get back to us after you get your keyboard repaired. Baseball Bugs 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you weren't joking (*grin*), I took it as an attempt to be gender neutral. Too hard to read, IMHO -- I'll still go with s/he and his/her.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you pronounce Xe with a Greek "chi" sound, it still comes out "He", only with a guttural "H". Baseball Bugs 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• This was not a legal threat. It's an incorrect invocation of policy--WP does not necessarily respect that act or similar provisions in other countries, but operates under the law of the US & the State of Florida, and our own positions on BLP. It does seems the material is no in accord with our BLP policy if the newspaper mentioned is the only source. A legal threat is a threat to sue, or to report otherwise for legal action, and nothing less than that, unless the implication is obvious--I do not think it was here. We should be free to state an opinion, correct or not correct, that certain matter may be in violation of some legislation, Blocking is heavy handed interpretation of policy , with the effect of discouraging people from calling our attention to BLP violation. DGG (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked. Agree with Jpgordon, DGG and others, this wasn't a legal threat. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thumperward constant personal attacks

Thumperward (talk · contribs) I am reporting User:Thumperward for constant Hypocracy and personal attacks.

on the following

• Template talk:FOSS
• Template_talk:Linux
• Template_talk:Mobile_operating_systems
• Template_talk:Mobile_operating_systems#Categorization method

Through all these template, he keeps making excuses for Template are not directories. When he is the only users having this problem.

And I would note that keep things to yourself. My scope toward that arguements is none of template are not directories at all and I never plan on intending it to be that way. Placing the right "topics" to present a better navigation is not a directory that is totally Chris own Original Research instances and should be blocked. Whenever I am involved in the template, as shown before he makes his own personal conflict gets in the way before allowing other to have a chance to contribute on anything. That is not the way how we do things at Misplaced Pages. If he has a problem with my editing, he should of use my User talk page, which he never did.

Topics clearly serve a better navigation, since a lot of Misplaced Pages article have (History, Implementations, examples and references) which focus on the study and expertise of topics rather than posting only notable products and being bias. I am not sure is he trying to advertise everything he likes by the philosophy of "it must be this way." A good example would be placing only IE, Firefopx and Chrome on a browser template just because they own majority of the industry market share. However, this doesn't make the fact Opera aren't notable and he doesn't even think before he acts. In Template:Sun Microsystems, he claims his own method are more correct, when he is inable to show any understanding of the topic at all such as workstations processors and later on he created the Template:Sun Hardware ignoring community consensus or agreement knowing the problem already exists.

Regarding Template: Sun Microsystems (3 template are involved)

• Template: Sun Microsystems
• Template: Solaris
• Template: Java

Intro --> Now (repeating a bit, sorry) The problem arises, when increase number of links are placed at template. Chris made Template:Sun hardware ignoring community consensus and later on when I proposed 3 template Contributed at Revision as of 04:00, 9 October 2008 he and the community still tries to evade my proposal at all knowing that he and I had already had conflicts in 2 of the template before. I question his action accounts for any creditabiltiy and responsibility for he so-called "claims of turning template to directories"

Note: I really don't care how the template turns out to be, since I am not planning on any further involvement, even though I said I will create a version 2. But if the community is still choosing to ignoring everything than might as well delete the template.

Other User such as George were willing to talk, but Chris choose to let his own immaturity get in his way. As to that how is that my problem on the previous WP:ANI.

I do apologize the personal attacks I made on Template:Linux today (Nov 24, 2008), because I am getting sick and tired of his immature actions constantly getting in the way of others. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• A comment. Chris's talk page is on ym watchlist, so I've seen more than a few of your interactions there. At least on his talk page (I can't speak about other areas), Chris is polite and calm. You two appear to be engaged in a long running content dispute and the particulars of that dispute are not likely to be solved on AN/I. Further, accusations like yours need to be supported by specific diffs of wrongful behavior, not general hand waving. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50 is the offending party here - see for example this edit where he violates WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF against Thumperward and myself for no good reason. Had he not insulted me there, I would block him for a month or longer for the insults to Chris, but I believe I'm in a conflict of interest over it as he's going after me too.

He's been repeatedly warned and blocked before for abusive editing. Much is now deleted off his talk page, but he's had ample warnings to stop.

Uninvolved admin requested to review and take appropriate action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AFAICS, all of Thumperward's comments on the abovementioned templates seem to me to be entirely reasonable. If he's sounding increasingly irritable of late, that comes as no great surprise, given Ramu50's behaviour. As for Template_talk:Sun Microsystems, Thumperward received no serious objections to his proposal to create Template:Sun hardware from any other users (including myself), and it wasn't obvious if Ramu50's comment was an objection or not. Ramu50's proposed template was pasted into the talk page (along with two others for different navboxes) without any kind of explanation that it was intended as a request for comments. Letdorf (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

And so far as I can see, he is the ONLY Wikipedian users right now that uses constant excuses and making false claims on me. I have quite a lot of conficts in Misplaced Pages, but majority are already resolved. However, Chris himself choose to stick with the old story and be immature forever and his mental problem is mine problems to be deal with, a lot of crap your really got there.

Also to you Georgewilliamherbert stop making false claims once again, you made several personal attack me on personally on Template:Database and Template:Parallel Computing without focusing on the main problem, so you as an adminstrator started the violation and you as the same choose not to resolve the situation. Need I need to remind you that Racial Discrimination is not an acceptable actions of Misplaced Pages.

For Sun Microsystems template I am not going on any further, but a word of clearing what actually happen I think maybe in dire need. I was against the Template:Sun Hardware all the time, but since majority of the involved users choose not follow any of the guidelines, I abandon my decision and choose not to be involved with the Template anymore, even though I am still trying to work on a new version of Sun Microsystems template. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've got it all in that one - accusations of racism, accusing another editor of having mental problems. Looking at the history, I'm amazed at Thumper's politeness with your nonsense. Why you have decided to shine a spotlight on your behaviour is beyond me - but don't worry, I'm sure your interactions with other editors will get all the attention then need. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And so far again and again, ALL of you guys are teaming up because of your inability of acceptance or choosing to ignore totally what I just said before about how I believe article should be organized.

And let me ask you Did Chris did any of the following

• Went to my talk for resolution since he is against my edits

not once

• Did he stop from his hypocracy of twisting the talks submitted at Template:Sun Microystems

obviously not

You people load of crap and always trying to make a better image of yourself, really shows your innate lack of attitude care for Misplaced Pages at all, no wonder all of your contributions are all over the place, instead of having the passion to stick with one topics and be persistent. What a joke you guys really dramatize the situation. What are you trying to prove that you are better than anyone else and you only your "mental community" matters like Hitler. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely we must have a rule where we can close a thread when the person making the complaint "godwin's"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not close this your thread, their constant evasion needs to be stop. Their constant actions of ignoring the truth and always walking away whenever their have commit an incident they don't want to admit needs to be stop. Not that I want to be involve with, but apparently they have let that matter interefere from Misplaced Pages policy. As to question this, if this is not your own mental problem, perhaps you guy should make a promise to correct that defects.

If this is the way how Wikipedian users choose to do things, than by all means I'll go with it and we'll see who will last longer, keep it up with your uncivil actions and ignoring me, so-called "adminstrators." --Ramu50 (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not here to represent your version of the "truth." And read WP:NPA: That's twice you've made aspersions against editor's mental abilities. Continuing to spout insults, especially on the admin notice board, is likely to get you blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize I didn't edit for 3 hours, my internet just crashed. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Block review: User:Devil Goddess / ex-User:Skoojal

Devil Goddess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just admitted in an unblock request that she/he was Skoojal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I denied an initial unblock request due to an apparent duck test similarity and the user refusing to deny that they were Skoojal; they subsequently admitted it and have asked to be unblocked now that they're open about it.

I was somewhat concerned about Devil Goddess' edits before Will Beback blocked her/him. However, they were not seriously abusive. There was clearly block evasion, but also perhaps a sincere attempt to edit in a largely constructive manner, albeit with the same viewpoint as before.

It would be good to have another uninvolved admin review the second unblock request, in light of the totality of their edit history and their honest admission now that they're Skoojal. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive User:Downzero

Continually reverting against consensus on Obama and Biden articles. Downzero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Those are semi-protected, but user came on in July, did a few edits, and then nothing until today. My guess is it's a "sleeper" account. Needs a block to stop disruption. Baseball Bugs 08:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted my caution and continued to edit war, after calling Misplaced Pages WP:V policy "asenine" despite notification of possible block, WP:V, WP:EW, and other policies. I don't know if he needs a block or just a good talking-to. We've had 20-30 discussions, and a consensus, on this topic. Even though this is a non-POV technicality he needs to know he can't just edit war because he thinks he alone knows the WP:TRUTH about whether Obama is a president-elect or not. Wikidemon (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I see it as trolling, since he came from out of nowhere and "zeroed down" (get it?) on this pair of articles, then disappeared when the heat got turned up a bit. I do like this quote, which could be a classic: "'Edit against consensus...' is asinine. The truth shall reign over any 'consensus' that is incorrect." Of course, there's always the chance he decided to go read the policy manual. Baseball Bugs 09:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And it may be just a naming coincidence, but User:Zsero was also arguing against calling Obama the President-elect (as were a couple of others, I should point out) and was generally belligerent, though being established for a couple of years. Zsero got a 2-day block on the 17th, due in part to edit warring over Ketchup, of all things. He made 3 edits right after his block expired, and has not edited since, at least not under that name. Baseball Bugs 09:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's back now, arguing on the Obama talk page, but so far has not tried to disrupt the article again. Baseball Bugs 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, his constant endless-loop reasoning sounds more and more like User:Zsero. Baseball Bugs 10:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He has now taken this to a neutrality dispute page. At least he's stopped reverting consensus in the articles. Baseball Bugs 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The phraseology is sounding more and more like User:Zsero. I'm citing policy and he's challenging "my" argument, i.e. personalizing it somehow. In the case of Zsero, it was an endless loop over whether Senator Obama "had to" resign. And his arguing tactic was the same: That the constitution says thus-and-so, therefore all the media are wrong and should be disregarded - and that "I" have failed to disprove his argument, therefore he's right. Baseball Bugs 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin just give Downzero a friendly block for a couple days to spin his wheels. I think that's all it takes, it's really just a 3RR matter... or rather, a 1RR matter since the article is on probation. This isn't really a case where a lot of discussion is needed for a block that is an unambiguous page violation (never mind tone, demeanor, puppet possibilities, it's simply too many reverts). 10:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's now forum-shopping, having also posted at the Third Opinion page. I advised him that he's running the risk of a block for the 1RR violation. Baseball Bugs 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting similarity, besides the attitude, is the unusual tendency of both them to leave 2 spaces (or more) between sentences. Most wikipedians leave one space. Just a style oddity that caught my eye. Baseball Bugs 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They took away the Third Opinion entry on the grounds that it was misused, i.e. it's not a dispute between just 2 editors. Gee, I love talking to myself. I could do this all night. :) Baseball Bugs 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk to you, Bugs! Actually, I came here to raise that point - I removed it on procedural grounds as there were numerous editors involved. For full disclosure I'll state I have previously been involved with one of them (Baseball Bugs, here on ANI) so would not have provided an opinion. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 11:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm so lonely. I'm not sure if Zsero and Downzero are lonely, i.e. I'm not sure if they're joined at the hip or if they're just one guy. Baseball Bugs 11:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That guy is really on a tear. Now he's posted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Barack Obama. Baseball Bugs 11:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try as characterizing me as a troll. This is clearly an issue between two editors, despite the 3O to the contrary. Let's leave the insults to real trolls and take this issue to mediation. I never heard of this other guy until you posted up about him, and I typically edit without logging in, thus why my contributions list was short before today, when I HAD to log in, in order to edit a protected page. Downzero (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Like Zsero, you try to make it me-against-you, when in reality it's verifiable sources and consensus of many users against you. Baseball Bugs 11:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Downzero claimed to have read the archives, yet he claims to have never heard of Zsero, whose name is prominent in the archives, this for example so something does not computer. Baseball Bugs 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like pretty clear pointy disruptive abuse of process. It's a mystery why anyone would socpuppet on such an unimportant technical edit to the encyclopedia. The editor has opened this trivial non-issue in a dozen forums, is belligerent, and showing no signs of stopping. We should roll back all the reports and get an authoritative warning, and if that does not work a block. Wikidemon (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I make no claim of sockpuppetry. I merely observed the similarities. It could be coincidental. In any case, the ball in his court now, as to whether to waste more time with this bogus issue, or to back away from it. Baseball Bugs 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know about that other guy. I do know that I read much of the archive, but not all, because it spans many dozens of pages.

I was hoping this dispute would be resolved civilly, but you have hid behind the status quo and refused to debate despite both of us having verifiable evidence for our positions. It is unfortunate for the sake of the encyclopedia that it has come to this and that no consensus can exist that encompasses legal and constitutional reasoning as well as pragmatic usage of terms. Downzero (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It was already resolved, you just don't like the answer. Baseball Bugs 12:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the constitution does not define the term "President-elect". The way it's used is, in fact, totally pragmatic. Baseball Bugs 12:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Downzero on this. Constitutionally recognized title or not, the Electoral college has bucked the popular vote before, there's a SCOTUS discussion on Obama's citizenship (laughable as that is), and we should be reporting the most factual stuff, not hte media hyping of the new ratings booster. Media outlets have to sell ad space, we don't. we can be circumspect. No one doubts he'll be the next president, but we can be respectful of the process. ThuranX (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time there was an issue with the electoral college was 1876, and there is no issue about Obama's citizenship. "President-elect" is defined to include the "apparent" winner, so there's no issue with that either. Zero's fundamental argument about the constitution made the assumption that "President-elect" is a constitutionally-defined term. It isn't. His argument, even if sincere, is bogus. Baseball Bugs 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

checking the history of those "two" editors, I can hear ducks going quack quack. Have we got enough for a CU report? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but they might not take it, as the editor's disruption has mostly been on talk pages once he stopped reverting the article, and it's only on this one topic. But I'm not sure what the thresholds are, for evidence, and for acceptance of the case. Baseball Bugs 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, he's back, continuing to flog this dead horse. I think it's time for a checkuser, however that might be requested. Baseball Bugs 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually not. Hold the phone. Even if he's sockpuppeteering, he hasn't done it in such a way that violates any rules, that I can see. He's just a pest, a disruption. That's the issue here. Baseball Bugs 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This diff clearly states his position - that Obama is not entitled to be called President-elect yet. That's in defiance of everything he's been shown, so he's either incredibly dense or he's just trolling. In any case, he's been advised by others to cease and desist, and hasn't edited since, so hopefully that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, Slowthy

I put this as a sub-section, as it is following a remarkably similar pattern. Slowthy had not edited since July (and only 7 edits from Jan-July), then pops right in 5 months later now with an immaculately wiki-formatted "Obama is a Muslim" section. Spidey-sense indicates a collective intent to disrupt. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any direct connection with Zero, but it looks like Slowthy has been working on this stuff for awhile. Baseball Bugs 13:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I got a good laugh out of reading that essay. It's a typical conspiracy theory approach - Obama "should have" behaved a certain way in certain circumstances, and because he apparently didn't, therefore that supports the premise. And anything he does that looks Christian somehow affirms the premise, because Muslims are supposedly trained to deny their faith. Totally bogus. Baseball Bugs 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me of this McCarthy-era joke. How do you know if someone is a Communist? Simple. Just ask him. If he says "No", he's a Communist, because Communists lie. And if he says "Yes", he's a Communist, because they're stupid enough to admit it. Baseball Bugs 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Slowthy's edit inserted a more-or-less direct copy of material from the delightful Conservapedia article on Obama - hence the detailed, if not exactly accurate, citations and so forth. If you haven't read the Conservapedia article, I highly recommend it. I've warned him and notified him of the article probation. MastCell  16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As with Zero, he disappeared when the heat got turned up a bit. I don't think I want to go to the conservapedia site - it might infect my computer. Baseball Bugs 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Network"

User:Horologium suggested I come here to report a constant issue him and I have been working on. There are a group of IPs from around the country attacking Camden, New Jersey and any related pages (so far, Delaware River, Cooper River (New Jersey), and Benjamin Franklin Bridge (the former 3 of which have been semi-protected for 3 months, while the latter has just started to see activity) called "The Network," a group of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity members determined, in their own words, to publish "certain facts" about Camden (this page has also been semi-protected for 3 months). See some examples (though, definitely not limited to just these) from Camden (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the first that I could find), Cooper River (1, 2, and 3), Delaware River (1, 2, and earliest instance), and Ben Franklin Bridge, with Camden being attacked for the longest period of time (since at least April).

They constantly use Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg as their calling card (trying to suggest that Camden appears to be like San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake) and use different IPs from around the country, anywhere from California to Maryland, Minnesota to Texas, and even as far away as Canada and the UK, so warning/blocking IPs doesn't work; it only encourages them more. They even tried (unsuccessfully) to impersonate me with User:EaglesFunInTampa; Horologium caught that right away, however, and I'm in the process of making doppelgangers to prevent that from happening again.

I'm not sure if anything can be done (without infringing on WP:Five pillars, I doubt it), but it's a good idea to get everyone on the same page to keep an eye out, should something ever arise again. If you need more information, please feel free to look at User talk:Horologium for our side of it or just ask me. Does anyone know what I can do to help prevent this in the future? EaglesFanInTampa 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a rather beaten-to-death practical joke of some kind. One could do the same thing for East St. Louis, or Gary, or any city just across New York to the west. Or Oakland, even. Any lesser city in the shadow of a big city, both geographically and economically. Semi-protection should simmer it down a bit. Baseball Bugs 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is it possible to add Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg to the bad image list, as is done with all of the lovely penis pics that have been uploaded to commons? Since they seem to have a hard-on for this picture (wordplay intentional), limiting it only to appropriate articles might slow them down. I don't know the procedure/policy for this, and it's an odd case, since the picture doesn't fit the usual profile of restricted images. Horologium (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's worth a try - however that would be done. Baseball Bugs 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did that once with images used by the former socker Mmbabies (who enjoyed using the Maniac Mansion box art in multiple articles), but got my hand slapped for it saying it wasn't an image that needed protection like the usual sexual pictures on that list. We might have to check to see if it was OK. Nate • (chatter) 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The right response to a criticism like that would be, "OK, how would you handle it?" Baseball Bugs 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Anymouse (talk · contribs)

I'm requesting a block of Dr. Anymouse per the activities below:

• accusing editors of sockpuppetry
• rude edit summary
• refactoring someone else's edits
• uncivil comments including calling a good faith editor "blabdot"

Violations of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:TEND, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPA abound. I don't have the time to dig up every diff of his that violates any of these core policies, but all you need do is choose any of his contributions to find one that is rude or worse. OrangeMarlin 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you see the splinter in another editor's eye, but not the beam in yours? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Further personal attacks that go to your behavior as outlined in the next section. Thanks. OrangeMarlin 16:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this user's talk page contributions, their tone and style is highly patronising which to my mind is very WP:UNCIVIL. The ridiculous sockpuppetry accusations and talk of "crusades" should also be reviewed in terms of civility and personal attack guidelines. I'd support a short educational block, and hopefully behaviour will improve. I'd also advise them to leave the single article they edit alone for a while and get some experiance editing elsewhere. It is possible though that this might be some kind of "bad hand" account, from my quick look (before this was filed actually). Verbal chat 16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if the accused is supposed to weigh in, but the powers that be can reverse this addition if this is in any way a violation of wiki-protocol.

1) As regards the alleged accusation of sockpuppetry: I did not make such an allegation; I recorded an impression I got when I saw that OrangeMarlin had taken the initiative to reverse something like eight hours of editorial work to what is a highly contentious and not-especially-well-worded paragraph coupling 'controversy' and 'depression'.

2) As regards the characterization of my edit summaries as 'rude': I have, admittedly, incorporated my native acid wit into these proceedings, but that is what it was and is intended to be: humor. No character assassination or put down was implied or intended. If rough and tumble sport is inappropriate for this venue, so be it: I will refrain. But one man's insult is another man's hail-fellow-well-met. If tender sentiments were bruised, I offer my sincerest apology.

3) As regards the accusation of "refactoring someone else's edits"...well, someone will have to explain that one to me. I thought that's what Misplaced Pages was all about (?).

4) As regards the accusation of uncivil comments including reference to my esteemed cyber-colleague Dlabtot as "Blabdot": Again, this was an attempt at humor that was, no kidding, based on commentary that OrangeMarlin himself left on my User Page when I was just getting started as an editor, plus Sciencewatcher's referral to me as "Mr Anymoose", wch I think is actually very funny and in the spirit of comradeship referred to above. Again, if anyone's feelings were hurt (and it is rather clear from the line of edits that were subsequently erased by Mssr Dlabtot) then I am truly very sorry. I think I may have unintentionally stepped on Sean3001's toes as well by my allusion to the television series Kung-Fu following his (somewhat snarky) reply to one of my entries. Dr. Anymouse (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Dr. Anymouse:

1. Don't accuse people of sockpuppetry, even implicitly, unless you are prepared to stand by what you say
2. Don't try to be witty or sarcastic. It doesn't work in a text medium. At best one ends up looking supercilious, at worst one ends up looking like an obnoxious fool.
3. Don't correct other people's spelling and grammar except in articles. It's patronising.
4. See 2 above.

CIreland (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems like something of a joke. Dr A is a noob and needs to be helped to understand his errors. If Ahem...quid pro quo, cruxador. Or perhaps you will reconsider editorializing what is (ostensibly) a encyclopedia article. Or am I mistaken? is an incivil edit summary warranting blocking then we'll be blocking everyone. Refactoring talk comments is bad; that will be why you've explained this issue on his talk page... oh, wait. "Blabdot" was ill-judged, but as Dr A points out he is hardly the first to make silly jokes on other peoples user names William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you - if it weren't for the fact that he was already warned about this type of uncivil behavior just 48 hours ago. Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did call you Mr Anymoose a few times (I correct one, but I think I did it again). This wasn't intentional. My brain just interpreted your name as a variation on "Mr Anonymous", which would be pronounced "moose" rather than "mouse", and that's what I thought your name was until I checked the spelling carefully. Anyway I'll go back and fix any other occurrences. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, really. I do think it is very funny. The name derives from a program in the US Navy called "anymouse" whc is supposed to remind one of "anonymous", wch is what Misplaced Pages and cyber life is all about. Not that everyone adheres to this, natch. Not to worry: got reeeal thick skin. Cheers! Dr. Anymouse (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well amusingly enough on that occaision I *did* block Dr A, only to remove it when I found Deacon of P had warned him first. Well, Dr A has had all his warnings now and will be on tip-top good behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs)

I don't think this editor understands how to contribute to this project. Despite being blocked numerous times for essentially the same things, he choose to harass me with this obviously uncivil 3RR report where I was not in technical or other violation as commented by the admin who reviewed it. The only reason GdB made the report was because his article was being edited. This kind of behavior has got to stop if we are to have an academic atmosphere of writing. OrangeMarlin 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted a large number of edits by several users, including ten by me, well within 24 hours, without any explanation or attempt to discuss. Enough said; I'd appreciate a review of user's editing behaviour. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Guido could show good faith by striking his second frivolous 3RR report here, or at least correcting it so it shows evidence of over 3 reverts to the same article in 24hrs. Verbal chat 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that instead something is done about the editwarring, and that constructive editing gets appreciated more. But perhaps that is too much to ask; I've never found this page very stimulating. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

...and the main issue is dodged again. Hypocrisy at its finest. Tan | 39 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of Guido's response I feel some action should be taken due to the frivolous reports and harassment of editors. Verbal chat 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do none of you ever read any policies?

For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages... (WP:EDITWAR) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You've yet to show edit warring on any of those pages. Verbal chat 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I had provided the diffs, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on the 3RR page. Verbal chat 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original point, I feel action should be taken for the reasons outlined by OM. Verbal chat 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned G William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, warnings are always appreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is abusive, especially for an editor that just completed a one-month block for a variety of negative activities. Again, can someone explain why GdB is allowed to treat fellow editors in this manner? OrangeMarlin 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Guido den Broeder has filed two frivolous reports in less than 24 hours, I have imposed the following conditions on his editing WP:AN/EW. He is barred from editing AN/EW unless one of the following conditions apply:

1. He is reporting a clear and unambiguous violations of the three-revert rule. At least four reverts must have been made to the same page, by the same editor, in a period of less than 24 hours.
2. He may make a response in any thread on that page which directly refers to him or his edits.

These restrictions will last for approximately two months, until midnight on 31 January 2009 (UTC). I feel that these restrictions will limit the disruptive filings of frivolous or vexations reports, but will still allow Guido den Broeder to report on genuine, serious problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I have done nothing of the kind, I do not accept this ruling (by which you overturn another admin's decision, btw). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How many blatant mis-understandings of policy exactly do we have to put up with? This is what, the fourth, perhaps fifth time Guido has shown up as a title on ANI, plus an RFC and multiple blocks with no change in behaviour? Does WP:UCS apply to bans as well? Guido is not contributing fruitfully to the project - for every debatably useful edit, there's three days worth of talk page time wasting and bickering. WLU (t) (c) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details of GdB's editing history. If additional sanctions might be appropriate, other admins can feel free. My remedy here is solely intended to end the disruption at AN/EW, and does not address article-space conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, his block log tells some of the story, although it barely hints at the level of drama. Note that he just came off a 1-month progressive block for incivility and edit-warring on Nov 23. The block log also doesn't show the lengthy list of sanctions he received on nl.wikipedia before coming here. looie496 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Judge him on what he does here, not on any history on another Misplaced Pages language. Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And we are. He recently had a one-month block on this wikipedia.OrangeMarlin 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy, every time I come back after few hours there is a new complaint from Guido. Like these two consecutive addings at 3RR notice-board, Guido says people that oppose him do not know policy and WP is weak, and then sheesh I really don't believe it but he says I edit warred a sixth time after all these people try explain him what edit warring is. Guido i think is saying, edit warring is when any body beside him makes more then three edits in all of Misplaced Pages in a day!! I never reverted more then once on any article, I always explained my edits. I am very tired, being accused of stalking and 3RR and the rest. There's these guidelines MEDMOS and MEDRS, I am sorry i will follow those. Guido disagrees about the guidelines, he has edit warred, real edit wars, to try and change them but he could not. I think w/ his COI as a major activist and w/ his intransigent attitude to WP policy and guidelines it is an idea having a CFS topic ban where he can edit talk pages only is that possible or to harsh or should he have more warnings, just a suggestion. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support TenOfAllTrades' ban on dubious or unclear AN/EW postings by GdB. Although that ban isn't accepted voluntarily by GdB, it still may be enforced with blocking, if any further disruption occurs within that period. Perhaps that is the best way to leave this matter, for now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Murder

Could someone wise in the ways of template vandalism take a look here, I can't figure out what's causing this? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 16:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like whatever template it was has already been cleaned up? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

While I was typing, even. --Rodhullandemu 16:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny how that happens sometimes :-) ►BMW◄ 17:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Six templates, all needing oversights. They're gonna love me. --Rodhullandemu 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at my edit summary for that comment above: "Murder: it happens". Funniest thing I've seen all day! ►BMW◄ 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Block

I'm not really sure how to do this, or if this really is the right page for this. But an unnamed IP address recently vandilized my talk page. Could I please get some help? Wise dude321 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism's been cleared up. For future reference, you may like to have a read through Misplaced Pages:Vandalism which gives a good overview of how to deal with it. ~ mazca 19:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Goa protected over edit war

User:Deepak D'Souza and User:Husond has been edit-warring over the article Invasion of Goa for a long time. The dispute seems to be about (of all things!!) whether to use diacritic marks on the names of some towns. (an example diff). After 6 reverts -- 3 each by these two users -- over a 24 hour period, I have protected the article for 1 week. I am putting the article protection on review for all admins here (since any such protection seems to raise the "wrong version" accusation these days!!). I have also advised the edit-warring users to refer to dispute resolution processes such as request for comments and involving knowledgeable 3rd parties to resolve this.

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

user: Jan 25 1981

This user is "contributing" ] a lot of new articles with one sentence about places. I left a note for them, but perhaps they need to be slowed down until they read up on article creation guidelines? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, isn't the idea behind Misplaced Pages is that the users create new content? Or are we really all about just stirring up drama? Seriously, I see nothing wrong with what this user is doing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, CoM's point was that this user is just going about adding stuff without any shred of reference or citation- such as this. They might actually be literally "creating" new content (not new articles), violating WP:OR. If they are refusing to even answer queries, then they probably should be blocked, at least until we can get some explanation. Tan | 39 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I have blocked for 48 hours. Unlike Jayron, I see nothing but unsourced additions with no explanation, no response to comment/warnings, and no indication that sources or explanations are forthcoming. Tan | 39 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, and thanks for checking it out. Some of the additions may be about notable locations, but it's just really hard to tell with so little to go on. If it was just one or two articles or 3 or 4 I would have followed up with searches. But I didn't really know how to help the editor or steer them towards a more constructive approach (I tried), and their creation of severely limited articles (with not much substance and no formatting or citations) was prolific.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Freddyboytoy

Freddy is back. Having made this series of tasteful contributions during his recent absence, he is now requesting to be blocked . I'd say he should have his wishes fulfilled tout de suite. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wish granted. Tan | 39 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages really can make your dreams come true? Tan, are you of magical powers?? <Swoon> AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Freddy is also User:Idiotsonwackipedia, to which account he has now turned. See . AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Eurokiwi

I wonder could a friendly admin ask this user to start using sources and stop using personal info and opinion on main pages. I have tried as others have and he has not responded. the user has created sevral pages and has redirected several. here are all his contributions If he keeps going it will take a lot of work to correct all his editsOpiumjones 23 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

if he's adding inappropriate content or nonsense report him to AIV if warnings fail.--Crossmr (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass Delete images?

Any admin want to delete all of the images uploaded by a spammer? There is a huge list and I can't delete them..and really marking all of them will take too long. They are all redudant images whose purposes are to advertise for a company Peterson_tractor which was deleted under G11. They are all missing the proper copyright and fairuse tags. Rgoodermote  02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I was about to get to it myself. Plesant surprise! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, always a pleasure to delete spam.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Now I know who to come to for a mass delete of spam. Happy editing and enjoy your lives. Rgoodermote  05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you all take a look at this Is it the same person? Theresa Knott | token threats 06:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Damnit..yes..that would be the same person. Rgoodermote  08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll report them for suckpuppeting and block evasion. However, I doubt we will see a very fast block at this time of night. Rgoodermote  08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Theresa is an admin..she could just block them..--Crossmr (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

XD;; I failed to check...lack of sleep.Then Theresa can handle this if she wants..But in case I will leave the SSP up.Rgoodermote  08:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Xgmx at it again

More obvious socks of Xgmx (talk · contribs) adding spam links to xgmx.net.tc and igtour.pro.tc , , , and (not to mention more obvious socking from the serial spammer in the recently-updated Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Xgmx (2nd)). I'm sure the SSP case will take care of itself as the activity is clear, but I would also request that the two IPs also be blacklisted to possibly prevent further external-link spamming. MuZemike (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

B. ased on the huge catalog of spam in WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#User talk:Xgmx, which is linked from the first SSP, it looks like we should routinely place these new domains on the spam blacklist. The IPs used this time are so dynamic I'm not sure anything but a rangeblock would make a dent. Blacklisting could be the best option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think, either; that's why a rangeblock wouldn't do any good. But if the main purpose is to spam certain domain addresses, then it seems that blacklisting the addresses would be more feasible. Based on experience, it's harder to come up with additional domains than additional Misplaced Pages (or YouTube, take your pick) accounts. MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

COI and incivility on Scientology

Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account that edits solely at articles concerning Scientology, previously under the name User:COFS, which is an acronym for Church of Scientology. Shutterbug openly admits to one conflict-of-interest, to his/her benefit, as a Scientologist.

However, after a long period of inactivity, Shutterbug has begun editing in the Scientology article again, as well as several sub-articles. In the discussions that have followed, an old ArbCom case involving Shutterbug has been brought up. The ArbCom case ended with some minor temporary topic bans and blocks, but little else. Part of the reasoning that lead to this result was that Shutterbug (or COFS, at the time) claimed a particular Church of Scientology-owned IP address he/she had edited from, 205.227.165.244, including this accidental edit, was a proxy used by various hotels and such. Shutterbug recently reiterated the claim here. During the ArbCom, this claim was apparently given the benefit of the doubt, as a checkuser revealed that several similar single-purpose accounts had all edited from the same address and other Church-related address ranges. The users in question were:

• COFS
• CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grrrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Makoshack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I haven't been able to figure out why this proxy claim was given credence, as I can't see any particular evidence one way or the other in the ArbCom, and the single-purpose editing definitely lends itself to an appearance of conflicts-of-interest, if not sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. But until recently, I was happy to let the decision stand; I wasn't even involved in the ArbCom, and was inclined to defer to the administrators in that case.

I now think the decision was a mistake. This user, these accounts, and every IP address previously confirmed by checkuser as being associated with these accounts has been used overwhelmingly in Scientology-related edits and minimally in anything else. Were these IP addresses those of hotel proxies and the like, one would expect a host of non-Scientology related edits, but per these Wikiscanner results, there are few if any to be found.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary aside from Shutterbug's word, the bulk of the user's edits come from official Church of Scientology-owned machines, and the claim of an IP proxy used by "hundreds if not thousands" is implausible. Had these accounts and these IP addresses not edited so single-mindedly in Scientology-related articles, it would perhaps be more plausible, but as is, the evidence is pretty compelling that Shutterbug -- as well as the other accounts -- have conflicts-of interest affecting their abilities to edit neutrally, or at the very least the appearance thereof.

There is also an issue of incivility. In this edit, I decried the sudden battling over the article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular [inappropriate edit performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said "Let's talk and no personal attacks, please." As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to retract it, and asked again on the user's talk page. The response speaks for itself.

My thoughts at this point, unless I've missed something that completely negates my COI concerns, is that Church of Scientology IP addresses simply shouldn't be used to edit Scientology-related articles, and accounts associated with those IP addresses should be topic-banned as probable WP:ROLE accounts. --GoodDamon 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a short-term topicban would illustrate whether or not this is an SPA. Ask the user to stay away from any content related to COS for a month, and see what they do. If they do it and contribute elsewhere, excellent. If not, obviously we are dealing with someone inserting biased info, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thoughts? //roux   09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with that is that if the user reads what you have just said, they have a clear way to 'prove' their innocence and continue however after. — neuro 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by 71.35.158.93

I am requesting a ban or at least a warning for 71.35.158.93. His first edit was a questionable edit to a talk page, and since then all of his edits have been talk page vandalism. Cerebellum (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't edited after a warning, and that was six hours ago. The IP may well be reassigned to another user so there's little point blocking at present. In future, reporting to WP:AIV will get a faster response. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That certainly seems irregular and inappopriate, although as it's now stopped, I don't know that a block is justified just now. A mass undo might be called for though. Lankiveil 12:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

I'm happy to go through and undo the edits in question. Would that be appropriate? Cerebellum (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

POV edits and removal of templates and 3rd party sources

• Atisha's cook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

regarding the New Kadampa Tradition article the user has repeatedly deleted templates and reverted edits on which discussion were made on the talk page, and especially all corrections by me on which I used 3rd party sources or included the correct phrases from them. The user didn't participate in the discussion and seems to ignore the rules reagrding NPOV and 3rd party sources especially on controversial subjects. --Kt66 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User INTGAFW/User:JRG reverting inclusion of {{information}} template

INTGAFW (talk · contribs) keeps revering my inclusion of the {{information}} tag on the image Image:Hornsbydockplatform.jpg in favor of a ill-formated incomplete set of image informations he provided .

Since he's the author and original uploader of the image, this may influence his feelings of ownership of the image description page.

He's also edit warring about a new version of the file I've uploaded, where I blured an incidental advertisement that is visible on the image, making it 100% free.

Just for the record, INTGAFW (talk · contribs) is the new-incarnation of JRG (talk · contribs), and user that recently "retired" from the project with a long dramatic goodbye letter . In at least one occasion, he used one of his incarnations to support his other self while attacking me in a deletion discussion.

I have no reason to believe INTGAFW/User:JRG will desist from his version of Image:Hornsbydockplatform.jpg. So, as once advised by an experient admin, I'm asking for help before reaching 3RR. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 13:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe his primary objection is your uploading of a new version that substantially degrades the quality of the image as you did here. Any modification of his image should be uploaded under a new file name as a derivative of his image, otherwise improper attribution will exist. MBisanz 14:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with reverting the use of an {{information}} template (see my first 2 diffs)? What why you say my upload ubstantially degrades the quality of the image? Compare the original with my version (switch between firefox tabs) and you'll notice the only difference is the hiding of a copyrighted advertisement. --Damiens.rf 14:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you edited the image, and then uploaded it over the original. It should be uploaded as a derivative of the original, citing INTGAFW and citing your alterations of it. MBisanz 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But the point of my edit was exactly to replace the image used on Misplaced Pages, since his version contained a visible copyrighted advertisement, and mine was treated to have it blured (by the way, I didn't claimed authorship over my alterations because I don't think there's enough creative work involved).

And still, how does this would justify removing the {{information}} removal? --Damiens.rf 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is fixed now that the image is on Commons with a bot-placed info template. MBisanz 14:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ponty

Hello, I respect your decision not to remove my ban. However I find it unacceptable to be banned forever so I have had no other option but to create a new account. I would have liked my old account Ponty Pirate and you could have scrutinised my edits should you have felt the need.

I am obviously not revealing my new identity but am quite confident that you cannot link it to me in any way or you would have already blocked it.

]

All the best. Ponty Pirate. 89.240.174.194 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards