Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 12:06, 16 April 2009 (→User:I-10 nee User:I-15 nee User:I-210: Blocked indef). 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

Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.

WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again

Okay, with the !voting at 26 keep vs 5 delete, and the last 11 all keeps (mostly in tones of incredulity that it is up for deletion), I am shortly going to do a non-admin snow close unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done as proposed (now at 31-to-5, by the way). Since this is the first time I have closed an AfD, it wouldn't do any harm if somebody would verify that I've dotted all the i's properly. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its usually best to note you did a non-admin close in the closing statement, and that you closed as keep per WP:SNOW rather than just keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added that info.Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't close an AfD discussion in which you have commented, particularly 'snow keep'! Leave it someone uninvolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, I won't do such a thing again. I did at least state quite clearly here that I was going to do it unless anybody objected, and nobody did. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially when the majority of the early keep votes were based upon YouTube pageviews, which aren't in line with policy. AFD isn't a vote so 31-5 is meaningless and an inappropriate metric, especially for a snow discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree that it would have been better if someone uninvolved had closed it, it looked decidedly like a ski resort. Whether it's a merge if necessary (IMO it isn't) or just a straight redirect, the one outcome that wasn't going to happen was deletion. Someoneanother 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD reopened per discussion at the Village pump and the Help desk. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Per village pump and help desk? Oh brother. There's a certain irony to complaining that a non-admin close is out of process, then re-opening based on a few comments in those two forums. Closures should not be reverted lightly. That becomes a process problem as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...and User:PeterSymonds ignored my reopen reason and closed it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it/hope not. :-) In any case, PeterSymonds agreed to let me re-open. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a silly and wholly inappropriate action to reopen that AfD, has common sense been excluded from Misplaced Pages these days? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Not at all. There's a valid question as to whether BLP1E applies or not. The only way to determine the answer is to let it run the full length so that people can weigh in. I don't think it does, but I'm not going to assume that my opinion is the correct one. See the discussions about the Snowball clause during the recent AfD change discussions for why I'm doing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oi, I'm getting dizzy here. Who's going to stop this crazy wheel. But all in all, what is the harm in letting the discussion run the full 7 days, especially since there are editors disputing the early close after less then 48 hours? --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially since the most recent response was a 1E-based strong delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Groan. I apologize for creating drama when my intent was to reduce it. Probably if I hadn't closed the debate some admin would have by now, and we wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of having a deletion template on an article that has had 23,000 views in the past day. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of advice for future occasions: when you leave a note stating you'll do X "unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it", wait far longer than an hour -- especially if it involves a speedy keep/delete. At the worst, someone will get to enjoy having egg on her/his face. :) -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside admin intervention needed

I've just withdrew my nomination to have it deleted, as consensus is clearly merged, only now it appears to be turning into a lame edit-war. Looking since the start of the debate:

1. Closed @ 23:44, 13 April 2009, reopened @ 12:19, 14 April 2009.
2. Closed @ 13:26, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 14:46, 14 April 2009
3. Closed @ 16:21, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 16:39, 14 April 2009
4. I withdrew the nomination at 13:06, 15 April 2009, as consensus was clearly emerging (although this was called inappropriate by MickMacNee (talk · contribs)
5. Closed @ 14:52, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 14:56, 15 April 2009
6. Closed @ 15:07, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 15:26, 15 April 2009

I think we need an uninvolved admin to step in (and when it does get closed properly to fully-protect the page to avoid someone reopening it). D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• When you discount the IP votes, and the keeps from brand new users who have not given a policy based argument, then the argument is pretty even. But that is beside the point, because withdrawing after that many votes and three days, when it is clearly not a case of SNOW, is simply innappropriate. If you are confident in the apparent consensus, where is the harm in leaving it open for the full term? MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• In addition, when I previously enquired about a nom withdrawing a nomination, the consensus was that if the debate is well underway, it belong to the community and the withdrawal is *not* a reason for closing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, it's probably be best to let the AfD run its full course even if it's pointless and forget about it. From WP:SNOW: "the snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start". Now WP:SNOW was rejected, however, we still do not need to get tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic meta discussions about it all. Equendil Talk 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• With all do respect, it is an obvious keep and the re-opens look like a WP:POINT violation. Can anyone in their right mind imagine closing this as a delete without a lot of wikidrama? Further, although the "delete" opinion is respectable (albeit in my opinion a misunderstanding of policy), the claim that delete wins because it has the better argument and everyone who thinks otherwise does not count is basically a rejection of the consensus approach. Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a case of "the merges have it", prolonging the debate is unnecessary so anyone (including the nominator) could perform a non-admin close as no consensus and then either boldly merge or start a merge debate. WP:BLP1E supports merge, but that's a content issue as this is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it looks like I'm making a POINT, but as the guidelines for AfD closing just changed, I think this is an appropriate time to insist on the full AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks that way yes. Just because the guideline has changed, its stupid to ignore common sense! This is just disruptive. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's disruptive to keep closing a non-unanimous discussion in the face of guidelines specifically saying not to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle seems to have plenty more keeps than deletes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• If I had to close the AfD now, I would do so as no consensus to delete. Setting aside the keep arguments based not on policy but on popularity / public interest, several contributors believe that the coverage in multiple reliable sources is a demonstration of notability. However, there is no pressing need to close the AfD now. It seems to me that the most likely result of prolonging the discussion will be the writing, publishing and discovery of more source material, thus reinforcing the case for a Keep result. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that many editors will offer their opinions that this is a BLP1E case and as such not encyclopaedic material, regardless of the amount of media coverage. Perhaps that will be sufficient to constitute a consensus to Delete; perhaps not. Rather than attempt to predict the outcome, I support keeping the AfD open, in line with policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

All AfD discussions run for at least seven days. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep or Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.

What part of "all" is unclear here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the section you're quoting basically says, "AfDs should run for 7 days unless they shouldn't." -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And neither of the "shouldn't"s actually applies in this case, so let it run.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when people throw this around, but WP:IAR anyone? There is no way in hell this AfD is going to be closed as delete and it's only for reasons of process and bureaucracy that people are insisting the AfD continues. Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • As one of the people who has most strongly been urging the extension of time from 5 days, for years now, actually, I think nobody intended that there would not be common-sense exceptions, if necessary justified by IAR in the absence of something more specific. But this is not one of those times. When two responsible editors both urge SNOW closes, but different SNOW closes, it would seem that this is not the time to use IAR, of which SNOW is a special case. DGG (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Without revealing my position on how AfD's should be handled, that sentence is awful from a basic logic standpoint. Someone go rewrite the policy to say "AfD discussions generally run for at least 7 days. However tktktktk."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not completely pointless

• Being the optimist here, the prolonged AfD is not a complete waste of time. It is giving new and previously uninvolved editors a chance to learn about policy. Spirits do seem high and very civil for such a hotly opposed deletion nomination, and supporters of the article will be very happy with a "keep" outcome or else they will get much craved melodrama with a "delete" result. The danger of course is that easy cases make bad law... if the article is kept it is not a repudiation of BLP1E, it is either an exception, or a decision that the case simply does not fit BLP1E. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course, when an early close upsets people, then it was a poor choice for an early close. However, Misplaced Pages "rules" tend not to deal in absolutes, and an interpretation that AfDs can only be closed early by satisfying certain rigid criteria is... inaccurate. -GTBacchus 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointless and increasingly dangerous

We now learn that she grew up with learning disabilities -- so now we have a deletion template on an article about somebody the whole world sees as a story of hope and inspiration. Our article has been doubling its readership every day, and got almost 48,000 page views yesterday. The AfD has 3 more days to run. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that you think it's "dangerous" to keep this AfD open? Lychosis /C 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is best if I don't explain, per WP:BEANS (maybe being paranoid). Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-Site harrassement by User:Norse Am Legend

This editor posted a personal attack at Talk:Dragon Ball attacking myself and other editors. I removed and warned. His response was that it wasn't a personal attack but another editor also agreed it was and reiterated the warning. Norse is now proceeding to harrass me off-wiki, leaving a comment on my YouTube profile of "Obnoxious cow." and leaving a long, ranty comment on my anime/manga review blog (and he makes no effort to hide it is him). I can provide the copies of emails to an admin offsite if desired. The comment on my blog includes his email address and IP address for confirmation, if needed. This is not his first time being incivil, though as far as I know it is his first time taking it off wiki. Administrative advice and action would be much appreciated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you email links and email copies to me via my user email link? I'll investigate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sent. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Received and reviewed. Not the worst off wiki harrassment I have seen but not great behavior. Warning left on Norse Am Legend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) talk page. Hopefully this is the last we have to do about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, he still thinks he is justified because "she's worse then I am." --Farix (Talk) 03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't twist and simplify my words. She's not "worse than I am", we're very different people with incomparable "issues". - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize this diff has already been posted, but I feel the need to note a few particular sentences: Hell, maybe she's just secretly the most devoted and effective Internet troll ever not to mention: She deserved all two words of that amazing insult on her character I made. Someone please block this user, they have made it blatantly clear they don't care about our WP:NPA policy. Responding to a warning against insults with an insult? As I said above, there is no signs he's going to stop, or even sees what is wrong with his off-wiki-harassment.— Dædαlus 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree. A block is the best way to go here, as it seems the user's behavior isn't going to change. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 05:33

Final warning left. AGF that it will be taken as intended. If not, the rope's out as far as it should go, I think.

I have no idea and no opinion on the wider question raised, of whether Collectonian needs to be looked at. Someone else may want to review. One example given was 6 months old and stale - if there's anything newer someone may want to follow up there. But even if there is, Norse Am Legend is responsible for his actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't intend on "continuing" anything. It's true I'm often disgruntled by the actions of my peers here, but being the intelligent and rational person that I am I just brush it off and go do something else. Really, other than my handful of small-time conflicts with Collectonian I'm an unobtrusive, constructive editor(a fact that seems to have been overlooked in favor of making me appear as a raging troll with NPA issues 100% of the time). Hell, I don't even hold any such immature, moral grudges against her as you might expect. She works hard and is fairly competent at what she does, the only issues I have with her are of her attitude used when socializing and cooperating with other users, and after seeing another all-too-familiar discussion involving her on an article's talk page I got a little too annoyed and flew off the handle a bit, something I don't intend on doing again since it really is just a pointless course of action. Now if you guys don't mind, I'd like to continue my "Wikignoming" in peace. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "intelligent and rational" bits don't seem valid here when there's off-site harassment as outlined above. If you take your own advice, there's no issue. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus

Arson threat?

I'm not sure if this edit is intended as an arson threat or not. I checked the local newspaper and TV websites and couldn't find anything that states that the school caught on fire.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like an arson threat, more of just some silly vandalism by a student. Might be good to check it out for a bit though. Matty (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I once plotted to burn down my high school using a lit cigarette, but they had a rule against smoking in the building. There's always some catch to any plan. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Bugs, please.....--Caspian blue 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I live near this school. It DID catch fire during the night, in the boiler room, and it is being investigated as arson. See . --BlueSquadronRaven 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to article; marking as resolved. Edits were in good faith, just badly written HalfShadow 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a textbook case. Baseball Bugs carrots 19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One might even call it elementary. HalfShadow 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

oy. any more puns like that, and I'm going to burn down wikipedia. but wait, first I have to use wikipedia to find the best way to set fire to my laptop. hang on... --Ludwigs2 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Englishprince posing as admin, apparently getting passwords this way

Englishprince (talk · contribs) is posing as an admin and has been asking for and apparaently getting passwords from other new users. I am off to warn the people he has conned, but wanted to give a heads up. Should the compromised accounts be blocked? Ruhrfisch _><>° 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have indef blocked Englishprince for now. Despite the more extensive list on Ep's talk page, he only asked for passwords on three accounts and only one was fooled: Daffodils333 (talk · contribs). Daffodils333 has been a vandalism only account, but claims to have had a change of heart. I would be fine with blocking it too, but would like to hear what others think fist. Ruhrfisch _><>° 13:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm wondering if it wasn't his sock, the "apology" sounding somewhat over the top. yandman 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I agree with Yandman. Is it a coincidence that Daffodil vandalised Prince Philip, and EnglishPrince asked for passwords? I wonder if Daffodils333 'gave' his password out so that others would see that it had been done, and think it was OK? --GedUK  13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looked like quite a coincidence that most of the others on the list were indef blocked users from the past few months, and the one truly "duped" editor has such a strange history as well. I AGF'ed in my actions so far, but if people want to block daffodil as well and/or checkuser EnglishPrince to see if there is any connection with some of the other named editors, I have no objections. Fram (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interim, again under AGF, I have fully suppressed the edits that revealed the purported password as a security measure. I too have some overall concerns here related to trolling. Risker (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Fram and Risker. I already am watching Daffodil and had had the same sock suspiscions. I will indef block as a vandalsim only account at the next such edit. Ruhrfisch _><>° 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Englishprince got lucky once, I would imagine they will be back to try again. -- The Anome (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As a Good Faith gesture, here's my password: ****** Does that show up properly? I can't tell. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My password is hunter2. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, who knew that Bugs and I would have the exact same password!!! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My password is the same as the combination on my luggage. MuZemike 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're all heretics. The One True Password is Ken sent me. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the frequency that I finally got Ken to divulge. Deor (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:I-10 nee User:I-15 nee User:I-210

• I-10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and block-evasion including CU-confirmed puppetry (see here and here). Makes some good edits but at a cost of lots of cleanup and abusive/bad-faith/mistakes we have to clean up (and which he does not accept as problematic). Has lately engaged in username-hopping, maybe to avoid scrutiny--dunno as he has refused to discuss. Numerous attempts at discussion by several involved and uninvolved editors and admins has failed, as he blanks all talk-page warnings (okay) but usually his only response is to treat any suggestion or complaint as an incivil attack on him, while continuing the problematic behavior. Lately filed WP:ANI against one of his perceived attackers. When that didn't seem to be going his way, he gave up and claimed (as often) that the system is broken rather than that he might not be correct. Has now said he will retire. However, said he will return to edit his talk-page. His edits lately there are merely to attack myself and others with whom he's had disagreements while specifically stating that we are not to respond there or we will be blocked/etc.. Seems like long-term block with no-edit-talkpage is in order...WP is not a soapbox, especially if he's not planning to edit articles. I'd tell him about this discussion here about him, but he told me not to. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User apparently retired. –Juliancolton |  20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...again. He retired earlier that day also but plans possible future return (he will vanish until he returns?) and maybe continue talk-page edits even while retired. I was happy to let him just go away and I don't care if he wants the last civil word, but he can't seem to do either of those. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)I've seen this happen before, some users put up the retired tag just to get away from any sanctions that might be imposed by the community. As far as I've seen, his behavior before that retired tag is unacceptable, so here is a proposal:

Proposal

My proposal, which has two reasons which can be used while being separate of each other, also have the same end result, that this account be indef blocked. Aren't retired accounts usually indef blocked to prevent possible compromise? If not that, this user has shown he doesn't care about our civility and no personal attack policies, and if he is indeed just using this retired tag as a way to escape any sanction, this block will prevent any further possible disruption if he is indeed just using it as a way to get out of trouble, so to speak. All that aside, if not an indef block, I honestly don't know what, but he does need to be warned, that if he does come back, and continue the same behavior, the time he was away will not matter, and he would be treated the same as if he was still here. Maybe a 72 hour block, less or more, that depends on what you, the community, has to say.— Dædαlus 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He's been busy since his supposed retirement (confirmed via Checkuser-I). I'm not familiar with this user, but anyone with this type of troublesome sock activity needs to be indefinitely blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nishkid; the socking merits blocking. No, retired users are not generally indeffed and, quite honestly, Misplaced Pages retirement frequently isn't. Now, in invoking one's Right to vanish, one may request an indef, but that's a different matter. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Only users in good standing can RTV. I would think socking would qualify as loss of good standing. Hersfold 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this also, due to the user's history. I don't see any objections.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear

Who supports the indefinite blocking of this user per the fact that this user is socking after he was apparently retired, and that it looks like he is using this retired template to evade any sanctions regarding his edits.— Dædαlus 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Per as stated above.— Dædαlus 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Blocked indef, per above. Cirt (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ReNeSmEe BlAcK CuLlEn

There's a slew of very bizarre new user names showing up on the log, including this one. Lots of non-Camel Case names like User:Light my fire, light my fire, etc. There's at least one other reference to "Richard Cullen." I've seen this before, but I don't know who the sock master is. Any objections to my blocking any suspect names? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I say let them start screwing around before we act. Might be something silly like a bunch of kids in school coming up with names. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't really see anything bizarre about the username Light my fire, light my fire :S C.U.T.K.D 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was pretty innocuous (a José Feliciano fan?), but I also notice another admin has blocked them as a sock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Light my fire" is a vandal creating sleeper accounts, I don't know if the "Cullen" usernames are sockpuppets of anyone although one has made this edit which I've reverted as it looks like vandalism. —Snigbrook 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP comments at Dreamhost

There have been problems on the Dreamhost page for several days now, although it seems to be being worked out on the talk page, which is good to see. However, in the last few days, IP 194.144.90.118 (talk · contribs) has popped up to seemingly disrupt. He has added his personal story of deciding not to use Dreamhost because of what he read on the wikipedia talk page. He's been reverted several times as per WP:SOAPBOX by several editors including me, but he has readded the material every time . He's now also calling anyone who disagrees with him as Dreamhost employees and attacking the company on the page.

I hate to see this subject get caught up again, as it had seemed to cool down on the talk page into a discussion. Would an admin mind having a word with the IP? I've tried to discuss it with the IP on his talk page, but all I got was "I will not be denied my right to have my say." That doesn't sound too productive to me. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, this IP appears to leave no signature on his talk page comments. I didn't even know that was possible. It makes his edits and responses hard to track. Dayewalker (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's alot of things that you don't know, for example that wikipedia ads those ip signatures on its own. Please do not make untruthfull remarks, only one of my remarks has been reverted a remark on a talk page and the only one to revert my edit has been you.

It is also untrue that I am attacking that company or any other company for that matter. It is strange that this fellow would hate to see this subject tackled and that he'd prefer to see it in a frozen state when the article in question is clearly extremely biased and the discussions are not leading anywhere. I suggest that the poor fellow find something more productive to spend his time on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Dreamhost opinion has been reverted by me, and also here by The SerialComma. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As to the anon's comment "I will not be denied my right to have my say.", you do not have any such rights here on Misplaced Pages. Also, Misplaced Pages is not the place to discuss or post your opinions on any subject. Misplaced Pages talk pages should be used only to discuss edits to the article, and for nothing else. If there is anything you want to add to the article, you may do so with suitable reliable sources to back up those claims. But please don't post your opinions on the article talk page. Chamal 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The usefulness and therefor the right of the words to stay where they were written has been clearly been demonstrated by the fact that archiving was enabled for the talkpage as a consequence of them being written. If my words will not be allowed to stand then any and all references to them should not be allowed to either and archiving should be disabled in the spirit of fairplay. --194.144.90.118 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"fairplay"? Wassat? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving is usually done to prevent talk pages from cluttering up, and has nothing to do with hiding stuff. Why do you want to stop archiving the discussions there? Anyway, did you even read the pages that I gave the links to? Because it looks like you're still lost about your "rights". You do not have a right to post your personal opinions here. The place for that would be a blog, and this is not it. When something that does not belong in a talk page (according to the talk page guidelines, original research policy etc.) we remove it. That has nothing to do with hiding your personal views, but just removing them because they do not belong here in the first place. But apparently some of these comments are not removed and are still on the talk page. Chamal 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. And yes, I'm an involved editor, but it seems that they have no intention of stopping until blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Support block by SarekOfVulcan. Cirt (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Would someone please remind me what I'm doing wrong in editing lately? Don't hold back; let me know exactly what I've been doing wrong. Besides getting involved in the wrong side of discussions with Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and doxTxob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and mistakenly starting a discussion about featured list status for National Register of Historic Places listings in Hennepin County, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), what the hell else am I doing so wrong around here?

Is it even useful for me to be contributing to this stupid encyclopedia any more? Does anyone even care about a bunch of useless historic buildings? DoxTxob (talk · contribs) doesn't think so. In fact, Doxtxob was quite glad that I lost admin status in January and is still seeking further punishment against me. I'm not sure even what else he's hoping to have done, unless he wants to see me blocked and/or banned. (See this discussion.) --Elkman 05:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean! (I love that title.) --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's got to the point where you're questioning the validity of the subjects you're interested in then you need to take a break. Go watch some bad movies, listen to some decent music, eat something not entirely low in fat/salt/sugar/taste and/or go for a walk, preferably with a personal music player to keep you in rhythm. You will be extremely hard pushed to find any subject which is suitable for Misplaced Pages that nobody is interested in. So it might not be flavour of the month, so what, this isn't an intellectual popularity contest. Sharing your interests with others should be a pleasant experience, until it is again take some time off. Someoneanother 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Elkman, chances are quite good that you have done nothing wrong. Except maybe caring too much in a place where doing that will get you nothing but WikiBurnout & heartburn. (I suspect the first person to encounter WikiBurnout is Larry Sanger, & his latest actions are proof that he still hasn't recovered from it. But wouldn't be the last.) Follow Someone another's advice -- take a break from this infuriating hobby. It's not worth the aggravation -- or the heartburn. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Chill man. If you're telling the truth and you genuinely think you've done nothing wrong, you probably haven't done anything wrong. If those users are deliberately stirring up trouble, they'll be seen to in due course... C.U.T.K.D 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just relax and spend a few days looking at what real life is like (if that helps). The worst will soon be over. A very small number of people are panicking because an editor who tends to agree with global consensus more often than with their local consensus is running for adminship. But Orlady's RfA has only 3 hours left. If the situation doesn't improve afterwards, we will need a few user RfCs. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz removing rollback facility for inactive users

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• see user rights log

I don't like the idea of admins removing facilities for a particular user if users happen to be inactive... it is not like they have "abused" that particular tool. I don't think there has been any discussion about this... we don't remove admin rights for a user if they are inactive, so what is different here? OK, they could request it once/if they come back, but it just seems to create more unneeded hassle. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not especially bad, and the rights can be restored without an issue if the user returns. I've removed the accountcreator flag from various users myself when it hasn't been used, as an account with that flag is particularly troublesome if compromised. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to have asked him first? --GedUK  12:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem, honestly. But to echo the above, you should have asked him about it, or at the very least, notified him of this thread, which I've done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move. In general, security privileges should be removed from inactive accounts on any system. Plain Misplaced Pages accounts can't cause much trouble, so it's not necessary to do much about unprivileged accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a poor practice. There is no real additional risk with rollback- anyone with a normal account can do just as much damage, so the security argument doesn't hold much water.. This is a little bit like deleting user pages for absent users- sure, it can be easily undone, but it's less work to simply not do it in the first place. Let's not make busywork for ourselves for no good reason. Friday (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty pointless to me to remove rollback from inactive users, since you can't do any damage whatsoever with it, but if you don't have anything else to do with your free time.. hey, why not? --Conti|✉ 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Friday: there's no need to remove rollback from inactive accounts (they're no more dangerous than non-rollbacked accounts, and certainly less dangerous than inactive admin accounts). Rollback is normally removed when the tool is abused: there's need to create extra work and/or give users rollback right removal logs in their userrights logs just because they're inactive. I note that MBisanz hasn't left any courtesy notices on the talk pages of said users either. Acalamari 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah....seems like busy work that will just create more work for someone down the road. At least put a note on the effected userpage but I don't see any point in doing it in the first place. RxS (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I started doing it when I realized some of the inactive accounts with rollback were not just inactive, but had actively retired (see Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) and AGKbot (talk · contribs)) or were permanently disabled like Mercury (talk · contribs) or were indef blocked like NKbot (talk · contribs) and Aitias (alternate account) (talk · contribs) as it seemed like simple housecleaning. Some of my more recent deflags were of accounts that had very few edits ever or were retired for a very long time. I was very careful to not deflag alt accounts of active users such as DB II (talk · contribs) unless I contacted the person (usually privately) to ask if they needed the account in the long term or unless it was obvious the account was a test account like SoxZilla (talk · contribs).

I can go back and leave notes for them, but I do think it is uncontroversial housekeeping to remove an easily grantable userright if only to help maintain the list of rollbackers. Picking out things like indef blocked accounts and re-activated accounts that could be compromised (remember CSCWEM?) becomes harder as there are piles of inactive accounts laying around. I guess I'll go start a thread to gain consensus on this, since it is not clearly uncontroversial anymore. MBisanz 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much of a problem with removing rollback from nactive/retired users. I don't necessarily think it's poor form. They can simply request it back when they return editing. This really isn't such a big deal either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Waste of time. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I dunno. I'll put myself in the shoes of one of these inactive editors; if I returned from a lengthy wikibreak to find some of my permissions had been stripped for no real reason, I might be pretty annoyed and be tempted to make the break a permanent one. Reyk _YO! 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think something like this would be controversial either. I'm used to seeing rights (any rights) being removed when a user becomes inactive. As noted by Stifle; he removed my ACC flag when I became inactive in that area, and when I wanted to help again, it was granted back. No harm, no foul. Anyone that put off by having their rollback removed for inactivity probably thinks too highly of this small feature. I think this is a complaint for complaints sake. Neither has consensus, but one has potential for misuse. If you don't want to re-grant these editors rollback when and if they return, you don't have to. I can't imagine that this area is so understaffed that it will create some large workload (as if its difficult to grant it in the first place). Synergy 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the dilemma, as I see it: A user's rollback is taken away. Maybe a nice little note is left, maybe citing the reason - the only reason I can think of is somehow the account gets compromised. So then the account logs on and politely asks for his rollback back, and gets it. Trouble is, it was a compromised account, and he proceeds to wreak havoc. So what good did taking it away do? Just wondering. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well hopefully the admin who grants it, and the other admins who watch the RFP page would see that user and then put 2 and 2 together when the account starts doing weird things, as opposed to a totally inactive account re-activating itself and doing weird things (yes it hinges on admins being wise enough to notice trends, I know this is a stretch of faith). MBisanz 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any meaningful increase in security here, and this seemingly pointless action puts roadblocks in the way of people who might start to contribute again. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tim - rollback is hardly a security risk and we need to be prioritising the keeping of goodwill with new editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TimVickers and Casliber. There's no compelling reason to do it, and it isn't really even "housekeeping", because it's not a mess causing any inconvenience. (I mean, it isn't... is it?) The risk of alienating contributors outweighs any gain, which is unclear anyway. -GTBacchus 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is probably worth mentioning we have been doing this for over a year with Bots and since they were created, with Account Creator, and IPBE. MBisanz 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But there's a big difference between the rollback flag and the bot/account creator flags, isn't there? The latter could create lots of trouble if abused, the former.. not so much. --Conti|✉ 11:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also worth pointing at Wikipedia_talk:Rollback_feature#Housekeeping. MBisanz 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal threats from IP - 71.193.118.38 (talk · contribs)

This IP user has posted personal threats on my user talk page: <quote>Go ahead and block me you fucking disrespectful prick.....You will be blocking Wiki editing for the entire campus of Western Michigan University, but go right ahead you stupid fuck. Besides, I can always run a proxy scramble and get around your "ban", so FUCK YOU. Why don't you just let the edit stand, as it is correct and useful knowledge for people. This asshole Russ Hamilton fucked me and many others out of MILLIONS of dollars, and it needs to be noted that he cheated on UltimateBet. As for the "considerable weight in silver" that he won, this was a direct quote from the TV program '60 minutes'. You do know about this American show, right, you pathetic Euro Fucktard ? Keep fucking with me and not only will I keep restoring the truth, but I may just feel compelled to hunt you down and put my fist down your ignorant fucking skull.</quote>

What am I supposed to do? He's already been blocked for a couple of days, but isn't this sufficient for a permanent ban, or if possible, contacting this university, if the IP really does belong to that, to track the user? Regards, Thrane (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's just coming from one IP then it looks like a classic case of WP:RBI to me, just ask for the block to be extended. As for the actual threats themselves, I know it's easy for me not being the target, but trust me I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. C.U.T.K.D 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that their IP address has reverse DNS of c-71-193-118-38.hsd1.in.comcast.net. served by NET-71-193-96-0-1 (71.193.96.0/19) net name SOUTHBEND-7, and is thus unlikely to be originating from the WMU's own network. Since traffic to SOUTHBEND-7 appears to be routed via te-3-1-ur01.mishawaka.in.sbend.comcast.net., I think it's reasonable to assume the location is in South Bend, Indiana. -- The Anome (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The above quote should be removed as a BLP violation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational

This editor has some serious civility issues, and refuses to follow various core MoS guidelines, he has been warned more than a handful of times on his talk page, yet he still continues to edit in the same vein. He does have a history (and a block) for edit warring regarding his interpretation of the MoS, but no longer seems to war on the same scale. I have compiled a few diffs below to illustrate my points.

Civility issues: blatant inappropriate sarcasm, inappropriate comments, biting another editor, inappropriate sarcasm, more inappropriate sarcasm, attack towards other editors, attack towards myself

Not adhering to the MoS despite many warnings from several users including yourself: , , , ,

A block may probably inappropriate at this point, but how long should an editor be allowed to be so subtly disruptive before some form of action is taken? Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not very long, at least. I'll gently leave a note. Nothing to make one quake in their boots, as it isn't anything too bad; and to be fair, you've returned the sarcastic manner a few times. See his talk page for more, I guess. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I do apologise for my replies, with hindsight it probably wasn't the best way to handle things, I should have really noted something here sooner rather than reply as I did. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just hope you can work things out without things becoming messy. Let me know if you need anything else! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Recurring edit war on articles related to Piedmont, California

There has been an ongoing edit war on three articles related to the city of Piedmont, California, USA:

• Piedmont, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Piedmont High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Piedmont Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since at least January 2008, Akhamenehpour (talk · contribs), now-indef blocked sockpuppet Akhamenehpour1 (talk · contribs), and a couple of IP addresses (one from California State University, Hayward) have been adding blatant POV content to all three of these articles, indicating that the city, the district, and the high school are all extremely liberal and intolerant of conservatism. They began as unsourced POV edits () that eventually led to the city article getting protected for two weeks (verify using "logs" link above). The same edit war came back in September 2008 and again in March 2009. The more recent edits (, ) have cited an Alameda County, California election results map that shows that Piedmont residents voted for Democratic Party candidates in 2008, and stretches it to argue that it supports the view that the city, district administration, and high school administration are extremely partisan.

I first became involved in this at the beginning of April 2009 on the high school article and at the time had no idea of the lengthy edit war that had been going on on the city article. I tried to offer a middle ground with this message on the talk page, which was met with this edit to the article (note the edit summary) that still cited the election results map and stretched the argument even further. Then he decided that I was okay with this wording without asking me (). Shortly after I made several edits (, , ) in an attempt to downplay the importance of the POV without completely removing it, my talk page was vandalized by a CSU Hayward IP (). He went away for nearly two weeks until this edit which was conveniently called "minor housekeeping" in the edit summary.

I tried resolving this myself without bringing it here by trying to find a middle ground, but this user's actions are ridiculous and indicate that he has some grudge against Piedmont's city government and school district, and wants to use Misplaced Pages as a sandbox soapbox for expressing that grudge. The best part was, this guy had the audacity to nominate himself at RFA, which failed miserably but allowed me to find this RPP request. Ideally I would like to see this guy indef'd but a ban from editing all articles related to this city would suffice. KuyaBriBri 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that guy had already been indef'd. It was only for 3 days. Time for someone with some authority to do something about that character. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the block log (don't know why I didn't before). He was 24-hour blocked in February 2008, then indef'd 3 days later but was unblocked a week after. The most recent 3-day block seems to have expired at the same time that I got involved in this. KuyaBriBri 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, as soon as the block expired he went back to it. Someone could have reported that to WP:AIV - unless they did, but no action was taken, as happens sometimes. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since these are all clearly the same editor, and are equally clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, I have done the following; blocked User:Akhamenehpour indefinitely, blocked User:76.102.193.102 for a month, and rangeblocked 134.154.118.0/24 and 134.154.254.0/24 for a month. If the user strays out of those ranges, contact me and I will extend the rangeblock, as the collateral from even blocking the whole 134.154.0.0/16 range would be minimal. Black Kite 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It has long being established that the user has used 76.102.193.102 to edit, I discussed it with him/her and apparently (s)he needed to use that IP occasionally for technical reasons, hence a notice was added to the top of the IPs talk page, so that particular one was not really sock puppetry (at least while his main account was unblocked). He was indef blocked previously for disruption on the same articles, including using sock puppets Akhamenehpour1 (talk · contribs) and Akhamenehpour2 (talk · contribs). However his main account was unblocked (plus his/her approved IP) when he agreed to edit constructively. Akhamenehpour recently returned from inactivity but (s)he appears to still have a temper that (s)he has not learnt to control, so I have no objection to re-indef blocking. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)On a related note, I've removed the extremely liberal line from the article (diff). I had initially hoped Akhamenehpour would specify an article or page to check against from the print source, but with their blocking I've just pulled the reference. The improper synthesis and edit warring on the voting map source, and the print source being from right after the election makes me think the print source will also be improper synthesis. If someone specifies an article, or another source that backs up the liberal assertion we can re-examine this. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected the three article pages for one week, feel free to change. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat Made

Need a little help on this post. An employee from WSLK Radio has made a legal threat via a new account. Since legal threats are frowned upon, could the appropriate action be taken, please? Thanks....NeutralHomer • Talk • April 15, 2009 @ 20:50

• Indef. A clear enough threat. No strong opinion on the background content dispute, though I note that the article doesn't seem to have any real sources beyond the station's own website. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Child's personal info

At User:Akeelah2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a self-admitted 12 year old has revealed what I would presume is her real name, her home city and school, and her cell phone number. I left the standard "not MySpace" notice on her Talk page, but I think the userpage probably needs to go: not just blanked but deleted. Is anyone with The Tools willing to second that and carry out the deletion? --Dynaflow babble 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Should probably be oversighted too, per WP:OVERSIGHT. – ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since it has a phone number, but I have removed the stuff from general review and left a hopefully helpful note on the editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's non-recoverable by non-sysop users, it should be fine. I'm also unsure if oversight policy would call for oversighting in this case (oversight of personal information is explicitly called for only when it is being used to "out" someone else who wishes to maintain anonymity). --Dynaflow babble 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that this is a case for it (especially considering the age we're talking about here).  GARDEN  21:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent off a request for oversight referencing this discussion. --Dynaflow babble 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears oversight has been performed. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruption from two users at a GA-rated article

• 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This WP:GA rated article is currently facing disruption from two different users whose primary purpose on this project is to promote the deceased guru Osho.

• Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Focus on topic of Osho , Adding unsourced info to the article and making POV changes: ,
• Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:SPA on topic of Osho , , Has history of already being blocked for Disruptive editing: Poorly sourced POV edits despite warnings, this recent edit seems to be a violation of WP:POINT, especially in light of the subsequent comment made by the POV-pusher at the article's talk page: for example see this inappropriate edit summary . User then went ahead and created an entire new page to push this WP:POINT disruption in his dispute over use of the term "follower" at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. (in its present state this article is mostly WP:NOR violations) that page was then tagged by a third-party user to be merged to Osho , but Off2riorob (talk · contribs) changed the tag for some reason to propose a merge of this unrelated article into the GA 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot , where Off2riorob was already disruptive, above, we begin to see that the entire creation of this page violating WP:NOR is also a violation of WP:POINT: disruption of the project to push a point of Off2riorob (talk · contribs)'s position regarding his desire not to use the term "followers" in 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. There is now an AfD on that page at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower.

Would appreciate some attention from additional admins at this article. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have warned User:Off2riorob for such editing a few times, so I essentially agree with the above. I can't say I'm familiar with the User:Redhaylin but the articles need to be watched for poor sourcing and unsourced statements. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, I've added it to my watch list. Unfortunately, my watch list is a few thousand articles long. Any additional eyes on the article would probably be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Long ranting unrelated WP:NOT#FORUM postings by Redheylin (talk · contribs): and . Cirt (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped a message/warning to Redheylin and informed him of this thread. لennavecia 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your note:

• "while you may, for example, know "high ranking followers" to be an improper term, there's not really much that can be done without reliable sources to backup your position". Please note; the editor who has complained of me reverted my modifications, preserving misrepresented sources. It turned out there was a dispute with another editor on the same question, which is that of introducing original synthesis into biographical materials on living people. I have attempted to resolve the dispute and concluded that the above editor is intent on disruption since he refuses to withdraw the faulty reference. I have asked him to do so and I have told him his acts may be considered disruptive. I asked him to do so on the basis, not of my knowledge but of goodwill, taking account of first-hand material provided, and advising that academic sources could be produced that would back the point. I offered a 24-hour respite. The editor has since added references to support other contentious statements.

• "it's important to slow down and remember that we need reliable sources when in content disputes". I am asking another editor to provide references for biographical material on living people, showing how misunderstandings may arise and showing I have reason to challenge these statements and that, if he will not withdraw them out of goodwill, there are references available. The intention was to assume goodwill. No hostility was or is intended - this has been fabricated and I regard this as disruptive.

• Also, regarding the Osho Follower AFD, please keep comments in the AFD on-topic, commenting on the content, not the contributors. The proposal for deletion on a related page by the same editor is a result of an edit war with another editor - his proposal says as much. This other editor drew my attention. I have backed a merger with an existing page. Making the page was wrong, but I have pointed out to the compainant editor that his edits were the starting-point and, once again, I consider this disruptive on both editors' parts. Unlike the above editor, I have desisted from formal warnings. Noting the block of the other participant in this edit war beneath, I ask you to examine the history of contributions and assess the part the complainant has played in all this and the assumptions of bad faith in his complaint. Please do not castigate me for reasoning with him, thankyou. Redheylin (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Off2riob blocked 72 hours by YellowMonkey

This block seems premature and overly harsh, since the user seems to be editing in good faith. The user complained, and I asked Yellow here about this. I don't immediately think this warrants any 72 hour block, but this needs feedback. rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Note above comment by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs): I have warned User:Off2riorob for such editing a few times, so I essentially agree with the above.. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior warnings to Off2riorob (talk · contribs): March 14 , , March 26 , April 9 , April 10 and , April 12 . Cirt (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He was just blocked a month ago for similar edits. He has been warned in the past few days. For others reading over this, relevant talk page discussion here. I think the block is good. At worst, it should have been 48 hours as opposed to 72. لennavecia 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block. The user was disruptive and was already blocked for this behaviour. He was many times warned but blanked each warning. What else YellowMonkey could do? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I wasn't sure from the lack of any notice, but this is a good block. rootology (C)(T) 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Last week Off2riorob came over to my user talk and interrupted a discussion about a featured article drive, then went over to Synergy's user space and edit warred with Synergy--all because Rob had taken a very strong personal dislike to me. Which was very strange because Rob and I had never interacted. Went over to Rob's user talk and posted a polite query in hopes of clearing the air. Gave up after a couple of posts; he was not receptive at all. Held off making any warning or complaint because a review of Rob's edit history showed he was in a content dispute with someone I mentor. For the record though (since Rob conjectured cabalism last week) I have never discussed Off2riorob with Cirt, Yellowmonkey, or Rootology. In light of his block last month and numerous warnings afterward, it seems lenient that no other block happened until today. Durova 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily for me Jennavecia has already said basically what I would have. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, there remains an unacceptable situation re the above page, and I'd like my representations looked into. Please advise on my talk page thanks. Redheylin (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Debresser

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) personal attacks against other editors on talk pages and in edit summaries, standard warnings only bring further such attacks, last attack was after final warning. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention to this. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Attacks continue on his userpage after block. See this diff: Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to template a blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Unblocked by BD2412 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for BD2412.. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'll take care not to offend Wuhwuzdat in the future. I'm happy to continue working on making Misplaced Pages even better. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is to be hoped that you will take care not to offend anyone. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I try. But if helps if people have a sense of humor (and use it), and don't make an elephant out of a mouse. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Amadeo Barletta Barletta

I created a page Amadeo Barletta Barletta who was an honorary consul from Italy in the Dominican Republic during Benito Mussolini regime. This page is well referenced with links to Time Magazine and others. I placed the name of Barletta Barletta in the article of Mussolini in section See Also so that Barletta´s article is not an orphan. user Brutaldeluxe undid my revision without a summary or explanation. I can revert what he did, but because I do not want to engage in a discussion I would someone to review this. Please advise. Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask User:Brutaldeluxe why they undid your edit? -- Darth Mike  23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• No I did not. I read this coment made by User:Brutaldeluxe about another article and where he says he wont tolerate, made me think he is an administrator with rights to these reverts with no summary.

comment It's OK you deleted the dead link, I undid your edits because I took time and effort to correct and improve the article, and to translate from websites operated by governmental agencies of San Marino. Although I'm not from RSM, I'm the closest thing you could find, as I was born and raised in the shadow of Monte Titano. Where were you when it wrongly stated that San Marino declared war on other countries? I intend to add a lot more to the article in the future, I'll welcome your corrections, but I won't tolerate arbitrary deletion of whole sentences. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please advise. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody investigate this?

I think an admin needs to investigate these diffs .

It is a comment made by a user who claims to be Grawp, but I'm not sure who the user is though, if it is a user. Can somebody please investigate? Given the diffs, it seems to me like a case of harassment. —Mythdon t/c 23:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked. Tiptoety 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just WP:DENY. No reason to investigate such blatant cases in any way. SoWhy 23:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We are, but the socks are flying in from every which way. Poor NawlinWiki is, as usual, their target as am I to a lesser degree. Could someone give me a hand on the user creation log page? I can't stay online much longer. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just got clobbered by another one. I'm done for the day, gang. I'm temporarily locking down my talk page. I'd be grateful if someone could monitor the new user page. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unilateral re-creation of deleted article

After proper nomination and discussion, an article created by VonFeigenblatt on the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (first entitled “Journal of Alternative Pespectives in the Social Sciences”, then moved to “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences”) was deleted on 1 November 2008.

It was unilaterally re-created as “The Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” by VonFeigenblatt on 15 November. It was speedily deleted and VonFeigenblatt was warned against such unilateral re-creation and told how to have a deletion reviewed.

It was again re-created as “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” by VonFeigenblatt on 15 April 2009. It was speedily deleted (for copyright violation).

Can we please have “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” and “The Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” salted? —SlamDiego_←T 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Salting is in order. A block for User:VonFeigenblatt may be in order as well for not following the rules. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 00:09

Please be sure to notify the user of this discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that he should be notified, then by all means notify him. He was notified of the AfD discussion, and didn't choose to participate. His talk page is filled with comments from various users contacting him about the problems with this article; he hasn't responded to them. Even with the pages salted, he can still start a discussion at Deletion Review, if he believes that he can make a case for over-turning the deletion. —SlamDiego_←T 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the salting, if he's bright enough to run a journal, he's bright enough to understand why we keep deleting it and should engage in discussion before trying to recreate it yet again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've salted both for 2 weeks, allowing the user time to create a deletion review or other advice. If they're recreated after that without further discussion then a block may be in order. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was doing very similar at the same time -- I have restored your protection levels. ] 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As the admin that originally closed the AfD, I agree with the above that all of these various names should be salted. Also, as the account VonFeigenblatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been warned , , quite clearly, about this, admin action with regard to the user would also be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Long time tendentious editor violates terms of unblock and continues edit-warring

I opened a RFC about User:Collect. However, I just noticed that in addition to everything else, he also violated terms of his unblock. Is it ok to bring this up here as well? I dont want him blocked, he should be able to participate in his RFC, I just request admin attention to this.

• After getting blocked, User:Collect had agreed to 1RR or less for at least a month on 3 March 2009. And he got unblocked.

• Violates these terms on 13 March 2009.

• • Adds an OR tag 07:29, 13 March 2009. Restores the tag (1st revert): 12:00, 13 March 2009

• • Adds another OR tag: 07:32, 13 March 2009. Restores that tag again (2nd revert): 12:22, 13 March 2009

• Latest edit war: 13 April 2009, deleting "collectivist" on Fascism

17:21, 13 April 200917:37, 13 April 200912:04, 14 April 2009 (now deleting it eventho it's sourced)18:22, 14 April 2009

• Technically, he didnt break WP:3RR. First revert 17:21, 13 April 2009, latest 18:22, 14 April 2009, gaming the system with less than an hour and he knows this: .
• Again, technically, he didnt break WP:3RR. But note the long edit-warring history (among others) of this user here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Collect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs)

Blocks are preventive, not punitive, so if the flouting of unblock sanctions a month ago wasn't caught at the time, it should be considered water under the bridge. However, should Collect be blocked again and request an unblock, this may be something for the involved admins to keep in mind. 3RR isn't an allowance for three reverts a day; it just sets the three revert rule as an absolute boundary. Edit warring is edit warring, and edit warring is Bad. I would suggest taking this to WP:ANEW. --Dynaflow babble 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok to bring this up there while Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Collect is ongoing? Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only not 3RR, nor 2RR nor even 1RR -- the first is insertion of a tag which was not in before, hence not a revert. The next two edits are CONSECUTIVE (the Drudge Report edits) I guess I violated a minus one RR rule for him?

As to the Fascism edits (Pof9 is searching every single edit I made as he promised he would) the removal was fully discussed on the Talk page, and only one person insisted on including it. He also said the US is fascist because we had the fasces on the dime. Apparently Pof9 is wikilawyering here, or else he believes the US is fascist because of the dime?

What we have is a person seeking to take multiple bites of the apple by forum shopping . Collect (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I encourage Phoenix of9 to take the edit-warring complaint to the appropriate forum, WP:ANEW, where allegations can be laid out systematically evaluated objectively. Whatever else is in dispute is best addressed at the RFC. An ANI thread is not an appropriate forum for these issues; ANEW and the RFC are. --Dynaflow babble 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Collect also promised on March 3 to not edit Drudge Report for a week or more. I shall also avoid the Drudge Report article for at least a week... But he was back to editing it just three days later: As Dynaflow points out, that's water under the bridge, but it does mean that future promises should be viewed with scepticism. The latest edit warring is of greater concern. That should be addressed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. RFCs are for handling general problems rather than straight edit-warring.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted in passing that, having taken a cursory look at the page history for Drudge Report, Collect does seem to have adhered to 1RR on 13 March. --Dynaflow babble 01:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How come? He added two tags seperately and reverted them seperately. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So, are we going to block a user for edits made 1 month ago, OR for more recent edits made after his sanctions expired. Which is it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's blocking anybody here. If Phoenix of9 wants to take his or her allegations of edit warring to WP:ANEW, and the consensus there decides that the accusation has merit, appropriate sanctions can be decided upon there. --Dynaflow babble 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANEW, but making four reverts in 25 hours is sufficient cause for a block, especially for someone who's been blocked for edit warring twice before.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I reported this at WP:ANEW Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That shows 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean violation of 3rr (in 25 hrs)? Yea. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

REPEAT fraudulent edits/vandalism by 206.162.140.52

User connecting from the IP address 206.162.140.52 has made constant and repeated fraudulent edits to a number of pages. In particular, the user changes names of people or actors. Example:

On List of characters in Chuck changing Matthew Bomer to Maxime Trépanier Hétu, or Yvonne Strahovski to Kathleen Chagnon. The user has made these changes SEVERAL times.

I've reviewed the user's past edits and he's been doing the same thing on other pages as well. On his talk page there have been several warnings issued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambaryer (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

206.162.140.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now has a final warning. If they do it again, report them to WP:AIV and they will be satisfyingly blocked. If they heed the warning and don't do it again, so much the better. --Dynaflow babble 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked sock of banned user

Nishkid64 blocked User:Bart the Bear's Glowball as a banned user, but one of his socks escaped notice:

• 17:19, 10 April 2009 Bart the Bear's Glowball (talk | contribs) created new account User:Blast from the Past Guy (talk | contribs)

(Since the account was created by a banned user, I didn't see the point in requesting an SPI and thought the quickest way to the point would be to post here.)

--Rrburke 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of annotated unresolved issue tags

User:Benjwong deleted twice issue tags clearly annotated: then and playing dumb. (The whole article is sourced with two 900-year-old books, only in Chinese, hosted on Chinese Wikisource, often with a single cite at the end of whole paragraphs full of claims, and has no lead to speak of.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG user Little Blue Frog is just confused (if not lost). He does not understand that the best sources are often the 900 year old book originals. This user needs to be removed of any administrative duties. That page has 13 references and is better than 90% of the historical articles out there. This user is possibly too young to know what he is doing. Most of this material does NOT exist in English. Benjwong (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: 3rd removal of all issue tags and {{fact}} requests. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The material is already sourced. What are you doing???? Stop it. Benjwong (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. 4th blanket removal of annotated issue and fact tags. The reported user considers that posting anything here allows him to go on removing tags. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note; See T:TDYK#Articles created/Fexpanded on April 4diff in case for archive and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Ancient_Chinese_sources

  This issue stems from the ongoing debate on Chinese ancient sources to have used by admin Nlu (talk · contribs) for his created articles and WP:DYK. He also removed the tag from articles; Cheng Yi (Tang Dynasty), Linghu Chu, Huangfu Bo and Li Yong (Tang Dynasty). I think the removal of the tags that show unresolved issues is unwise.--Caspian blue 04:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is practically a stub or start class. Now if it was going GA, then you can ask for all the references. You don't need to count my reverts. Do you guys understand that the aggressive tagging style is unrealistic. Most of these ancient stuff do not translate to a 1-to-1 word-to-word basis. On a start class article, this is pretty good. Lighten up please. Benjwong (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of article length and status quo, our "encyclopedia" should be referenced by "reliable sources". In the diffs, I agree that The Little Blue Frog's tagging is aggressive, and just should've tagged {{primarysource}} at the top. However you were edit warring over the tagging even as violating 3RR? More unwise.--Caspian blue 05:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow I wish that wasn't a closed archive at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Ancient_Chinese_sources. Do people realise there are as little as 1 or 2 text about a particular ancient topic. This is not 21st century material like Bill Clinton has 5000 magazines writing about him, and anyone of them could be legitimate 3rd party source. Nor is Cui Qun popular enough to be like the bible. You are talking the book of Tang maybe the only book available that co-existed with the biography subject. These wiki reference rules need to get fixed. Benjwong (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• 5th removal of all issue and Fact tags. From the start they are clearly annotated about the many problems at many levels: Wikisource is NOT a source. Creating new historical synthesis from 900-year-old primary sources is OR. Using exclusively Chinese-language sources without any modern English-language backup on the basics is not reliable. Writing is presented as factual instead of "according to...", this is like using the Bible to write a description of Parting the Red Sea. Most paras have a single note at the end instead of multiple notes for each claim. Etc., etc. (cf. the annotations visible in the removal diff: at this point the user is in bad faith because he can't ignore the nature and extent of the problems. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Now both violated 3RR.--Caspian blue 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that I do not consider my reverting vandalism, such as blanket removal of clearly annotated issue tags, to be covered by 3RR. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok you guys are bending the rules again. Translations are NOT original research. People in other language encyclopedias are translating. No where in wikipedia policy does it say ONLY ENGLISH references are legit. That is the most ridiculously concept. The editors are not the ones with the problems. The current rules clearly discourage primary sources. Which I understand for some things like corporate self-marketing and advertisements. But like I said because a 900-year old source maybe the ONLY source that coexisted with the living subject, it has to be allowed. Not every subject has 5000 3rd party sources. Benjwong (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• 1) If the subject is WP:NOTABLE enough, then there are certainly modern scholars who have produced modern secondary sources about him, after at least critically cross-examining those only sources, in order to produce reliable material – even if they eventually accepted or concurred with the original source, their expert work at reaching that conclusion is what will make them a reliable source, as opposed to 900-year-old documents written to please an Emperor that could execute anybody and whose text can have been tampered with any number of times.
• 2) "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" - Jimmy Wales in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• On number 1. That is completely biased. You are under the assumption that modern scholars have already studied everything. Eastern materials probably have the biggest gap in terms of "unstudied" materials. Benjwong (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• On number 2. There is no misleading information if you are looking at the ONE AND ONLY original source. What better than the 900 year piece. The definition of false information is pushing it. Is like readers actually prefer a 3rd party tabloid magazine over a direct translation??!! Benjwong (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Number 1 is answered by number 2, if there are no good sources yet then it's maybe too early for an article. Number 2 was another annotated problem: readers are never made aware they only read an OR synthesis translating a 900yo primary source that has not been cross-examined, they are presented the appearance of a factual, modern scholarly truth. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This definition of "good source" and "bad source" is not a problem. Last I checked, the book of Tang is good enough to build a university curriculum around. They don't call it 24 histories for nothing. Is like that's all there is left. Use it or there is nothing else. Maybe it is best if you show me where I can go change the rules. I can see you are trying to help in good faith by following these rules, but the rules just don't fit the situation here. Benjwong (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition to using either old or non-English sources. There's no requirement that sources be accessible on-line either, though it of course makes verification more convenient. The Little Blue Frog, do you have any specific objections to this source; a reason to think this particular book is unreliable other than it being in the general class of old Chinese books? henrik•talk 05:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to expand the existing rules to allow classical texts. If not, this issue will come back again. Really this can go for shakespeare and whatever else that is considered old. If the interpretation of the material by a 3rd party author has greater weight than the original author, that is pretty crazy I think. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you've both violated WP:3RR I'm mindful to block you both. I've instead opted to protect the article for a short while and urge you to please read my note on the talk page - the discussion about the issue should continue there, preferably with a bit less personal animosity please. henrik•talk 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I will continue this tomorrow. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean the discussion and not the edit warring. :) Please continue it over at the article talk page. henrik•talk 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

@Benjwong: "If the interpretation of the material by a 3rd party author has greater weight than the original author, that is pretty crazy I think." Here's the crux of the problem. That's not crazy, that's the whole central point of secondary sources in modern history and of Misplaced Pages's policies too, as provided in the tags you removed and the links noted above.

@Henrik: There may be no prohibition for complementing with foreign SECONDARY sources, but I don't think that writing an entire article entirely based on both foreign and primary sources is allowed. Even if modern scholarly sources are slim, they should provide the reliable skeleton for an article, possibly expanded and complemented by irreplaceable Tang sources, duly quoted or noted as "according to..." instead of stated as modern scholarly facts. (As it's done for Biblical reports, or for the life of Casanova from his Memoirs vs. the scant historical record about him.) Not to mention, among various problems, that WIKISOURCE is not a source (one of my deleted annotation asked for a stable mirror such as Gutenberg et al.) The editors's attitude (Nlu, Benjwong) as seen here and at DYK for weeks, is another large factor. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 06:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One giant copyright violation machine

Apblowe (talk · contribs) - please see the image uploads by this user, along with the blatantly false licensing data. This is worse than vandalism in my book. User has been warned a-plenty. What is the next step? JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see loads of copyright/deletion templates on that talk page, but no-one seems to have warned this user that they may be blocked if they continue. That would be the obvious next step in my opinion. Thereafter a block (whether they should be given a second chance or not would be up to the blocking admin). C.U.T.K.D 07:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the files. I suggest a non-templated warning. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a hard-line "if you upload an image using improper licensing again without having learned what to do, you will be blocked until you acknowledge the problem." Some people don't care about anything other than getting the pictures they want. It's especially concerning when articles like Laurie Anderson had an free image up there and now nobody knows about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned the user. . Cirt (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Need neutral(er) admin to doublecheck my block

Last week or a couple weeks ago, I was alerted to accusations of harassment (including sexual harassment) by User:MelicansMatkin, who was in the midst of a content dispute with LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs). (The diffs he had the most concern with are and ). I immediately went to LifeStroke's TP and, in no uncertain terms warned him against any further accusations.

Tonight, I came on to see that LifeStroke was at WP:AN3 for edit-warring, and I read the edit summary of his first revert. As far as I am concerned, calling someone a terrorist is in essence an accusation of sedition, and coupled with the fact that he's had four prior 3RR blocks according to his block log, I blocked him indefinitely.

Since I may be construed as involved given that I issued a warning to him for the MelicansMatkin incident, could I have a neutraler administrator review and, if necessary, reduce or eliminate the block? -Jeremy 08:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block. We do not negotiate with idiots who call other editors terrorists (especially when they do that twice). And this wasn't exactly what I'd call a reasonable response to your warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support sanction; indefinite is appropriate, as it expires upon blockee recognising and altering the problematic behaviour (and doesn't if they don't). LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. I agree with the other two here. This was entirely appropriate. ···日本穣 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 4 blocks for edit-warring and still continuing in such a way? That's where all patience is exhausted. I support clemency for users who make mistakes in the heat of the moment and who are indicating that they are willing to learn from such behavior but if someone who is not willing to improve their behavior the slightest will have to face such reaction. I do not think you were involved in any way because both the 3RR warning and the block are administrative kind of actions that do not take any stance in the disputed content. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. I see several 3RR warnings removed by LS immediately prior to the block; while removing warnings is allowed per policy it's taken that the comments have been read (and will be abided by). This user apparently has no intention of ceasing edit-warring and escalating to ridiculous edit summaries like those is akin to walking around with a big sign on saying "Block me NOW". I agree with SoWhy regarding "involvement" here as well. If that is to be construed as involvement any AIV-watching admin who placed a warning on a vandal's talkpage then blocked them later could be construed as being "involved", which is obvious nonsense. Tonywalton  10:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support block, essentially per LessHeard vanU. Cirt (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards