Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 16 January 2006

Post a new incident

• 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
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · block log) I'd appreciate input from other admins about this user. S/he's been here for just over two weeks, seems to make very few useful edits, and spends most of her time causing problems and insulting people. She has 500 article edits (most of which I guess are reverts), but 1,633 on talk, project, and template pages. I get e-mails every couple of days from editors she's offended wondering how long they have to put up with it. She's been warned many times and blocked 10 times, but nothing makes any difference. I asked her to stop again today, but her response was to change the header of my post, delete my second post, then alter my first one.

As this is an encyclopedia, I'm wondering what the benefit to Misplaced Pages is of her presence, and I'd like to know whether anyone agrees that the account should be blocked. Or if I'm wrong and she is in fact contributing constructively in some non-obvious way, I'd appreciate hearing about it. SlimVirgin 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My experience with this user is limited, but I do have some, and it hasn't been positive. She was extraordinarly rude and disruptive at Zatanna over a fairly minor issue. I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, that I also blocked her there for violating 3RR. While blocked for 3RR several anons began to show up to continue reverting. The article remains protected, in part because she (and other users) cannot agree on this continuing problem. You may also be interested to inspect this diff , the results of a sock check suggesting that Miss Selina Kyle may be User:Chaosfeary. (I note that she left a message on Chaosfeary's userpage as well ). · Katefan0/mrp 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, the last block of User:Mistress Selina Kyle, by Kelly Martin, may have been a bit of a stretch. See User talk:Kelly_Martin#Chat transcript for why the block was done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes - (s)he should send karmafist a thank-you letter for cleaning up after her/him. Anyway, I do agree that if it continues kyle should be blocked - but lets take it in increments please...Start with a day, then a week, etc.. Simply outright banning looks bad - and that's the last thing that is needed at the moment. WhiteNight 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been watching this user quite closely. She is an unrepentent edit warrior on multiple pages. She has an uncanny knowledge of Misplaced Pages's politics for being here just two weeks. She's been attacking and disparaging multiple users. Blocks of ever-increasing length is a good strategy, until/unless someone can confirm whether she's a reincarnated banned user. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon comparison, I am absolutely convinced that this user is a reincarnation of User:Chaosfeary. -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 3 January 2006

Hmm, you have a point there. Started contributing just after Chaosfeary stopped, too. User:Chaosfeary wasn't permanently banned, I thought? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced they are one-in-the same based on some specific editing quirks of both users. Chaosfeary was getting blocked progressively more often and longer. In fact, SlimVirgin mentioned a permanent block, right before Chaosfeary's last edit on Dec. 9th. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of her other contributions... but see this revision of {{User antimonarchist}}. There were at least two others like this that I saw. Given the timing of her block, I also strongly suspect it was her behind User:N000 (see its deleted revisions, if you don't mind waiting a long time for it to render), User:Saveus, and the other two IPs I blocked on the 1st in relation to this whole mess. —Cryptic (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% convinced she is a reincarnation of SOME long-time user, banned or not - nobody truly new leaps into Misplaced Pages and instantly starts MULTIPLE wars on known contentious subjects and knows how Misplaced Pages works like that. I haven't seen any credible theory on who she might be a reincarnation of, however. The sockpuppetry allegation should be checked out, that's for sure. I would support blocks for excessively warring behaviour; we are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to argue as a goal in itself. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but just a brief note to confirm that MSK, in my experience, has contributed only hatred and disruption. Zora 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I met MSK when she was replacing pics of Jimbo with those of a video-game megamaniacal warlord and I was doing vandalism patrol. After a few 'pleasant' comments on my appearance in the photo on my userpage I made a joke, she felt bad, and we have since gotten on fine. She is a handful to be sure, but does make some constructive contributions to the article space from time to time. My favorite editor? No. (that'd be me of course)... but not beyond hope or redemption. Guide upwards... not crush downwards. --CBD _☎ 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Mr Data (talk · contribs), a new account that turned up to revert to MSK's version at Aisha just after she was blocked for 3RR, and another one on the same day, forget the name, both of which she claimed were friends. CBD, can you direct me to any constructive contributions she has made? SlimVirgin 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A user with the name "Mr Data" screams "I'm randomly looking around my computer desk for a new name to use". Mr Data is a company that makes cheap recordable optical media. --Kiand 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

, , , Macro virus, Macro_virus_(biology)

Likewise to CBD here. I think she's her own worst enemy, and far too vitriolic when facing those who disagree with her, but not a bad faith editor. I've let me know that she's just making it worse for herself, I will only intervene again if she's blocked by someone she's having a dispute with or she needs a friend. These are trying times for all Wikipedians. karmafist 20:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy on wheels seems to hate me, surely I can't be that bad? more than 10 impersonators, wow.. -_-

1. 18:03, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Ky1e (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
2. 18:01, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress-Selina-Kyle (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
3. 18:00, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Discuss my sockpuppets (mistress selina (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
4. 17:59, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle creating a sockpupp (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
5. 17:54, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle - Misplaced Pages prostit (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
6. 17:53, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle = ME = THE WIKIPEDI (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
7. 17:51, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle personally attacks (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
8. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (abusive sock)
9. 17:50, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle hates Pigsonthewing (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
10. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
11. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Curps blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's Sockpuppet for va (infinite) (contribs) (user...)
12. 17:49, 30 December 2005, Antandrus blocked Mistress Selina Kyle's second sockpuppet (infinite) (contribs) (sock for personal attacks)
13. 17:20, 30 December 2005, FireFox blocked Aspergersgeek9 (infinite) (contribs) (WoW)

um anyway joking aside I'm not a vandal or whatever and I'm definitely no-one's sockpuppet: And those other people (Mr Data, CSB and N00000) are NOT me: I bet SlimVirgin never even checked first - *They were* internet friends though, but in getting people to help me I was just doing the same as what Yuber was doing at the time: going round to other editors and getting them to revert for him:

(example, Farhansher, who immediately afterwards went on every Islam-related article and reverted back to Yuber's POV version) - I was just trying to help stop the rampant POV-pushing going on

One example

• Labelling the Pro-Islam source "evidence" while the other is a "claim" is wrong: they're both claims as I tried to point out, I talked to Svest (talk · contribs) and he was ok with it after I explained in more detail on his talk page and pointed Yuber towards that but he wasn't interested and carried on revert-warring
• And it's true that there's no way someone could end puberty at 9. I mean come on, that's a relevant observation: It's a sick joke to say someone at 9 is post-pubescent.

See Lina Medina and think again. alteripse 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The labelling of one view/opinion as "traditionalism" is wrong, it's just another side of the story: The fact is there's no proof on either side and that's something that's accepted, which is why there's two sections (proof for, proof against etc) in the article already -_-

Some of the edits by Yuber are just blatant censorship and SlimVirgin supports him all the way: Anyone accused of being a "sockpuppet" against him is banned immediately, while anonymous IPs with no contributions tend to appear out of nowhere and revert for him and no action is taken at all

What you say is demonstrably false. I submitted evidence in a fairly recent arbcom case against Yuber, and have taken recent admin action against him. But I will support him when he's being unfairly attacked and possibly stalked, as seems to be the case here. SlimVirgin 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

She really seems to have something against me, probably because I tend to oppose her blatant nepotism and cliqueism (as I have said before). Recently she decided she'd paste on my talk page a link to Irishpunktom (one of her editing friends) insulting me on another article's (Islamofascism (term)) talk page and then complains when I change it, that's what's triggered this off she seems to REALLY want the last word.

Netoholic (talk · contribs)'s not neutral in this at all, he'd love to get me banned not because he's "convinced" I'm a sockpuppet but because I opposed some of his editing on articles like Eminem: He's said before he'd like to get me banned, he's pretty vindictive. After daring to change "his" infobox celebrity (to try and make the image work better, it was resizing ALL images even small ones to be a certain size so messing things up and making them look distorted) he stalked me onto Eminem and reverted me several times and reported me for 3RR on that and then later on Latex, an article he's never even edited —the preceding unsigned comment is by Mistress Selina Kyle (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 January 2006

I've never edited Latex, but I did notice it in your contribs while checking other things. -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try and deal with this in a way which doesn't go into personal attacks. She's still trying to 'find her feet' here, as the metaphor goes. --Sunfazer 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, she's a new user and she does make valuable and valid contributions, so perhaps we should take it easy on her. If she violates WP:NPA, she should be warned with the {{npa}}...{{npa4}} templates and blocked if necessary. But no permanent blocks. - ulayiti (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to start implementing blocks of increasing length for disruption and personal attacks. Karmafist, you said or implied MSK had made some useful edits. Does anyone have any diffs? I'd like to give MSK the benefit of any doubt. SlimVirgin 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to start pasting my contributions onto the administrator's noticeboard because you think I "may not have made enough useful edits" ..That doesn't belong here, and there's definitely no rules about "not making enough edits" - it looks more than anything that you're clutching at straws trying to imply I'm a ""bad editor" --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not an admin) I'd just like to point out that some people may have contributed anonymously long before bothering to get an account and log in; their real list of contributions may be more than what is on their user constributions page. Also, some users do not bother to log in unless commenting to a talk page. This may also explain the familiarity of a "new user" with WP. - Synapse 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Karmafist seems to be MSK's main supporter, I've left him a note asking that we keep in touch regarding how best to proceed. Hopefully, that way we'll avoid wheel wars. SlimVirgin 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is obviously a personal one with me and the fact I don't like how some of your friends act, this shouldn't even be here --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal issues whatsoever with you, and hope you're able to turn into a constructive editor. SlimVirgin 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I already am. Your definition of "constructive" seems to mean nothing more than "let my friends walk all over you and revert war all they want" though: This is what's been going on recently. If anyone's "stalking" anyone it's Yuber and Farnhansher doing it to me. For example how Yuber tells him to go around reverting every edit I make all the time on articles he's interested in back to his own personal POV which often include unsourced personal opinions, original research and clear bias: For example like in Aisha how he was venhement in labelling the one saying about that Aisha may have been older as "evidence" and the others as "claims" and reverting when I tried to change this to say both as claims (NPOV): He does this kind of stuff all the time and when he needs help in revert wars he goes to you and you help him: You block my friends claiming they're sockpuppets with no evidence, yet his group of reverting anonymous IPs (with just as much evidence, often with no other contributions than reverting) that appear occasionally when needed are ignored out of hand --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you'd try to defend your editing and revert warring at Aisha with your unsourced, original research e.g. that "post-pubescence at nine ... is unheard of in medical terms ..." and while I've no doubt you have a point (though I think you may be wrong), you need a source for the edit, because your name is not Professor of Gynaecology Mistress Selina Kyle, and the editors who reverted you on the grounds of WP:NOR were right to do so. Your sole purpose in making the edit was to underline that Muhammad, believed to be a prophet by Muslims, was a nasty old pedophile, which shows a lack of knowledge about male-female, male-male, and possibly female-female, sexual relations during that period. If you want to be a Wikipedian, you have to edit and interact within our policies and do at least a modicum of research. If you're not prepared to do this, you ought to leave, though I hope you'll choose the former course. SlimVirgin 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, I was trying to get rid of the POV and disregarding out of hand any evidence that points towards the view that shows otherwise. You don't seem to know the meaning of "assume good faith" that you supposedly hold "highest of all" (quote from your user page) and seem to want to stifle any criticism of anything to do with religion, especially Islam

And offtopic: I do know that it was considered "acceptable" back then for such things but that's nothing to do with it at all: just because middle-aged men having sex with nine year old girls was considered "acceptable" back then doesn't mean it isn't still sick: We know better than to allow people to abuse children now, even if you get certain weirdos occasionally wanting to return to the "good old days" of being allowed to marry and have sex with kindergarten kids. --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I read through this all, Selina, the point does not seem to be as much about what opinions you have, but rather about the way you seem to be expressing them. Revert wars, fights with other users, incivil behavior, all must stop. You seem to be accumulating blocks regularly, and that usually has no good consequences. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- there is an odd combination of unwarranted hostility toward me (calling me an Islamist and so forth) and an unwillingness to engage with me in discussion, even benign discussion. (For example, my query to you about your vote on the deletion measure for Fascism (United States). This combination of instant hostility and strained silence is strange, since you and I have never had any disputes before. BYT 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK -- I don't care if the user is an incarnation or a mirror of some or a few ex and present users but the behaviour of MSK is to be changed. Seriously!. They have been asked gently many times to refrain from using the ists when interacting with fellow wikipedians. I was one of the first users who noticed the hotty behaviour of the user being curious about about the userbox admin that they posted for fun on their userpage the first day!. I was assuming good faith believing they are really newbies! A few weeks later, still assuming good faith but this time believing I was totally wrong!

One more issue. I am not a fun of festivals of userboxes (I got enough though) but i saw the user creating havoc and anarchy in the community re the issue, which i personally consider it is not the first thing we need here. We need good editors, editing and avoiding useless controversy. I mean, seriously, we have some weird userboxes (i avoid to name them wikiboxes to not participate in their spread and be accused of conspiracy) and see that as a sign of individuality in wikipedia that i am against.

MSK, appart from the non respect of policies (being blocked more than enough) and the amount of conflicts they have had with tens of wikipedians, including myself in the case of Aisha and its relative discussion. This is something serious as it is the problem touches the community and one can never make life horrible for many. We spend more time arguing and witnessing incidents and infrigements (like here) than we do contributing. We got work to do and I can't accept contributing more to this board than to the main reason we all came here for. Cheers -- Szvest 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've blocked MSK for 12 hours for this edit. SlimVirgin 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Could people please focus for a moment on the first thing SlimVirgin said: this "newbie" has been blocked ten times in two weeks. Block the account indefinitely right now. Please note that "don't bite the newbies" doesn't mean "let the reincarnations walk all over us." Bishonen | talk 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Make that eleven. I'm not blocking indef, as I have no first- or even second-hand knowledge of Chaosfeary, but a week for repeatedly removing others' comments from WP:TFD is at best lax given her history just at this username. —Cryptic (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Twelve, rather. Sean Black blocked her indef just before I got there. —Cryptic (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - it is kind of sad, but I've seen nothing but meaningless edit wars from the user, and have seen various pages protected etc. because of it. No objection here. WhiteNight 07:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. 12 blocks in the span of 2 weeks is pretty much showing to me, at least, that the user is pretty much impossible to save. Zach 07:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with an indefinite block as well—I've had enough of this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'm going to disagree. Looking at the "evidence" of disruption available on this page, I see hardly anything worth a block (with the exception of the vandalism to Iain_Lee), much less an indefinate one. Looking over her block log, I can see only six or seven blocks that were not a) two admins blocking at the same time for the same offense, b) a block to reblock, or c) blatant corruption innappropriate interpretation and application of WP:NPA. Looking at the evidence initially provided by SlimVirgin, I have a few things to say. First, there is no rule against re-structuring your talk or userpage. Changing headers on your user talk page is not innappropriate behavior. Second, I fail to see any evidence in the diffs provided of innappropriate removal of talk page comments. Third, when Mistress Selina Kyle editted SlimVirgin's comment on her talk page, it was to correct the diff she had provided. SlimVirgin had linked to a diff where MSK was removing a blatant personal attack - MSK corrected the link to point to where she implied the user was a fundamentalist muslim. Certainly not "hiding" anything - in fact, being so polite as to point it out to you. Mistress Selina Kyle is disruptive at times, I'll grant that, but I fail to see any egregarious violations of policy. Just my two cents, for what it's worth. --Blu Aardvark | 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that short blocks applied liberally for specific bad edits may be less controversial than an outright indefinite block. (I'm not saying I particularly disagree with the block in this case tho.) Also, as previously pointed out, she sure looks like no newbie, so a sock check could be informative. Friday (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A sock check was very informative: Mistress Selina Kyle is a vandal. Of the five IP addresses she uses, two belong to a hosting company (unusual) and one of those is shared with at least two dozens vandals of the worst sort, including at least one incarnation of Willy on Wheels. An indefinite block is clearly warranted as it is now quite obvious that she was here for the primary, if not sole, reason of stirring up trouble. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral as ever. Yet another "neutral" point of view in relation to an issue that directly concerns you, in which you suddenly come up with "evidence" that you for some reason don't feel it necessary to present to anyone. Is a vandal? Since when. She was just someone who was trying to prove your corruption. Glad to see that you've managed to get rid of someone who was proving your corruption. Now you can feel free to act however you like without fear of reprisals. This is User:Zordrac/Poetlister all over again. And I suppose now you'll have to ban all of the people who protest MSK's block too. When will it ever end? Will there ever come a time when you tire of the coverups? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Those black helicopters are really coming to get you. Ambi 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would make for a better atmosphere if you tried to understand his upset. He seems to have misconceptualised the situation but slamming him won't fix his misconceptualisation, will it? Be gentle. I don't think Kelly's "evidence" proves much. So she uses a hosting company. Does it issue IPs on the fly? If so, MSK has the misfortune of sharing a hosting company with vandals, and so much for "research". I daresay she uses them because she was banned under a previous name. I agree that MSK is more trouble than use, but it seems to me she's fuelled more by overenthusiasm than malice (the one silly vandalism aside). It surely would have been more friendly to block her for a couple of weeks to think about whether she wants to contribute constructively, and to place her on a revert and PA parole (by which I mean suggest that she should agree to both and agree to be blocked for a week for a breach -- paroles are after all supposed to be agreements on the part of the person who has been punished). You have to ask yourself whether you can believe that she genuinely wants to contribute. Some -- and I don't blame them, SlimVirgin in particular, who has been sorely tried -- are going to think not, but I like to be positive about people -- assuming the best I can about them -- and I think she should at least be given a shot at redemption. Grace Note 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note, I never thought I'd see the day I agreed with you on something, but it appears today is the day. Ëvilphoenix 03:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to you, Evil, for being entirely unaware of who you are, and as a consequence, entirely unaware of why you would disagree with me on every issue. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

Oh no problem. Ëvilphoenix 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hosting companies are almost always (I've yet to find a single counterexample) instances of CGI open proxies. A normal user will not get an IP from a hosting company. If she (or anyone else) used two IP addresses from a hosting company, both should be indefinitely blocked as open proxies, unless someone comes up with a really good excuse for the specific IP. OTOH, the use of them is no indication of malice — some people simply like using them, and they being shared with vandals is an inevitable consequence of they being open proxies. She could also have used them to evade collateral blocks (which can happen often if you use AOL, or some ISPs which use a single shared proxy), or to try to access Misplaced Pages from somewhere which blocks Misplaced Pages. --cesarb 01:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking by Evilphoenix

• I would like to point out for those reading this discussion that Evilphoenix has now unblocked MSK with the recommendation that she take her case to the arbitration committee after the elections. Apparently MSK thinks new arbitrators will be more favorable to her case. I am all for an arbitration case so all relevant facts can be aired and I think the case should begin immediately so that justice is served either way. Waiting to see what the election brings is a form of temporal forum shopping, and it is contrary to our best interests to hold up action. If MSK has been wronged, or if she has wronged Misplaced Pages, then in either case the community needs to take and enforce remedies quickly. Johntex\ 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to unblock in this case--looking at his recent contributions on this matter, it seems to me that Evilphoenix leapt to conclusions and took precipitate action without proper consultation, against substantial support for this indefinite block. I have restored the block but bring the block here for review as is my practise. I will not block again if this block is removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that a half-hour prior I had also reblocked the user based on Kelly Martin's sockpuppet check. Demi /_C 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm 100% in favor of Tony's action. It would be helpful if Evilphoenix posted here, also, if only so that we may know whether s/he has consulted the arguments above. Especially the argument about 12 blocks in 2 weeks. How does it conduce to writing the encyclopedia to keep such abusive, timewasting users around? Bishonen | talk 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I did look at this thread, and I think this is all very convoluted, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it. From what I've seen on her Talk page though, she seems frequently incivil but not bannable, and I'm trying to sort out why she was banned. I unblocked her because I don't at this time support a ban, and my understanding is that if Admins dispute a ban, then it's not a community ban. (those being ones where user are banned simply because no one else supports unblocking them). That being said, I'm also not going to unblock again, I've taken my action, I'm not here to engage in a wheel war over it. Ëvilphoenix 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Kelly Martin used as a justification to block MSK that she was connected to vandals who used the same (or in someway connected) proxy. However it turned out that the user had to use a proxy as her College bars access to Misplaced Pages so it is unlikely she was in anyway connected to the vandals. The user has made valid contributions and is a member of Wikimedia UK. Although she has exhibited incivility I don't think a indefinite block is justified. Arniep 01:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Arniep on this, there's definitely been some vandalism connected with MSK though, 212.183.131.161 is particularly worrisome, and I think we need to figure out if there's a connection there. Ëvilphoenix 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've looked through her contributions and don't see justification for an indefinite block. There has been enough incivility and personal attacks to warrant some form of block, though not an indefinite one. I think a week ban as originally suggested would be appropriate. JYolkowski // talk 02:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK did make that claim, which has not been verified. Meanwhile Kelly Martin found that MSK has used an IP from the same provider that has not been used by other editors. You say she's a member of Wikimedia UK--has she attended meetings? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/212.183.131.161 Jkelly 02:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not big on wheel warring, but given the above, I'll indef block her until doomsday. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we get confirmation that that's her? If it is, so let her be blocked. Ëvilphoenix 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. That's obviously not her. I think that's User:Lir, based on his comments on http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general . Almost certainly a user from there. MSK doesn't use those boards. So take your pick which already banned user it is. The IP address should obviously be permabanned of course. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not her. The ISP doesn't match her usual ISP (the one she uses when she's not editing through random open proxies). Kelly Martin (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. Jkelly 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The comments are still deeply distressing, however.--Sean|Black 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can chime in, the vandal that Jkelly points out has been on my thoughts- as you can imagine, I was deeply hurt by the things this person said, and if it was MSK, I have lost any sympathy I had for her.--Sean|Black 02:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that you actually showed her any. Grace Note 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please, and please don't assign me motives. Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Steady on. "I'm going to block you indefinitely next time you do something I don't like" isn't "sympathetic" in anyone's books, Sean. And I have no idea what your motives are for anything that you do and wouldn't dream of assigning you any. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

This 12 blocks thing. Can we clarify that she has actually been blocked 12 times in two weeks and that it's not a case of blocking, unblocking, reblocking? How many offences actually was she blocked for? If it's fewer, can editors please stop stirring the pot by repeating the claim? Grace Note 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• She recieved four blocks for violations of 3RR, one block for vandalism, and two blocks for questionable definations of "personal attacks". The rest were multiple blocks at the same time, or unblocking to reblock. --Blu Aardvark | 03:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I forgot to note the eighth block, by Sean Black. However, I am not aware of the reasoning behind that block, as no specific edit or series of edits was pointed out. --Blu Aardvark | 04:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• So basically eight blocks, not 12, and at least a couple on spurious grounds? Four for 3RR? Well, that's not good but it's not quite the trail of evil it's painted to be. Even admins get into revert wars from time to time. -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

So, frankly, let's review. The anon above that's posting inflammatory posts isn't her, so Cryptic's (one of the indef blocking admins) comment that he'll block her till Doomsday shouldn't apply. I'm looking through the diffs people have been posting and I'm seeing incivility and some bad choices, but somebody help me understand what exactly it is that's gotten her banned. This needs to be an RfC or an RfAr. Ëvilphoenix 03:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

She hasn't been banned; she is currently just blocked indefinitely. Bans can only be imposed by Jimbo, by the arbcom (neither of which applies here) or by community consensus (which doesn't apply here either, as there is patently no consensus). JYolkowski // talk 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with unblock by Evilphoenix. Appropriate procedural actions (RfC, RfAr) weren't taken, so we have a user, indefinitely blocked for NOTHING (remember presumption of innocence and WP:AGF). I think MSK has already learned her lesson and having this ridiculous block continued is damaging to Misplaced Pages and its core values. Grue 07:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, drop the drama, please. MSK had virtually no edits to the encyclopedia, and had dedicated virtually all her attention to playing wargames with other users. We've assumed good faith for the last few weeks, but it's gotten well to the point where the ongoing damage she's causing to the project vastly outweights her five or so edits in the article namespace. Arbitration is not required for someone who's making no productive edits. Ambi 09:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that she made a number of useful edits, in several namespaces, and certainly a lot more than "five or so". Sure, she was heated often, and definately overzealous in her contributions, but as for "ongoing damage to the project"... there is none. She vandalized one article, and was reprimanded for it - no other vandalism has taken place. She has more frequenly been involved in revert wars, but the way I see it, a revert war takes at least two people. As for "dedicating attention" to "playing wargames", it could be argued that pointing out abusive behaviour is far more beneficial to the project than passively ignoring it under the pretense of building an encylopedia. --Blu Aardvark | 09:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop blatant lies like that. It is obvious that she did good edits in various areas of Misplaced Pages. Just run Kate's tool and see for yourself.  Grue  09:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Spare the personal attacks, Grue. Edit counts really don't cut in here, as even MSK, in her own defence, could only give about eight examples of useful things she'd done - about four relatively minor edits, and about four things in the userspace. I notice that you don't even try to show otherwise, but instead throw ad hominems around. She was a nightmare to deal with for anyone who disagreed with her, and she was actively engaged in driving her opponents off the wiki. At the same time, there was very few, if any, ongoing useful edits. It is patently obvious that an arbitration case would have resulted in the exact same result two months down the line, with either the old or the new committee. As such, there was absolutely no benefit in keeping her around pending the inevitable. I'd like to think you two were above this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense. Just someone is attacking someone you dislike does not mean that they're worth defending. Ambi 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: cut the bullshit. Read her contributions instead of recycling the lies of her opponents. There are lots of good edits in main namespace. Of course there are also bad edits, but good ones outweigh them. Grue 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of those that are undecided, could you provide 15-20 diffs of good mainspace contributions? If you're correct that "There are lots of good edits in main namespace", this shouldn't take long. I think it's important to establish whether her good contributions were closer to "very few" or "lots". Carbonite | Talk 14:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Green Berets created from a redirect
2. Saint Hill replaces link to the poor Google sattelite image with a better one.
3. Black Mesa Research Facility Cleans up article, adds a logo.
4. Blue Blood, several good minor fixups, wikifications
5. Latex clothing, looks like a valid addition.
6. Black Triangle, good and valid article created by MSK.
7. Creates several useful redirects such as American Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts of the USA.
8. Albert Einstein. reverts vandalism
9. World citizen. Provides images.
10. Cloning. Minor fix, but a useful one.
11. Christmas, Good constructive edit, provides interesting history.
12. List of punk cities, Cleans up article.
13. Macro virus (biology) Valid article created by MSK.
14. Latex Good expansion.
15. Flogging Molly Good expansion.

Hope that helps. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, after taking a look at those diffs and the ones on her talk page, I think we should send this to the ArbCom. If her behavior is poor during the case, an editing injunction might be in order. Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just someone is attacking someone you dislike does not mean that they're worth defending. I defend MSK because she was a valuable contributor, not for personal bias. Suggesting otherwise is a clear assumption of bad faith. I'm with Grue - cut the nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think if we do unban her, she'd definitely need someone to follow her around, assign her to mentcom perhaps. NSLE _(T+C) 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• There's no need to unban her at all. Ambi 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is clearly no consensus that she should be banned. Personally I would unblock her myself now, but I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak and don't want to get involved. the wub "?!" 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am going to have to make myself unpopular with the people who are concerned with cutting the nonsense and side with Blu Aardvark here. I have looked through MSK's contributions list and she has several valid edits to the main article namespace, so I think saying that she only has five or so is highly inaccurate. I am not sure either that the ArbCom, present or future, would impose an indefinite ban. Even with highly disruptive and unpleasant users such as Irate, the ArbCom initially imposed a ban of three months only. MSK has vandalised once, but is not an indisputable vandal account like Willy on Wheels so an indefinite block for that reason seems unwarranted. MSK has engaged in edit-warring, but we don't impose indefinite bans for that, initially we enforce 3RR (done here, no complaint about that), and Arbcom penalty for that is typically imposing a 1 revert-limit or a ban from a certain type of article. There does not appear to be community consensus to support an indefinite ban either, considering that several respected users such as Aardvark, Evilphoenix and Grue are opposed to it. Disruption is what this indefinite block is based on, but if we look at the blocking policy: "blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits". The only thing here which I think would justify an indefinite block is if MSK is a sockpuppet of a banned user. That is possible but I cannot see that it is proven. In this case, I do think ArbCom review is warranted, clearly MSK has upset several users and caused quite a lot of disruption, but whether or not the disruption is serious enough to warrant an indefinite block is a decision which should not be made by a few admins only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK has made a list of some of her positive contributions here User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#A_list_of_some_positive_contributions. Arniep 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: The only thing here which I think would justify an indefinite block is if MSK is a sockpuppet of a banned user. That is possible but I cannot see that it is proven. -- I would like, once again, to draw attenntion to the (not-yet-addressed) fact that MSK has a mixture of instant hostility to me and an unwillingness to engage with me in even benign conversation. This despite our never having had any conflict whatsoever. Does this not suggest that there is a past history that took place under another username? BYT 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Who do you suspect she might be a sockpuppet of? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, I think she's User:Chaosfeary. Note , which was critical of a long-simmering pet project of Chaosfeary's. I've never had any problems with this person, and she moves instantly to name-calling. I've left about half-a-dozen comments on various pages for MSK since this, and she seems quite eager to steer clear of me. Odd? BYT 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Instant dislike? That could be evidence of sock-puppetry (though not neccessarily implying that the original account is blocked) or just general unpleasantness on the part of one or both of you. :] --CBD _☎ 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. MSK was against Slim Virgin in relation to her behaviour in the banning of User:Taxwoman and extended that towards her behaviour on other projects, which then led to her attacking of User:BrandonYusufToropov. Note that the ban of Taxwoman happened a long time before any attacks on BYT, and can be seen as an extension of her attacks on Slim Virgin. That being said, I would like to know who Chaosfeary was. He is NOT a banned user - but was someone who was given a few short term blocks, therefore even if she was a "sock puppet", then it is not grounds for a ban. However, I can see no evidence that they are the same person, and indeed User:Jayjg had already proven through CheckUser that they were not the same person, and I think that we should take this as given. Whilst it is obviously unfortunate that she didn't like BYT, I think that the issue should be what she said to BYT rather than any allegations of sock puppetry, which, in my opinion, is irrelevant anyway. Since MSK wasn't banned for anything she said to BYT, I think that BYT should perhaps present what she said to him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the very first response to the post I just cited. S/he called me an Islamist, a strangely familiar epithet coming as it did from someone who was supposedly new to the conversation. BYT 15:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think her calling you an islamist suggests that she knew you previously, just that she is anti-muslim. It looks like Chaosfeary is a friend of MSK as she left a message at the top of their user page User:Chaosfeary. Arniep 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked TonySidaway to reconsider, as a number of people (myself included, based on what has been said here) don't seem to think the case for an indefinite block is sufficiently clear at this time, and it therefore either needs to be made more clearly (either here, or through RFC or RFAR) or replaced with some other measure (eg mentorship). Rd232 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight; I reinstated a block, originally placed on the basis of known bad behavior over a protracted period and a checkuser report, that appeared to have been removed by one editor without any discernible discussion. I brought it here for review--a practise I have made with all blocks almost since my first actions as an administrator. I wouldn't presume to second guess the checkuser information and I have yet to see an adequate explanation of why this editor, supposedly at a British college, cannot simply edit Misplaced Pages from a direct connection. This isn't China. The user's pattern of extreme personal attacks since being blocked does not fill me with confidence in his or her willingness to edit Misplaced Pages. Nevertheless I would not oppose a considered unblocking on the understanding that any sign of this user continuing her attacks will result in reinstatement of the permanent block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

in some UK Colleges Misplaced Pages is classified as chat so is blocked. Arniep 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Names of such institutions, please? Also, I'm amused by the claim that she's a member of Wikimedia UK, given that's not fully set up yet. I'd love to know what JamesF and Jguk have to sy about that. Not to mention David Gerard and Tony Sidaway who are, IIRC, also involved at some level. Rob Church (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

go to my talk page and find the link for a screenshot, do a search on the page for "photobucket": No I'm not telling you what college I'm going to, as I already said that was the reason for me using http://www.concealme.com (try it yourself, I also said about this on my talk page but half the people posting here didn't seem to bother to read the huge discussions going on there) --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

She said she used the hosting service because she was scared someone would trace her to her college and cause her trouble. I think that's plausible enough. Tony, I don't see any "extreme personal attacks" frankly. A bit of mouthiness, that's all. Do you not think that a user who's been blocked permanently might feel hurt though? There's lots of editwarring on Misplaced Pages and lots of people talking to each other like shit, some of them "respected users". She's probably not quite clear that she's done anything much wrong. Why not unblock her, ask her to agree to a personal 1RR with a day off for each infringement and caution her not to mouth off at other editors? Surely that would be much more constructive than throwing the book at her? -- GN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

Oh I've already indicated that I wouldn't oppose an unblock if she doesn't continue with her personal attacks--which, whatever you may say, were extremely inflammatory. She's been unblocked and I'm fine with that. I've tried to follow her instructions about "find the link for a screenshot, do a search on the page for "photobucket" but, alas, without success. If anyone could help out here, I'd be grateful.

In reply to Robchurch, I'm not a member of Wikimedia UK but I do know people who have attended preliminary meetings. As far as I'm aware nobody answering her description has done so--she could well be involved in Wikimedia in some way but if the extent of that is to put her name down on a wiki page or subscribe to a mailing list it's not really getting us any further in refuting the checkuser evidence.

Of course it's MSK's right to use an anonymizing proxy, and also being somewhat kinky myself I understand that she could plausibly be reluctant to give away any informtion that might lead to her being identified, but users who use such proxies to misbehave risk being blocked. It's best not to misbehave in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: the link you can't find. Here is the link. It appears on MSK's talk page in the section "=(". --Tabor 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That screenshot may or may not be genuine. It would be very easy to make such a thing in the simplest of paint programs. If it is legitimate, it would show that MSK is willing to circumvent the rules of her college, which may have some bearing on whether we think she will abide by the rules here. As for the involvement in Wikimedia UK, a look through her Talk page history shows that she has been invited to join, but she has also expressed some skepticism about joining if it means that she would have to give her true identity. . Johntex\ 23:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do college IT departments really use such bad English? Comma splice, random capitalisation... Educational standards these days, really. Mark 00:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

I just saw that MSK was indefinitely blocked and came here to see if there has been any discussion about users with Asperger Syndrome. I stumbled into a revert war at Template:User Aspie and saw a telling comment. I'm copying the discussion here. I have not as yet gotten a reply to my comment. -- Samuel Wantman

You're telling an Aspie to stop being obsessive? Do you have any idea what the syndrome entails and what the primary symptom is? :p That is all. Rogue 9 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I know? Should I assume that an editor has a serious neurological condition, and tread carefully around them? I'm sorry, but I refuse to stare at the wheelchair, if you get my meaning. -- Ec5618 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know much about Aspies, but I have come accross a few of you here and there. The above note points out a problem I have been pondering, and for which I don't as yet have an answer. The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that it really isn't my role to figure this out, but rather is up to the Misplaced Pages Aspie community to address. While Aspies have made some wonderful contributions around here, I and others, have found some behavior to be very disruptive. There are some rules of behavior that have been reached by consensus by the community. Some of these rules, like assuming good faith, the three revert rule, no personal attacks, etc... are essential for the continued success of Misplaced Pages. It seems unreasonable to exempt some people from these rules because of a neurological condition. Instead, I hope the Aspie community could figure out a way to participate without being disruptive. I don't know what that is, but I'm willing to help out in whatever way I can to implement it. Perhaps some sort of mentoring situation is possible.

I was the first admin on the scene here yesterday, and my first reaction was to block everyone. It is not the first occasion that I have felt like blocking an Aspie and didn't. I believe in talking about things and trying to work them out first. It would be very unfortunate if these problems do not get addressed and many Aspies get permanently blocked. I hope that doesn't happen. -- Samuel Wantman 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, there was a bit on the mailing list (wiken-l) a while back. I'll reply with more on your talk page. WhiteNight 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that discriminating against someone for a mental disorder is discrimination. Whilst each country has their own laws, I am sure that in USA such behaviour would be considered to be illegal, and it would also cover internet use. Whilst Misplaced Pages can legally ban or allow whoever they like, they cannot forbid someone entry on the basis of race, gender, religious preference, sexual preference, or mental disability. Pretty simple thing. Whilst you are entitled to treat her as if she did not have a disability, you are not entitled to consider this to be a factor warranting a ban. To do so may be illegal, and put the individual person doing the ban/discriminating and/or Misplaced Pages itself in to jeapordy for legal action. Just seriously not a good idea. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got this backwards. Please re-read my comments. I am trying to think of accomodations for the disability to help keep people from getting banned. I resisted blocking the revert war because I knew that AS has some compulsive behaviors related to it. Had I not tried to accomodate the AS I would have immediately blocked them. My comment was an outreach to try and think of a way Misplaced Pages can make accomodations. -- Samuel Wantman 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems. I guess that I am a bit wary of people doing things like this. Going for equality really is important, and discrimination is an issue that needs to be considered. I mean we wouldn't ban someone for being muslim, would we? Or even for believing in Goat Cheese. But we might not like them pushing these views. I hope that you didn't think I was attacking anyone there. I just get very nervous when people talk about things like this, especially as at least a few people have commented in a way that suggests that they should be able to ban autistic people for being autistic. Quite simply, you can't. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, please refrain from commenting on legal issues when you frankly have no clue what you're talking about. You're becoming as bad as Everyking - you comment first, then think and research later if we're lucky. Ambi 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we can discriminate on any basis whatsoever; as a private entity receiving no governmental support, we are not bound by any nondiscrimination law whatsoever. Volunteer organizations are not required by law not to discriminate when selecting volunteers. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify how being 501(c)(3) is "receiving no governmental support"? If I started "church of the white man" tomorrow, I would not receive tax exempt status. Avriette 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I have ever seen a more obvious Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks than the one above by User:Ambi. I trust that you recognise Misplaced Pages policy with regards to such things. You should know it, after all.

I have no clue what I am talking about, do I? I dare you to prove me wrong. Because you won't be able to, you know. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist

I was simply noting that you hadn't read any of this discussion before launching into one of your predictable "fight the power" tirades. No one here was suggesting anything like banning people just because they had Asperger's syndrome, which you would have known had you read any more than the section title. Ambi 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The law (in the US) only applies to employers discriminating against employees anyway... the whole argument is silly. --W.marsh 06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, (so sayeth the psychs) I've got Asperger's syndrome; however, I am of the distinct opinion that the behaviour demonstrated by MSK could not really be ascribed to that. Asperger's syndrome sufferers are widely held to have issues with social skils, with emotional development and integration happening late-on (or to an impared degree). Asperger's syndrome could not possibly be used as an excuse for some of MSK's vitriol, because quite frankly I am capable of restraining myself from her distinctly unpleasant mode of interaction. Although I do have my odd moment of difficulty in this area I could not see it being expressed in such a manner. I think Misplaced Pages needs to bear AS in mind, perhaps, but it is not by any means carte blanche to behave poorly. Indeed, to ascribe MSK's inability to behave in a civil and reasonable fashion to AS would be to do a great disservice to its sufferers. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And everyone is affected to precisely the same degree as you are? To say that someone could not possibly be affected in a way you are not seems a rather extreme generalization of personal experience. --Tabor 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As the father of a son with HFA I've grown familiar with the varying degrees of PDD and spectrum disorders. While it's true that all individuals with these disorders share the trait of poor or unusual social skills and vary in their abilities in this regard I would find it extremely hard to believe that one would actively seek out confrontation like MSK has. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but if it has I've never heard of it. The typical reaction would be to shy away from such confrontations and occasionally fall into one by mistake. But, I'm not a shrink, I only deal with my son's issues day in and day out and explain this stuff to people almost daily! --Wgfinley 03:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Like Nicholas and MSK, I also have Asperger's, and he's right, it shouldn't be an excuse for rudeness or incivility. Indeed, despite my eccentric nature at times, i've done things that you wouldn't associate with someone with "social issues", such as running for public office, as well as the seeds of careers in heavily people orientated careers such as Journalism and Real Estate. Asperger's isn't an excuse.

However, Tabor's also right, it's different for everyone, especially for people like MSK, who not only has AS, but is also young, which usually exasperbates the misconceptions that are common between neurotypicals and those with AS. I'm not going to touch the block for the time being, because she needs to calm down anyway, but I hope there's some way we can make her realize that being a jerk to those she disagrees with isn't cool, because I don't think she does or feels that kindness won't work at this point with what's been going on during the past few weeks. karmafist 05:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of autism is that it is a spectrum rather than just something specific. It is extraordinarily ill-defined, and in fact covers a wide range of different disorders. It is also one of the most poorly diagnosed syndromes imaginable. So saying that this is how one person behaves therefore all of the others must behave in the same way is wrong. The spectrum has an allowable set of behaviours in order to be considered to be autistic. Mistress Selina Kyle's behaviours comfortably fall within this spectrum. This does not mean that all autistics will exhibit these behaviours. It is probably less than 10% who would behave in a similar manner to MSK in similar circumstances.

As for the confrontation, no, Aspies aren't scared of confrontation. They misunderstand confrontation. What this means is that in school they will often be teased and take it literally, not realising that it is an attack on them. Similarly, they may tease others and not realise that there is anything wrong with it. This means that Aspies are regularly incorrectly believed to be "stirring up trouble" when in fact they are not. This is typical behaviour. And if you look at the allegations of MSK's "personal attacks" and "incivility", all of them fall comfortably within this boundary. MSK hasn't actually personally attacked anyone here, nor has she been incivil. What she has been is a typical Aspie.

That being said, her confronting Kelly Martin and Slim Virgin is not typical Aspie. That has nothing to do with her condition. That is because she felt that these people were corrupt and needed to be exposed. So if she is being criticised for trying to expose corruption, people should realise that her doing that had nothing to do with Asperger's Syndrome. She might have done it in a different way to others. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see the supposed abundance of unjustifiable personal attacks; she's simply blunt. This is to be expected, and I find it an admirable quality, though those with thin skins and a better ability to sift through bullshit tend to disagree with me. Be that as it may, despite my status as a plebe around here, I see no reason for an indefinite block. Presuming that she does indeed have Asperger's (unusual in a female, but it does happen and would explain her unusual behavior), then her only behavior which isn't almost inevitable in an Aspie (that is to say, conflicts of personality arising from failure to empathize, not from malice) is her crusade against perceived corruption among the admins, and that is not a blockable offense in itself, as much as any theoretical corrupt admins (or admins annoyed at being so investigated) might like it to be. What that speaks of to me is integrity and overzealousness, and God help us if either of those traits become bannable offenses. Rogue 9 08:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment: I think it should be noted that most "Aspies" are possibly self-diagnosed. The existence of a userbox makes this extremely easy. It is unfortunate that in this day, bad behavior is hidden behind a constructed disorder. We say a child has ADHD and administer pharmaceuticals instead of addressing the possibility that she lacks discipline. When the child grows up she can hide behind the label of an "Aspie" instead of dealing with the fact that she is a jerk. This is unconscionable. Even if someone has a legitimate though manageable disorder, it's the person's responsibility to deal with it instead of hiding behind it.

After reading Kelly Martin's comment on MSK's lack of quality editing and MSK's replies on her talk page, I decided to look into it myself. When I ran an edit count last night, I found that only 30% of this user's edits were on articles, images and associated talk pages. This means that 70% of this user's edits have nothing to do with developing the encyclopedia (unless you strongly believe that userboxes have extraordinary value to the project). Furthermore, if you remove talk pages, deleted edits, and vandalism from the statistics, her useful edits only amount to about 20%. --malber 14:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The dismissal of a diagnosis of any other user, cheapning it as "self diagnosis" is... Well, I'm at a loss for words, in that regard. Let's toss it in the "evil" bin. Secondly, I think some of you fail to understand the symptoms of Aspergers, or more correctly, the behavior of those so diagnosed. I don't particularly feel that the user went out of her way to confront anyone. As others have said, she is dedicated to producing articles and does contribute. It is when that is interfered with (this is commonly referred to as "hyper focus" in text on the subject -- see ISBN 0684801280 for more details), the user is left with very few coping skills. What you see is the result. Lastly, going after edit counts can be used on just about anyone. I recently examined the same statistics for NSLE. The reply was a juvenile "why don't you make me?" Let's leave the edit count out of this, and the deprecating of a person's psychological state as well. Avriette 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never "hidden" behind it and have never used it as an argument for anything so please don't start insulting me, especially making personal attacks like "instead of dealing with the fact that she is a jerk".

I think it's mostly irrelevant really. Not that it's any of your business at all but as you seem to want to accuse me of being "fake" or "covering up for myself", yes, it was done by a qualified psychiatrist/psychologist (I have no idea which but it was at an early age)

a minor point to Wgfinley, "father of a son with HFA" who finds "it extremely hard to believe" that I have asperger's because of basically 'not being shy enough': I'm tended to just not say anything with regards to your perhaps surprising bigotry, but there is nothing about aspergers that makes people "shy away from such confrontations" - maybe occasionally from social situations out of shyness but I know more as well as having it myself I probably know more people with aspergers than you and several I know have been expelled from several schools for standing up to bullies and getting in fights etc

malber (talk · contribs): On the other subject of "useful edits", you really are quite a venomous little man aren't you (don't quote NPA at me, you prick, you're already accusing me of "hiding behind my aspergers" and calling me a "jerk"..) - lies, damn lies and statistics: "I found that only 30% of this user's edits were on articles, images and associated talk pages. This means that 70%" - Sorry, community is not important at all now? And just because it's not an article/image edit doesn't mean it's automatically "userbox"? Ever heard of "Misplaced Pages:" or "Misplaced Pages talk:"? Sorry, but this is Misplaced Pages, not Britannica. We're not paid, we're not employed to edit here: If there was no community for Wikipedians to work together, no one would be editing.

Are we now judging wikipedians on the amount of editing they do and banning those who don't work hard enough? What is this turning into? --Mistress Selina Kyle 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't say Misplaced Pages isn't a gulag. If the community wants to ban you because they think your socks are smelly, then too bad. There's no such thing as an innate right to edit Misplaced Pages. (This is not to say that the community wants you gone; if they did, nobody would be protesting your block.) If it takes a gulag to build an encyclopedia, a gulag is what we're going to have. All other goals besides building an encyclopedia are secondary. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk, that's an incredibly frightening statement you just made. It almost sounds like you're saying this place is little more than a popularity contest, and you can be gone regardless of whatever contributions you've had. Basically, an ochlocracy. If that's the case, wait a second while I go contact the Crips and the Bloods... Karmafist 03:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Had you read my comment more closely, you would see the disclaimer: "This is not to say that the community wants you gone; if they did, nobody would be protesting your block." This (consensus/unanimity or something close to it) is pretty much the foundation of Misplaced Pages governance. I'm not advocating ochlocracy. I'm stating a basic fact; if nobody wants you around, you're gone. And besides, if this were an ochlocracy, we might have had fair use images on userpages a long time ago, regardless of their legality. If anything, I fear we're headed in the direction of such a form of governance. Johnleemk | Talk 14:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It takes extreme vanity to assume I was talking about you. I was responding to Zordrac's suggestion that your behavior should be excused because you're a self labeled "Aspie." Asperger's seems to be one of those "bumper sticker" illnesses that people tend to publicize about themselves, like a special club. It's especially troubling that there's a userbox for Asperger's. If we take what Zordrac is suggesting, all a troll would have to do is slap that userbox on his userpage and all should be forgiven. This is troubling. If you want to throw around quotes, here's a good one.

I'm not even going to discuss your personal attacks. I think they speak for themselves. If you wish to regain the good graces of the admins, a little bit of humility and contrition would go a long way. Kelly Martin has a valid point. The ratio of encyclopedia building to "community building" is skewed. Indeed, if there is even the slightest impression that you've been disruptive, the idea that you've been building the community is dubious. --malber 15:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Normally I wouldn't dare enter these types of situations but after reading this and witnessing all the fighting and bias I'm afraid I have no choice. To those who seem to think Aspie's "hide behind our diseases" or "we use it as an excuse" is entirely untrue, pathetic, sickening and offensive to all who have this rotten disorder. Yes, I realise some of MSK's actions may not be due to AS, but for you people who are lucky enough not to experience this disorder firsthand I fail to see how you possibly have a good understanding about it. You should be considered lucky; I went undiagnosed for over 10 years and it's safe to say my life was a living hell back then. I would suggest reading Asperger Syndrome if you haven't already done so. I can say I have never had a bad experience with MSK and I wish the bias and personal attacks would all stop together. I thought Misplaced Pages was fair; apparently I was horribly misled. Fell free to use your bias and block me, however you will have one less member reverting vandalism. --Winter 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really not the place for debating the merits of an Asperger Syndrome diagnosis, or whether or not this is a true neurological disorder. My response was regarding the idea that a user's disruptive behavior should be excused because of a possible self applied diagnosis. Anyone with a legitimately diagnosed disorder should be offended by this idea. Note that I'm not saying that every "aspie" behaves this way. --malber 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And nothing says her diagnosis is self-applied except a gross assumption. I have the syndrome (and yes, it was professionally diagnosed by two separate psychiatrists) and can tell you that no one's saying she should be excused for her "bad behavior" because from where she's coming from there was no bad behavior in the first place. Her reactions were perfectly normal for an Aspie; if I was plunged into a situation where a lot of my work was suddenly deleted by an imperious admin going on about how I was a waste of space I'd be going off like a volcano because I frankly wouldn't know what else to do. Hell, that's not even being an Aspie; that's being human. Asperger's will simply make the reaction worse because it makes it difficult to understand what the other people want unless they come out and say it, which makes negotiation difficult to say the least. Rogue 9 04:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate result, then, that Asperger's Syndrome makes one rather less suitable for the project. Phil Sandifer 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As does speedy deleting a redirect without justification in WP:CSD and recreating it half a dozen times. Karmafist 03:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to recommend for User:Snowspinner to be given a 1 week block for the above edit. It is EXTRAORDINARILY discriminatory.... --Zordrac

Blocks are not punitive. Please see Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Then if I were to say what he so richly deserves to have said to him right now, I wouldn't be blocked as punishment for this? Somehow I doubt it. Rogue 9 05:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. There is no consensus on permitting admins to block those who make personal attacks, and generally this only occurs in extreme cases where the one making the attack has proved unrepentant and refuses to stop making such personal attacks. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to present, off the top of my head, some practical information about working with people that have Asperger Syndrome and about disruptive behavior as alleged above.

• The rules apply to everyone. Disruptive behavior is not to be tolerated. I should add that it is quite uncommon among Aspies, and ascribing it to their having Asperger Syndrome is unwarranted in virtually all cases. And even if one does ascribe it to AS, the remedy remains the same. Explain, point out rules, be civil, assume good faith - be a good wikipedian and it doesn't matter whom you are trying to correct. Stay cool. Blocking and problem resolution as usual.
• Asperger Syndrome is much more pronounced in children. Like other children, Aspies learn to adapt to the differences between them and the rest of the world (since the rest of the world won't adapt to the differences). It takes them longer and is more difficult, but in the end many do not really stand out from the crowd in day-to-day communications. It means that, probably even more than regular teenagers and adolescents, Aspies can be expected to improve their behavior given time, and getting a new chance after six months or so should always be negotiable. And since we're building an encyclopedia, it would be a pity if Misplaced Pages unnecessarily lost the contributions from - often quite intelligent - people with a knack for gathering facts and a far more than encyclopedic knowledge of specialist subjects.
• As to being "wheelchair friendly" - Misplaced Pages is all that and more. Most Aspies do not have a problem with rules per se; in fact it is almost a defining symptom that they fare better in a well structured environment with clear rules. The absense of eye contact and body language when co-operating via the Internet solves any remaining sources of miscommunication so in fact Misplaced Pages and Aspies are a well-suited combination.  AvB ÷ talk 08:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Dschor claims that all third party edits to his user page are vandalism

Dschor appears to have decided that his userpage deserves the same protection from outside editing as a geocities account. As a result he has accused other users who've made simple changes of vandalizing his page. He has since equipped his userpage with a notice which claims that edits made without his authorization are vandalism. Can someone else please ask him to go get a free web account someplace if he is interested in maintaining a personal web presence? --Gmaxwell 07:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion? He can presume that all he wants. However, I would avoid editing it unless necessary (as I do with all user pages) but simply reading Misplaced Pages:User page will tell you they are community space. gren グレン 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He's just mad because I edited his user page. He needs to grow a sense of humor or something. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh, he's changed tack :) --Interiot 08:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I also edited his userspace to change a flag, i'll see what he says. Zach 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:User page:"by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." Crystal clear: it's a convention, but only a convention. Dschor can (foolishly or otherwise) presume what he likes about people who breach it. Rd232 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

People shouldn't be editing someone else's user page unless there is a very good reason for it. I will check out the edits and comment further. But please be a bit nicer to him about it. He is clearly assuming that Misplaced Pages runs in a way that places like Geocities/LiveJournal etc work, and that your user page belongs to you. It is a reasonable assumption to make. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I checked it and User:Snowspinner has been making misleading edit summaries, stating incorrectly that he was removing text because it was a personal attack, when there was none on there. Really, there was nothing wrong with Dschor's version, so let's just leave it be. It's just very petty to go around changing people's user pages for these kinds of reasons. Get rid of personal attacks by all means, but not opinions. We might call it vandalism if you do edit his user page like that, and with good reason. So please stop. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner has made one edit, with the remarkably accurate summary: "Reverted edits by User:Dschor (talk) to last version by User:Tony Sidaway". Tony made the changes you refer to, and I'm curious why you didn't discuss things with him before acting. Questions of intent and civility aside, you need only look at Dschor's talk page for your comment:

Obviously stating that you oppose Kelly Martin for ArbCom is not a personal attack. However, perhaps you should not include "Beware the Cabal".

And Tony's above that:

Secondly, while your stated opposition to Kelly Martin was probably okay, the allegation that she is a member of some Cabal is an attack and we don't allow personal attacks. I've removed it for now; please feel free to restore minus the attack.

...to see your thinking is along closer lines than you might suspect. Maybe before attempting to set Dschor's expectations regarding his User page, you should reach a consensus here first. I'm sure Dschor doesn't feel like being the subject of a wheel war. InkSplotch 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I am getting tired of fighting this type of vandalism on my page. I never stated that Kelly is a member of a cabal, but I did notice the prominent display of an "I love the cabal" image on her user page. Seemed like a harmless reference to her own stated affection. I assume good faith, but I ask that you please notify me before making significant changes to my user page. It's simply the polite thing to do. --Dschor 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism suggests malicious intent. I don't see that here, but I'm only a neutral party. What I see is a difference of opinion on two counts: should Users (such as yourself) be allowed to reserve edit rights to their User page, and was the "cabal" comment a personal attack. While consensus doesn't seem too firm yet, it doesn't seem to be going your way at the moment. I'd ask you consider the comments above about User pages and community space. I'd also suggest that Kelly Martin's original edit, regardless of it's factual accuracy, was a good faith edit and not a personal attack or attempted vandalism. Use of the word "cabal" would probably be best dropped by all sides.

To others, I'd like to echo Zordrac's comments about "...be a bit nicer...about it." Dschor might be making a test case here over User rights to their User Pages, but poking at him to see how he reacts ("I also edited his userspace to change a flag, i'll see what he says.") isn't going to help all of you reach a stronger consensus, or Dschor to be more amicable to your position. InkSplotch 14:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

m Signing my comments, now that I have an account to do so. InkSplotch 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but the heading for this section does not reflect any statement that I have made, and is a straw man created to distract the casual observer from the fact that Administrators are taking their POV and inserting it into a user page against that user's strenuous objections. I do not claim unique rights to edit my user page, but in the interests of accuracy, I cannot permit editors to remove my own opinion, or insert their own. I do not doubt that Kelly felt she was doing a service in adding her name to my user page, but her failure to revert upon my request was not appropriate, particularly considering that my account was blocked during her edit. There are many other users who use the same travel brag sheet, and as far as I know Kelly made no effort to add her name to their pages. I did not have any notice advising users to clear changes with me, because I assume good faith. Unfortunately a number of edits have been made to my user page that show a pattern of aggression toward free expression. I believe I have the right not to have my opinion distorted or deleted so long as I follow the guidelines for user space on Misplaced Pages. I consider this matter closed, and expect that editors will respect my user page, and refrain from edits that do not improve it. Thanks for your attention. --Dschor 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have any property rights here except accurate attribution and licensing of your contributions. If you want a homepage, go and find a webhost. Your userpage can and will be edited by other people and you are not justified in presuming malicious intent. In particular, you must refrain from making personal attacks anywhere on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: after reflection on this, I have edited Misplaced Pages:User page to see if I can reach a more realistic description of what the userpage means to Wikipedians. It really isn't on to say you'll presume that people who edit your user page mean harm. This is a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My user page is intended to be a description of me, not a place for editors to add their own false claims and opinions. It can and will be edited by other people, but if they don't make improvements, then I will revert their edits. I do not presume that all people who edit my user page mean harm, but I reserve the right to make the determination on my own terms. I like to think this is a wiki, but when I observe admins speedy deleting the contributions of others for no reason, I have to wonder. And when admins come to my user page to make counterfactual edits while I am blocked, I presume that this is vandalism, and revert it. --Dschor 02:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

GWB again

What is this, the amazing blinking template? :) I personally agree that this should be deleted but let's try to convince people why instead of trying to settle it with a boxing match. Haukur 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Coudldn't we let the TfD go to copnclusion? if the TfD result is "Keep" will that automatically justify undeletion? if not, why not? DES 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I will go now and vote for its deletion. - Haukur 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted it. The decision belongs with the TfD and nowhere else. unilaterally deleting something while votes are going on is an outrageous abuse of power. Unlike there are legal reasons why it must be deleted immediately or it is seriously deficient in a major way (eg, major error in formating, copyright issues, etc) a template should not deleted until a vote has been taken. It is disturbing that people would try to in effect highjack a vote by deleting a page in advance. It needs to be there for users to see it when voting. Deleting it before a vote has concluded is a gross abuse and little short of vandalism. FearÉIREANN\ 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have to question the motivations of the people who recreate the template without bothering to restore the tfd tag that should be accompanying it. User:Zoe| 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the deleted category: Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush. IMO this refusal to go through the proper channels is unacceptable. Izehar 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the category but removed the subsed copies of the suer box from the category page as provocative and not the sort of thing we normally include in category pages. DES 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see that User:Tony Sidaway has just deleted this for the fourth time in less than 24 hours -- really this is a bit much IMO. DES 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Template:User GWB by deleting it 4 times within the same 24 hour period . If anyone disgarees, feel free to unblock him. Izehar 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was taking only the sencond and subsequet deletes to be a "reversion" and so I warend him but felt that he was at but not over the limit. I'm not sure of policy on deletes, so i won't unblock. DES 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have had to undelete the page for a second time. This is absurd. What the hell has got into a handful of users??? It seems that we have an outbreak of popeitis, with some users deciding that they, and not the community, can decide on the issue. Some people may believe that the pope is infallible. But few people that admins posess the same ability. Frankly if vandals behaved the way some have behaved in unilaterally deleting templates I'd have no hesitation in banning them. I'm surprised and disappointed that Tony and Zoe have stooped to such behaviour. I expected better. FearÉIREANN\ 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. Sidaway came back after being unblocked by another user and did it again. I've blocked him again. Because I don't think the above block was an actual breach of 3RR (he had done 3RRs to an original move, not four) I've only made it a 24 hour block. As I did the block I'm not doing the undelete. Someone else if they wish can do that. After his antics tonight Sidaway has plummeted in my estimation. He grossly abused his position to highjack a vote. I have lost count of the number of what were IMHO stupid decisions on the TFD but highjacking a vote by preempting it like that is a big no-no. FearÉIREANN\ 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it isn't his first time to screw around with templates for deletion. Look at this! What the hell is he up to? Does he actually think tampering with templates mid TfD is acceptable behaviour? I'm flabbergasted at his antics. FearÉIREANN\ 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

just let it sit through tfd. it's a userspace template, ffs, I agree these are getting out of hand, but so far nobody objected to users voicing their political leanings on their own userpages. take a step back, people, edit-warring admins is a sad sight, but why Tony would jeopardize his adminship over a userspace template saying "we don't like GWB" is beyond me. Everybody is still free to say "I don't like GWB" on their userpages, manually, so what's the point. The problem with these templates (as with the "Wikipedians who" categories) is that they are not cleanly separated from article namespace. That's a generic problem unrelated to the GWB case. dab (ᛏ) 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. And guess what! It was deleted again, now by someone else. *sigh* FearÉIREANN\ 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

At last count, after several more iterations all 'round, TS unblocked, and template restored. I've filed a 3RR report rather than contribute to the admin-warring further, after my initial undeletion. Alai 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No hassle. The blocks didn't have effect for more than a few minutes and I hope you've now all toddled off to WP:DRV, the talk page of WP:CSD and er, well. edits here earlier today, where you'll find that I was acting on a substantial consensus to delete attack pages. Now we're all in the loop we go through more iterations.

Currently there is a page at Template:User GWB but it doesn't attack Bush and it doesn't incite vandalism on our article about Bush. It only disparages vandalism of that article, which is what the original author claims it was intended to do all along. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"no hassle" to you, maybe, but another blow to the battered "admins should behave above par" principle. "I was acting on substantial consensus" is never an excuse for edit warring, let alone 3RRvio, since if you were, there would have been plenty of other people willing to do the job for you. (un)delete once, or twice at most, then step down and let others deal with it. I don't care about the stupid template, just show some countenance when using admin privileges. dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of ever having edit warred. Policy was apparently changed without discussion to make 3RR apply to administrator actions--not something I have a problem with, though I find it unnecessary given the quick resolution of such scuffles as we often have. Blocking was entirely appropriate, the situation was resolved amicably and no harm was done.

On the template, it really strikes me as disingenuous to say that it isn't a personal attack because the subject is not known to be an editor. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be in the business of facilitating attacks on anybody, ever. It's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If the template is deleted in the middle of a vote, not-admins cannot see it and have a harder time casting an informed vote. Repeatedly deleting this during the vote is rather discourteous, I must say. I personally don't like this userbox or many of the other non-language ones, but repeated out-of-process deletions do have a negative impact on community spirit, and it is the community that builds the encyclopedia. Jonathunder 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have concluded, based on CheckUser evidence, that Bonaparte is running a sock farm. At the very least, Monor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boxero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets; he appears to be running a botnet or other collection of proxies to appear to be editing from different locations, but slipped up and executed some of each of Monor's and Boxero's edits from his home base instead of the remote proxies. Monor and Boxero should be blocked indefinitely. I leave the determination as to what should be done with Bonaparte to another admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked blocked them all indefinitely including Bonaparte but the block on Bonaparte is only until feedback can be gotten on how long the block should be and I support it being shortened if other admins think so. Jtkiefer ---- 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, votes cast in RfA by the socks:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/KillerChihuahua (Boxero)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Wgfinley (Boxero)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (Boxero)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Rogerd (2nd) (Monor)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Juro (Monor)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Aecis (Monor)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Husnock (Monor)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (Monor)

Kelly Martin (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you meant you've blocked them all, Jtkiefer? android79 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be yes:

01:23, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Bonaparte" with an expiry time of indefinite (malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet)

01:21, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Boxero" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sock of user Bonaparte)

01:21, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Monor" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sock of user Bonaparte)

--Calton | Talk 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget the "coincidence" that Bonaparte was one of the people questioning Kelly Martin's actions. Surely a coincidence that Kelly Martin is here banning people who disagree with her again. I mean, its not like she hates criticism. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive comments or are you simply interested in ad hominems? Carbonite | Talk 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, your repeated attacks on any and all admin actions have become as tiresome as Everyking's. And Everyking eventually had an ArbCom ruling against him. May I suggest you refrain? User:Zoe| 04:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will soon provide a list of anon accounts which revert warred at several articles following Bonaparte with deceiving summaries like "rv test" or "phrase from the article". I remember Chinese, Taiwanese, Australian and US ip addresses. When Mikkalai (talk · contribs) was reverting them, the newbie admin Ronline (talk · contribs) blocked Mikka and Mikka is still not editing because he seems like lost hope that WP may function.

The matter should be addressed quickly and decisively. If sockpuppet/IP farm used for revert-warring with the goal to provoke the opponents into 3 RR with a "friendly" or just clueless admin from a 3RR board placing a block is simply a fraud, using socks to derail an adminship nomination is a fellony, so to speak. --Irpen 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that while I am very happy that Bonaparte is gone (comment below) note that the "friendly admin", Ronline is a principled user. I don't think he was engaged in any game here. If anything, Mikkalai should have been smart enough to not fall into the trap of doing four reverts in three hours; those were not vandalism he was reverting; it may have been propaganda/biased wording, but not vandalism. So, Ronline has nothing to do with Bonaparte's sockpuppetry. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to carefully review a couple of policies; Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry, to begin with. It is good for you to say "thanks god he's gone" now, but where all you've been when I was single-handedly fighting him? I asked several Romanians to talk Bonaparte to senses. His ugliness was seen from his very fist edits, but I cannot get rid of an impression that he was a too good an Icebreaker for the Romania Mare cause to lose him. The ugliness of Romanian edotors' assault onto Moldova exceeds even "Balkan Wars" and "Middle East": over there all parties are in blood, so at least emotions of both sides are understandable. So I hold you and you (and you over there too) responsible for this loose cannon. It was also amazing to watch when Bonaparte started kissing asses all over wikipedia and quickly got himslef a big number of just so buddies. mikka (t) 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I was myself blocked when fending off attacks by Bonaparte's socks, as he logged out to eschew violating 3RR. It was just impossible to persuade admins that my actions were not vandalism. Fortunately, it's easy to recognize Bonaparte's style when he repeats his pseudo-admin statements ad nauseum: compare Take this a LAST warning and stop editing controversial edits on this page! Take this a LAST warning and stop editing controversial edits on this page! by Bonapate and Do not erase, do not erase, do not remove, do not remove!!! by the vandalizing anon who had me blocked. --Ghirla | talk 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. You stated above that you were unable "to persuade admins that actions were not vandalism." On the contrary, no admin accused you of vandalism. You violated the three-revert rule, regardless of other editors' actions. We now know that another user committed far worse policy violations, but that doesn't excuse your behavior. You had just reported a 3RR violation on the part of Anittas (blocked at exactly the same time as you), so you obviously were well aware of its existence. But again, had you contacted me via e-mail or your talk page, apologizing for your infraction and promising to edit responsibly, I would have unblocked you immediately. Instead, you evaded your block via an anonymous IP address (and disrupted a project page). Incidentally, you never answered my question regarding your claim that I am "not neutral." Were you implying that I'm biased against Russian people? —David Levy 18:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Loose cannon? My favorite expression for this relationship is pet trolling, a neologism I coined in conjunction with a different fellow of another Eastern European wiki-community. If this term gains usage, there may appear an article under this pet troll so far red link. I repeatedly called on established Romanian editors to deal with this person who placed the shame on the entire community to no avail. I was surprized by lack of condemnation and tolerant attitude from Ronline and Bogdan. The fellow was called "just misguided" sometimes but not a signle time he was condemned by the community which should have been ashamed by such a representation. I don't want to overgeneralize here. Some Romanian editors did agree with me that the issue had to be addressed but not those who Bonaparte claims to be his role models. Mild chastising was the most I've seen. --Irpen 22:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going to start using that term myself, Irpen - fabuluous phrase. Very apt in certain situations. KillerChihuahua 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see little reason to unblock Bonaparte. While I haven't particuarly been in a dispute with him, I've been in a position to observe his editing at length, and he has never shown the slightest sign of understanding, let alone following, the NPOV policy. He's been a key part of the recent massive flareup on Moldovan topics, and had made very little, if any, beneficial edits. This sockpuppetry is a new low, though, and I think gives us plenty of justification to block him permanently. Ambi 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, I very much hope so! Running a sock-farm for edit wars plus rigging the votes (and who knows how many other votes ArbCom, WP:RM, surveys were rigged) is definetely enough material to be blocked through an arbitration proceeding but they are way to lengthy. The monster case against another obvious disruptor is going for months and we still do not have a formal ArbCom decision to undo the bad faith redirects, even though the ArbCom votes are leaning to undo them, judging by the votes already cast.

There is a reason why there are words "administrator discretion" in our policies. If this isn't obvious enough, the Misplaced Pages is doomed. We cannot allow the malusers to waste so much time of good-faith editors better spent on improving Misplaced Pages. The amount of aggravation from a couple of users like this one is untenable for the project. --Irpen 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please keep him blocked. A true troll by all measures. I have plenty of evidence (in form of diffs) of personal attacks by this user. Hope he's gone. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My candid reaction would be "good riddance" (in addition to all the above, his idea of "mediation" seems to be more in line with "content dictator"). To be scrupulously fair, though, I doubt he'd be banned forever by the arbcom, so a block of on the order of a month might be preferable. OTOH, he always has the option of an arbcom appeal anyway... Alai 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Good work...I saw that User:Monor had been doing some voting and was newbie, now I'll go over to my nominee for adminship's page and ensure the vote isn't counted as he/she cast a support vote there. Perhaps a note needs to be placed on each Rfa voted on?--MONGO 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• As Bonaparte's self-professed mission is to advance "Great Romanian" agenda on Misplaced Pages and to have myself and Mikka ousted from editing, I'd like to point out this troll's long-standing obssession with his IP. I also suspect Bonaparte's socks are guilty of repeatedly vandalizing my user page: see here and here, for example. It would be nice to know if Bonaparte has a hand in this too... --Ghirla | talk 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked 212.179.19.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely as an open proxy. I was able to edit through it: diff. If anyone disagrees with my action, feel free to unblock it. Izehar 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm sure that User:Excaliburo is another sock of Bonaparte's. After as much experience with him as I had, I come to recognize his touch :) Hopefully someone will investigate.--Ghirla | talk 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The open proxy activity, likely by Bonaparte, continues. I reported this yesterday and the proxy was blocked. Right now IP 205.191.194.212 and IP 200.42.209.117 made Bonaparte-style edits to several articles with abusive edit summaries. I cannot check from where I am right now for open proxies. Someone, please do and, if indeed proxies, they should be blocked. --Irpen 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 205.191.194.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely as a proved open proxy. I was not however able to prove anything about 200.42.209.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Izehar 21:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Bonaparte was an active mediator on the mediation cabal, and acting as such, participated in a number of conflict resolutions. How many of these were done in bad faith we'll likely never know... FeloniousMonk 18:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well when he was "mediating" he didn't actually mediate but take a quick look at things and dish out ill-thought out judgements, which he had no authority to do, causing absolute chaos. Basically, a pain in the arse. — Dunc|☺ 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You may also look into User:Anittas as a sock. Bonaparte is often an unwaivering apologist of Anittas's behaviour --malber 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As a person closely involved in this Romanian thngy, I have reasons to believe these are two totally different people, judging from editing style and behavioral patterns. Of course, this leaves a chance of truly split personality... mikka (t) 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator, he was horrid and rather Draconian as Dunc said. For Romanian stuff, I'd have to look at his language usage in both English and Romanian (I'm a linguist -- not paid as one though, because I make way more money in IT.  :) ) Anyway, if we needed research in that realm, I'd gladly do it. Jim62sch 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte and Anittas are two different people. There is an RfC against Anittas for personal attacks. Ronline ✉ 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that Bonaparte shared in Anittas' homophobic attacks against Node. Or check this threat: If things don't go his way, Bonaparte promises that "Anittas and me will come and turn all them to dust. Let them disappear from there...". --Ghirla | talk 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator, he showed zero understanding of the term "mediation" and zero desire to learn. I was a little clearer in my criticism of him than perhaps was completely polite, I basically told him he was being a disruptive element and to stop - and why he voted for me on my Rfa is beyond me. Perhaps a misguided attempt to curry favor? Did he vote "oppose" in any Rfa? KillerChihuahua 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

His attempts at mediation usually consisted of presenting "deadlines" and trollish threats, e.g., "Close case. And I suggest you all of you to calm down or else I will start an RfC against all of you! I will accuse you of Anti-Romanianism if you don't get it!"--Ghirla | talk 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Inexhaustible vandalism from the UK Internet for Learning: range block warranted?

Explanation: I'm bringing the following out of the archive to discuss the returned vandalism by the IP block range owned by UK Internet for Learning. The following is my note on the vandalism to User:Demi:

I have just stumbled on your research at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive54#Recent_activity while trying to find out what has or can be done to deal with the massive amount of vandalism coming from the IP block 62.171.194.0 - 62.171.194.45 (owned by Research Machines/IFL up to 62.171.195.255, though no vandalism seems to be coming from the rest) which is the network for a school or several schools in the UK. You originally suggested that users be blocked individually for a few hours at a time. The vandalism seems to have died down during the holiday break but now is coming back in full force (except for the weekends). In particular, there have been some especially nasty edits like subtle word changes (bonds to bondage on Three Gorges Dam) and numerical changes (33% to 37% on Asch conformity experiments) that weren't caught for days and that I only caught because I was checking for vandalism from these users. This is in addition to countless incidents of blanking and childish vandalism, dozens happening just today (the 10th) during school hours.

Most of these IP addresses have been blocked 5-15 times, and it doesn't seem to be doing the trick. In fact, the vandals probably don't even notice they have been blocked most of the time. I propose blocking anonymouse users from the whole set (about .5 - .45) indefinitely, and allowing only valid user accounts (there is at least one administrator who accesses his user account from this range). Is this possible? I would hate to see dozens of people working hours each day to chase down and revert the changes these IP addresses make, not to mention the many harmful edits that might make it through unnoticed.

...It seems to me it is not worth the effort to continually warn, re-warn, block temporarily, and repeat. There must be a better way...

And following is User:Demi's response:

(copied from talk page)

You wrote:

I propose blocking anonymouse users from the whole set (about .5 - .45) indefinitely, and allowing only valid user accounts (there is at least one administrator who accesses his user account from this range). Is this possible?

Unfortunately it is not. When an IP range is blocked all edits from the range are blocked, including editors with user accounts. I was on the fence before about blocking the whole range, the fact that there is an admin editing from the range as well as an increase in vandalism. I would like other people's attention--would it be possible for you to copy the discussion out of the archive and bring it up on WP:AN/I again? Thanks so much for looking into it. Demi /_C 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This vandalism has occurred again extensively today (the 11th) in many IPs (I am only up to .13, from .5). Also of note is this instance in which 62.171.194.7 (now blocked for 31 hours) blanked a page and added "I will not stop until all IPs are not able to edit Misplaced Pages."

What can be done? This is extremely harmful to Misplaced Pages - who knows how much vandalism is slipping through the cracks? --Renesis13 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have just completed a check for vandalism from this range today. There are 19 IPs involved:

4 - 13

36 - 38

40 - 45

All vandalism from today has been reverted I believe. Now that school is out, we have about 18 hours before it starts again.

-- Renesis13 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email to ifl abuse yesterday on this subject matter and so far have received only an automated response. I did note in my email that their entire connection to Misplaced Pages might be blocked if they didn't deal with the vandalism. User:Zoe| 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

They appear to be all proxies.

etc. All the way up to webcache-25 (62.171.194.45). Sometimes packets come back from ge4.dist-01.core.th.ifl.net (217.180.8.193) with Packet filtered. Don't know if this helps in any way. - FrancisTyers 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Guessing from the name of this host and a traceroute, I'd say that the thing that is filtering the pings is one of their external gateways in telehouse. Of course this is pure conjecture. - FrancisTyers 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 62.171.194.0/26 (62.171.194.0 - 62.171.194.63) for 24 hours--because I'd like to give the abuse desk a chance to respond to Zoe. These 64 addresses are tighter than the 512 that were blocked before; we can hope this is the correct suballocation. Demi /_C 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I still have received no response from them. User:Zoe| 21:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RM aren't, in my experience, the most competent, nor the most helpful educational IT provider out there, and the South West Grid for Learning is a joke at times. You might not get one. Rob Church (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

From Archive

These IPs (and surely others that I haven't come across, and indeed the whole range) are registered to the UK Internet for Learning, according to notes on several of the talkpages:

• 62.171.194.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From them flows a steady, deep, inexhaustible river of childish vandalism into the encyclopedia. After quite some time spent sampling, I haven't found one single good edit from any of them, though I can't swear that one isn't hiding out somewhere, obviously. All the warnings posted on all the talkpages by all the ambitious Wikipedians have an air of pathos, if you read them all together. Don't we have enough to do? If the range is indeed static, and the sole purview of enthusiastically scrawling children, can it be blocked wholesale, by someone who understands the art of range blocking? Or can somebody who's better than me at navigating the intarweb find their way to someone in a position of responsibility at the UK Internet for Learning? Or, does anybody have any other suggestions? Please? --Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My thought is to block all of these and then wait for some feedback from any legitimate users. It seems to be a network which would go to all primary schools in the UK when it is built out. Fred Bauder 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

From whois "All abuse reports should be sent to abuse at ifl.net Fred Bauder 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There may be a handful of good edits in there - see the recent by User:62.171.194.12. Which is not to say that I object to massive blockage. FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to Fred Bauder, the whois indicates that Research Machines have sub-allocated 62.171.194.0/23 to ifl.net. --GraemeL 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... I ... see. (Not.) Could somebody get on it, please? Bishonen | talk 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

See Classless Inter-Domain Routing. 62.171.194.0/23 is a range of 512 IP addresses from 62.171.194.0 to 62.171.195.255. It's also the format that you use for range blocking on the block page. Personally, I would like to see a greater consensus here before we take action to indef block such a large range. --GraemeL 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do it. Just make sure the blocking admin has an email set and send a complaint at the same time.Geni 18:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I blocked 62.171.194.0/23 indefinitely. I sent an email to their abuse desk advising them of the block and the reasons that it was implemented. I also asked them if they subnet in any way that would enable us to reduce the size of the block and if they had any additional comments. --GraemeL 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:-) Outstanding. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Make sure that indefinitely means indefinitely and not infinitely! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable about potentially blocking every primary school in the country. It seems horrific. Secretlondon 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that 18 IP addresses cover every primary school in the country. I think that was a misconjecture on someone's part during the above research. In any case, I see no problem with blocking editing from a set of IP addresses which contribute 99% vandalism, including dozens of incidents per day. If these IP addresses are only used by schools, then I assume anyone with good intent would still have other opportunities (home/work) to contribute meaningful content. --Renesis13 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would probably only effect users accessing through the South West Grid for Learning. - FrancisTyers 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment... primary school is quite young. I have a child at one. I'm rather doubtful that a school would encourage children to edit wiki anyway... they tend to be sensitive to possible exposure to naughty things. So for a school to lose write access would probably be no big thing... though this is a guess. William M. Connolley 13:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

The X grid for learning aren't just for primary schools, but for secondary schools aswell. I doubt highly that the vandals are primary school pupils. I don't know what primary school is like now, but I'm doubtful as to whether, 1. the kids would have much unsupervised time on the internet, 2. that internet would not be a walled garden or something similar. It's been a while since I was in the school system though ;) - FrancisTyers 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I received an email indicating that this block is also affecting some libraries in the UK. I still haven't heard back from the ISP and I asked the user that mailed me to try and get the IPs of the library computers to see if I can work round that range with the block. Is this worth maintaining if we're going to cause collateral damage? --GraemeL 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds promising. They must divide that block of addresses up. Fred Bauder 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If we can get the library range (i.e. if the vandal fonts are, indeed, static), we can except them, but we need to be aware of the fact that libraries may be one of the sites of vandalism, and the only thing denied them now is the ability to edit. We're still good for researching on. The amount of spew the range was producing was truly staggering. Geogre 14:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking a wikibreak, so I removed the block on this range. Feel free to re-block it. --GraemeL 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent activity

In order to try to get a handle on what these folks have been up to, I've documented the contributions from all the IP addresses in this range (addresses with no contributions are not shown):

The "other" edits are good-faith attempts to create content, or at least, aren't clear vandalism (some of them have been reverted, some have not). Many of them are reversions of other edits from this range. The overall pattern seems to me that of schoolkids teasing each other using Misplaced Pages, and some other people (older students?) reverting them and sometimes adding content. The vandalism seems to come in short spates, and I'm guessing the IPs might correspond to workstations in a computer lab or school library. My gut feeling is not to re-block the IP range, but since the vandalism doesn't come very fast, to block the individual IPs as needed for short periods (but without separate warning). Demi /_C 08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalking

This is probably one situation where a "stalk" feature might be useful (i.e. the ability to watch a user and show all edits by that user on your watchlist, instead of just watching a set of articles). --cesarb 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is easy enough to place a link to a user's list of contributions on your user page or a page in your user space. You cna then visit that list any time. it is not integrated with your regualr watch list, but it fulfills the purpsoe pretty well. i have such a link on my user talk page right now. DES 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The integration is the key part, as if you want to watch 20 users you'd need to open 20 tabs. --cesarb 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Celestianpower

Sorry for the new section but I don't know where to put this. This is the IP address of my school's network so if it's blocked indef, I'll never be able to edit at school again. Am I allowed to unblock temporarily so I can edit, then reblock (like I have right now)? --Celestianpower 16:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, if the block is not directed at you (i.e. you are an innocent bystander who was hit as a side effect), you can unblock. --cesarb 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I support this interpretation. – Quadell 19:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, then I support the permenant blocking of this IP. --Celestianpower 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

When you say "this IP"--do you have a specific IP that you always get? Maybe we can block the others. 64 addresses isn't too much to block individually if necessary to make an exception for legit users. Demi /_C 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant "these IPs". Sorry. I usually come up with 62.171.194.6 and .9 but I'm sure its different in the various rooms around the school. --Celestianpower 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to leave the block for a week or so so that the users who have been adding vandalism in the past get used to not being able to edit? Then you could probably go ahead with unblocking for yourself without much risk of anyone trying to vandalize while its open. Another option is the 19 IPs that have contributed from that range could be blocked individually, and then you could unblock one at a time for whichever you come up with. Just a thought. -- Renesis13 06:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will only be unblocking briefly to make a few edits then reblocking, so no more vandalism should come out. Also, I plan to do this mainly out of school hours to reduce the risk. --Celestianpower 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I recieved this on my talkpage and thought it best to reply here:

Hey man, first of all, do you have access to "Internet preferences" ? Tools->options in Firefox, Tools->internet options in IE. If you do, you could try changing the proxy settings to just one of those IPs (its probably currently a round-robin) and then use that one and block all the others. If it is only set to one IP, this is probably some kind of local proxy that makes requests to a round-robin of upstream proxies. In this case, you can still try and make direct requests to the upstream proxies, but I don't know if it will work. Is your sysadmin a reasonable (and non-braindead) guy? You could ask him about it. If all else fails I can set you up some kind of HTTP/HTTP proxy. If you have no idea what I just wrote and you think you might be interested in it, feel free to email me. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First, no. I have no access to that. Second, no idea what on earth you're talking about ;). Third, he is, but he is so stressed at the moment with the huge problems with his new servers. It'll be a while before I can talk to him about it. Fourthly, sounds interesting - what does it entail? --Celestianpower 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin unblocking 'Fair Use' blocks

Yesterday, I noticed a blatant 'fair use' violation on User:Sansvoix's userpage. He had redirected his userpage to an earlier version (in the history) to circumvent the removal of a 'fair use' tagged image, and display it on his page. Looking at his talk page, I noticed a number of warnings and policy explanations (by Gmaxwell and others), and reference to the WP:FU policy. So I blocked him for 24 hours - with a note saying I would lift the block if he indicated an agreement to abide by policy. I was met only with his legal arguments on copyright, so the block remained.

Some hours later, User:SlimVirgin undid the block, with the summary: There is no basis in policy for this block. She did not discuss this with me, although I was on-line, but did inform me by e-mail. She indicated her ignorance of the law and status of the image, but her view that User:Gmaxwell had been 'bullying' her and User:Sansvoix.

Not finding this acceptable, I reapplied the block. Explaining to Slim my reasons, my disappointment at her lack of discussion, and inviting her bring the matter here if she still disagreed . Instead of that, she undid the block again, and suggested that I was acting at Gmaxwell's behest . (I have never in my wiki-life interacted with Gmaxwell AFAIK). She also suggested that the image in question might be pd, and at any rate the user seemed to believe it was.

This isn't primarily a moan at Slim (although her recent complaints about others undoing her blocks, see a bit rich. And she seems too personally involved with the parties involved to be acting as an admin on this issue - that's why I suggested that she brought it here.). My questions for fellow admins are. 1) Are copyright blocks policy? 2) Can images tagged as fair use be used if the user disputes the status? 3) Was I wrong to block or reblock this user?.

I realise we are developing rules on this as we go along - so I'm happy to be guided. --Doc 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy is what we do. The policy that is written down often poorly represents actual policy. It's written as we go. The block sounds completely sensible to me, as copyright is a very important isseu. --Phroziac _. o º 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Let's find those edits made by User:Jimbo Wales that make it clear that repeated copyright violations are grounds for blocking. They should then be added to WP:BP.
2. That way lies madness.
3. Given my impression that User:SlimVirgin usually makes good decisions, I'm reluctant to speculate without more information. Jkelly 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1)No, it's not in WP:BP, but Jimbo has indicated an unsympathetic approach to wilful copyright infringement (he has specifically said we can and should block for it).

Uhm you might want to open your eyes... it is in there :)  ALKIVAR™ 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2)Personally, (IANAL), but I figure that unless the image is clearly under a free license, editors can't decide to have it on their userpage. If there is no source on the image proving that it is free, especially in cases of PD assertion, then I'm inclined to insist on a source, tag as a {{no license}} or {{PUI-disputed}} in the meantime and remove from userspace in the interim. There's no critical hurry if there's a dispute, unless the disputation is plainly frivolous.

3)Probably not and probably not. -Splash 16:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Yes (continuation) (here, too).

2) No (here, too).

3) No. —Cryptic (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been seeing Fair Use messages on SlimVirgin's talk page, as if she is involved in a dispute about use of "fair use" images on her User page. One of them is User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive24#Fair_use_on_your_userpage (SEWilco 16:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

The user was sufficiently warned; I don't see why the block shouldn't stand, at least until the user agrees not to keep reverting the page or placing other unfree images on it. WP:FU states "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum." As Splash notes, Jimbo has stated that we can and should block for this. If the user agrees not to place any more unfree images on his/her userpage, it can be lifted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the user is currently unblocked (although he says he's left) --Doc 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The offending image (Image:Littleprince-businessman.jpg) is, in fact, considered to be in the public domain in Canada. (See Misplaced Pages:Copyright situations by country for details.) It is not, however, considered PD in the United States. Here is the page with the offending image, and here it is without it.

In order for the block to be valid, we would have to assume two things:

1. . . .that if a user places an image on his userpage that is PD in his own country, but copyrighted in the U.S., he can be blocked for this.

   That sounds a little fishy to me. I'm not sure I agree with this. Maybe, but I'm not yet convinced.

2. . . .that there is a legal difference between showing a "fair use" image in an article, and showing a fair use image in a history page for an article.

   Legally, it would seem to me that this is invalid. For example, let's say I added a picture of a TV show character to my user page. This would probably not be a fair use of the image. If I then removed it, would the violation be removed? You can still see the page in the page history. If the copyright holder wanted to sue, I'm not sure it would make any difference whether the image was "removed" or not. Either way, Misplaced Pages is hosting a viewable violation. This is troubling, since a solution would require either a change in Misplaced Pages's fair use policy or a software modification, and I think this is an area that could be better debated elsewhere. So I'll skip this one.

3. . . .that it is a blockable offense for me to link to a previous version of a page if that page contains a copyright violation.

   Again, this sounds fishy to me. By linking to the previous version of the page in question, above, am I violating policy? I don't see how it could be acceptable for Misplaced Pages to host the page history and allow people to see it, but unacceptable for someone to link to it.

In conclusion, Doc, I would say you might have been justified by re-instating the block. But given Slim's personal request, it would have been more civil of you to discuss it here first. (As an aside, Doc, it sounds like you're saying that your reversion of Sansvoix's page and blocking of him was unrelated to Gmaxwell's admonition that "you may not use fair use images on your user page. If you do so again I will ask a third party to block you from editing." Is this really what you're saying?) – Quadell 18:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Gmaxwell has never communicated with me, not I with him. I did note, from the talk page, that the user had been warned. That's all.--Doc 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Point 2 doesn't require a software modification: all it takes is for an admin to delete the whole page, then do a selective restore of the history (ie, restore everything except for the versions that include the copyvio image). --Deathphoenix 18:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But that's still a lot of work every time someone adds an image to a page. – Quadell 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, the blocking policy quotes Jimbo as saying "such activities", but doesn't say what he was referring to. He was referring to the case of *drew copying text from IMDB into Misplaced Pages. That is a clear case: the text was obviously copyrighted; "fair use" text isn't allowed on Misplaced Pages; and the text would not have been appropriate anywhere on Misplaced Pages. In this case, none of the three apply. The image was not considered copyrighted in Canada, an obvious source of doubt; fair-use images are allowed in Misplaced Pages (so long as they are actually used fairly); and the image is used legally on the Little Prince page. For all these reasons, this is not a clear-cut case, and it is arguable whether Jimbo's admonition about "such activities" applies. – Quadell 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless you mean something obscure, "fair use" text is "allowed" on Misplaced Pages. We claim "fair use" whenever we quote copyrighted material, from books, song lyrics, etc. This just doesn't tend to get controversial until somebody reproduces an entire work, like the IMDB instance, which is the equivalent of reproducing an entire image. Jkelly 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good point. But we can reproduce whole copyrighted images, so long as we make a fair-use rationalle. We can't reproduce whole texts. – Quadell 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've explained to Doc Glasgow why I lifted the block, once by e-mail and once on his user page. Gmaxwell has been (as I see it) bullying a number of users, myself included, about images on their user pages, including threatening to block them, though I can't find his name on the admin list. I don't want to get involved in the fair-use debate, because I know nothing about it, but whatever the rights and wrongs, editors shouldn't be bullied and harassed about images, but should be approached with civility. Gmaxwell was very rude to me, and Sansvoix spoke out on my behalf. Because of that, Gmaxwell turned his attention to Sansvoix and removed an image from his page too that Sansvoix believed was PD. Whatever the status of the image, removing it looked vindictive because the two of them were in dispute, and so Gmaxwell should have asked someone else to look at it. When Doc Glasgow removed another image, Sansvoix assumed he was acting on behalf of Gmaxwell, and Sansvoix responded by redirecting his user page to an earlier version with the image on it, for which he was blocked.

The whole situation is the result of a nasty dynamic started by Gmaxwell's (in my view) unnecessary aggression, and I ask that everyone involved try to resolve it without recourse to blocks. Sansvoix appears to have left because of it, though I hope he'll reconsider, I am close to leaving myself, and I know of a third editor who has been subjected to the same treatment by Gmaxwell, who I fear may consider going too.

This aggression over fair-use images has to stop, especially in cases where there is room for doubt and the editors are acting in good faith. Whatever Jimbo has said about images, I don't believe he would approve of the way this has been dealt with. I dislike undoing other people's blocks, but I don't want to see Sansvoix leave over this. SlimVirgin 18:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

New solution: how about we just nuke the photo from our servers? Zach 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? The image is being used legally at The Little Prince. – Quadell 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Zach has in fact deleted one of the images out of process, http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/Image:Kamelia_shojaee.jpg even though it was being used appropriately (even if it's fair use) in Culture of Iran until Gmaxwell removed it, and in fact is likely to be PD anyway. SlimVirgin 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think Gmaxwell is being incivil in his dealing with fair use images on userpages, that's one thing; take it up with him. But if a user absolutely refuses to remove fair use images from their userpages, they shouldn't be allowed to edit their userpages. This is a question both of legal culpability, and moral concerns associated with stealing other people's property. "I wanted to do it" doesn't override either, ever. --Ryan Delaney 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the image should have been removed. The question is whether the user should have been blocked for linking to an old version of the page. – Quadell 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think so. Linking to your history is a sort of malicious obedience. I don't think users should always have to "obey" admins, but when they are in violation of copyright law and don't want to comply on their own, they need to be made to. --Ryan Delaney 19:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we begin to out-vote the law, can anyone find an argument to justify fair use in non-article space? To re-phrase the last sentence, we are building an encyclopedia, and must sometimes use copyrighted images images to illustrate some subject matter. That's the essence of "fair use". But why would the use of copyrighted matter on a userpage be "fair"? Pilatus 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "I found this really useful image to illustrate this article: aren't I clever?" which would seem to be in line with a fair proportion of the "boast-sheets" many user-pages contain. You might argue that the image should be linked in-line, YMMV, but referring to its discovery and use would appear to be fair comment. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't acceptable for a copyrighted image to be used in non-article-space. The arbcom (at least all who spoke up) was unanimous in this. But in this case, the user thought the image was PD - and he was right, at least in Canada. The image should probably have been removed, but it should have been done politely, and with careful discussion, without resorting to blocks except as a last resort. – Quadell 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can certianly suggest cases where the use of such images might well be legal under US copyright law. Most of thes uses that people have made of such images on user pages probably do not so qualify, however. In any case, current foundation policy bars such use even if legal, which means that the queation of what the law permits is of only limnited relevance -- the first question is what our policy permits and what it should permit. Obviously we should not permit illegal actions, but we are not at all required to permit every action that is legal or that might arguably be legal. Vandalism, andf PoV editing is legal, but we forbid it. (By the way someone above said that there is no "fair use" text on wikipedia. That is simply incorrect. Every time that an article quotes a book in disccusing it, that quote is used under fair use. Much the same applies to most quotes from sources. There are probably hundreds of times as many instances of text being used under fair use as ther are of images. But since such fair use is obviously appropriate and is unlikely to lead to leagal action, no issue has been made of it.) DES 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to gently encourage anyone who has any reason at all to think that a user might be suspicious of their motives to not take it upon themselves to be the one to discuss the "fair use" in userspace issue with that user. It can easily have the effect of making an important conversation much more difficult. Jkelly 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I find the actions SlimVirgin has taken here very hypocritical given that I also unblocked a user twice, and she has accused me of "wheel warring" a number of times (for example here). Given that she's recently started a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard talk page about undoing other admins' blocks without discussion, where she argued "it's damaging if every block is likely to be undone" and categorically stated "my own policy if I disagree with a block is to try to persuade the blocking admin to undo it, but otherwise not to interfere", it greatly surprised me to see she unblocked Sansvoix - not once but twice, fitting her own definition of wheel warring - without discussion. I argued on the discussion to assume good faith in contributors and to unblock if in doubt. To repeat SlimVirgin's comments back at her, in a beautifully ironic coincidence, I'm glad to see that SlimVirgin has seen the error of her ways. ;-) Talrias (t | e | c) 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's starting to look like a personal attack, Talrias. I can't see how that comment is at all useful to the rest of us, except for disparaging Slim. – Quadell 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a personal attack. It's the true facts, with honest opinion on her actions. I think there is an inconsistency between what she has said and what she has done. Stating that is not a personal attack. The comment is useful because it allows editors to form their own opinion about her actions based on the facts, rather than opinion. Please consider the facts I have included in my comment there and decide for yourself whether SV's actions were appropriate or not. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It struck me as a personal attack as well, and you have a history of personal attacks aimed at SV, for which you've been previously warned . FeloniousMonk 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong to use one of the words I did in the diff you cited, and I immediately revoked it. In fairness, I was provoked by a string of mischaracterisations of my behavior on both Misplaced Pages and the mailing list, some blind reverts she did of my edits (which she later admitted was wrong), and starting various discussions about my actions without specifically mentioning my name. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, blatant copyright infrinment (i.e copying a text verbatim and creating an article) is grounds for a block (after warning), however, fair use images seem a bit more dubious to me. Yes, it probably isn't fair use to use the image in the userspace, but IMO, that is up for debate. I think there needs to be a community wide vote on what specific rules we have on fair use images in the userspace and what type of punishments we can impose on those who violate them. Until that happens, I think all fair use releated blocks, including yours Doc, are wrong. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah generaly if they don't coperate it's probably simplest to remove the images then protect the page. Not that I've had to resort to this yet.Geni 03:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Greg but you can't hold a vote over legal issues as they are a concern for the Foundation and not the community. In any case, the users behavior called for the block... he was being a jerk about it. Unless you think calling Anthere a psychopath is acceptable (true, the user had confused us and was just trying to attack me...) --Gmaxwell 05:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But the foundation hasn't explicitly stated their opinion on this, and until they do, I don't think unliateral actions like this are okay. And the block in question isn't about him being a jerk, it's about the fair use image. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation has stated over and over again, in symbolic and literal ways, that we need to abide by copyright law. I don't think we need some special announcement to know that using copyrighted images for decorating user pages is legally questionable and exposes the project to pointless legal risk. Demi /_C 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy and legality

To sum up the most important point made here: if Wikimedia Foundation policy says "no fair use justifications for images on user pages", that should settle the matter, since that is who owns this site. If I were to write a record review on my user page, and claim "fair use" for a picture of the record jacket as an illustration, I could be violating policy, even though legally the fair use justification would be exactly the same as in article space. If the Foundation has not made such a policy, then the same fair use standards apply as in article space. DES seems to be saying that policy bars this. Greg Asche seems to be saying it does not. Does anyone have clarity on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask the foundation about it? Whether they agree with me or not, I think we need some clarity. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the juriwiki-l mailing list still exist? It's about damn time someone laid this to rest. Rob Church (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

New bans placed on Huaiwei and Instantnood

I have banned both Huaiwei and Instantnood from Char siu, List of railways in China, and Guangshen Railway for the duration of their probation periods. They have continued sterile edit wars, despite all of the warnings and previous bans. Earlier up on this page I said I would unprotect Guangshen Railway and ban them if they restarted the edit war (ie, protection is a means to allow dispute resolution to take place, but here we can enforce an end to the dit war without it), and it has restarted, even after the latest ban yesterday (above). I find almost no productive edits, just continued alterations of wordings and format, back and forth, with snippy unproductive edit summaries, and little or no discussion of reverts on talk pages (since they already thoroughly know what the other will say). In fact, I'm sure there are other articles where they are doing the same thing, and I hope this will send some kind of a message. I urge admins to take a look at this situation and scrutinize their edit wars, as it's been going on entirely too long. This action is, of course, up for review. Dmcdevit·t 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And Another....

They don't seem to want to stop, I have now added Queensway to the growing list. It's sad really, it's a pretty innocuous disambig page but there had to be a Queensway in Hong Kong so of course the Huaiwei and Instant battle had to be carried there. --Wgfinley 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is now a log to record bans annd blocks in this case. Please add yours. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea, I have done so. I also did a 24 hr block on Instantnood for this edit on Char siu, he "turned himself in" and apologized on my talk page, saying he didn't realize he was banned from that one so I made the block for 24 hrs as opposed to the 48 for Huaiwei. I still thought it merited a block for him to consider reviewing the articles he's being banned from. --Wgfinley 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Still More

I added another this evening, List of cities in China is now also on the list. I was hopeful banning on a few articles and the blocks would send the message, I'm starting to grow concerned that it is not and more serious measures will be needed. --Wgfinley 10:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbecued pork with rice was added for Huaiwei, I protected and requested the parties to sort it out on talk. Huaiwei indicated he was more interested in what happened in other articles, this is de facto edit warring to me so I banned him from the page. --Wgfinley 01:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly protests this action on the part of Wgfinley. That was a discussion page, not the article page, and using my comments here as basis for a page ban is sending a message to everyone that perhaps all of us should stop using discussion pages least they be used as basis for administrative actions which are not fought over in the article itself? And I find it absolutely ridiculous for Wgfinley to say that I appear "much more interesting in bringing up other arguments and other articles without any reference to this one.", when the conversation he refers to was ignited by comments made by instantnood , which included the words "A similar debate is around the Singapore-centric set up of the bakkwa article (see talk:bakkwa)" That he considers this evidence of "edit warring" on my part alone is completely baseless. Impartiality on the part of Wgfinley is sorely missed here, and I am inclined to think he is also reacting based on discussions taking place in User talk:Huaiwei.--Huaiwei 02:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Supreme court

These two are battling over the designation of Hong Kong in ths list. What is the procedure for stopping them editing specific articles? --TimPope 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that one was blatant and obvious, I have banned them both now from that article. Contact and admin to evaluate and see if they are violating their probation, that one is a no-brainer. --Wgfinley 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

Does Misplaced Pages have a clear stance with reference to Holocaust denial? I ask because of the conversation now going on at Talk:Budapest#Please delete Holocaust promotion from Budapest page. Frankly, it is straining my limits to stay within the bounds of civility there. It is possible that I am misreading the remarks by Bloblaw, but it reads to me as if, besides questioning the mention of the Holocaust in this particular article, he is saying that it is POV to make an unqualified assertion that the Holocaust occurred. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on the article talkpage. As for the more general issue, I don't think any opinions should be verboten in Misplaced Pages. Someone can think that Santa Claus or Xenu is real, that the moon landing was a hoax, or that the holocaust is a fabrication. What they cannot do is force these opinions into articles over the objection of a consensus of editors citing reliable sources. But we don't need a special stance for holocaust denial. Babajobu 07:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a special stance, but we shouldn't let fringe groups influence content in a wide range of unrelated articles. For instance, WTC conspiracy theorists have tried to rewrite conservation of energy to express the belief that the release of energy during the building collapse "disproves" the laws of physics. I see this as similar to a holocaust denier attempting to influence the content of Budapest. It is fine to explain the beliefs of holocause deniers in Holocaust denial. Outside of that article, we can deal with widely accepted historical facts, without the need to make concessions to the holocaust deniers, who in truth are a tiny minority. NPOV doesn't require us to give their opinion every time we mention a holocaust-related statistic. This falls under the "undue weight" clause. Rhobite 07:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, but there isn't much harm if they keep it on the talk page (unless it gets really excessive).--Sean|Black 08:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. I was saying they were entitled to mention their position on the talkpage, but not to have it inserted into the article over the consensus of reliable sources that rubbishes their opinion. I don't think that sort of opinion has a place in the Budapest article at all, just as the belief that the moon landing was a hoax has no place in an article that mentions the landing only in passing. Babajobu 08:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On that note, one of the most popular vandalisms on my watchlist is adding "allegedly" to Neil Armstrong... Shimgray | talk | 12:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

About User:Bloblaw specifically, this attack convinces me that he will probably never be a worthwhile editor: "You are very likely a Zionist shill paid to police the internet media by your ideologic handlers." i.e. the Jewish media conspiracy. He also believes that all Muslims are holocaust deniers. Nothing wrong with blocking people like him after a few of these anti-semitic rants. Rhobite 08:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful here, Rhobite because Antizionism (article sorely missing) is rarely if at all Antisemitism. Especially Israel itself has become a hotbed of antizionism, which is no wonder because these people, being semites for the most part, suffer directly from Zionism. A growing number of antizionist Jews and Palestinians are more than just sick and tired of the murder and mayhem perpetrated by Zionism, both by Zionism and by retaliation against Zionism. Please keep this in mind, calling you a "Zionist shill paid to police the internet media for ideologic handlers" is albeit dumb, not antisemite. It's pretty much the same logic as most people abhor socialism and communism and still do not hate the German or Russian people who had these ideologies foisted upon them unwillingly. To Bloblaw should he or she be reading I have this to say: They don't have to PAY most people to police the "internet media" because their "ideologic handlers" (i.e. their school, university, television etc) have done such a fine job that people do it for free. (However I might add: reality is what you make of it and do try to question your conditioning, willya everybody :-) )

As far as Holocaust Denial is concerned, it is highly illegal to do publicy deny the Holocaust in Germany no matter how compelling the uncovered evidence one has against the official historic record. Just think about Mr. Zuendel of Zundelsite who was extradited to Germany to stand trial for it. In the same vein, people denying the Holocaust online (no matter where they live in the world and what their local laws may be on this), they fulfill the criteria for prosecution under the relevant articles of the German Penal Code and in theory may find themselves extradited to Germany. I'm saying in theory, because up to now they've only gone after high profile cases. 84.160.220.48 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went the gentler route and put the "welcomenpov" template on his talkpage. He hasn't edit warred, just argued and attacked on talk pages. If he keeps it up, though... Babajobu 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cypriot stud

This user has been waging a quixotic campaign to change the nationalities of second-generation Americans from "American" to "multiethnic American-born", and similar such gems . He has so far been asked to stop by Arniep, Woohookitty, RandalSchwartz, Eurosong and Extraordinary Machine among others, but to no avail. This has been going on for several weeks, and is causing substantial disruption by clogging up the edit histories. I would be considering a block, but I think I'm too involved in the matter. Any help would be welcome. Mark 14:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm digging through this. Give me a minute. – Quadell 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Cypriot_Stud has a valid disagreement over the interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies). Even if he is asked to stop, it's not clear at this point that he's wrong. We need to establish consensus before we resort to blocking. (Of course if he clearly goes against consensus, that's another matter.) The debate is currently going on here. In the meantime, I'd advise that no one revert these changes either way until we know what consensus is, and I let Cypriot_Stud know this as well here. (By the way, Mark, you were right to bring this here instead of making the block yourself.) – Quadell 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this not a legitimate disagreement as everyone disagrees with him including the manual of style. He seems to believe that somehow people are not really American but an amalgamation of whatever ethnicities that come from somewhere else and thus tries to add "American born" and of x, y and z descent at the top of every article that he finds. Arniep 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not "everyone" disagrees. Just because you find someone's arguments unconvincing, that doesn't make the disagreement invalid. The manual of style's declaration is ambiguous, as some believe "nationality" refers to ethnicity as well as citizenship, and some do not. Please let's wait and see what the consensus is, instead of reverting. – Quadell 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Arniep here. I think the consensus is fairly clear. Even if it were not, editors who disagree are jsut as free to revert this as over any content or style dispute, although discussiuon is always better than revert warring. If a consensus on a particular page is clear, editing in opposition to it may become disruptive. DES 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this hasn't even been discussed (except on cyp's talk page) for even 24 hours at this point, I wouldn't say that the consensus is clear yet. Give it some time. What's the rush? – Quadell 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken -- I was engaged in a discussion of this over a week ago. I don't recall the precise page, off hand, but I can find it, I'm sure. DES 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, please see this series of edits, adn later ones in the same section of the same MoS talk page. That is 10 days ago. DES 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But I still don't think consensus is yet clear, and I'd like to give it a little more time. – Quadell 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for nearly a month now and we have discussed it endlessly on various pages including Talk:Jennifer Aniston. It is clear this user is going against everyone else's opinion as I don't see anyone else reverting his way so what he is doing has now become disruption. Arniep 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually this has been going on since November so it is even more important to stop this disruption now. Arniep 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Arniep, and I don't believe the definition of Nationality is ambiguous at all. Even assuming it was ambiguous, consider the original intent of the Manual of Style - do you think it really wants editors to define every person's ethnicity in the first paragraph of their biography? I think User:Cypriot stud is missing the point and for some reason campaigning to fulfill every technicality of his interpretation of the MoS. The argument is just silly. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies) does NOT intend nationality to mean ethnicity; the only reason we need consensus is to modify the policy to make it unquestionably clear that it doesn't. -- Renesis13 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is that he did not get his own way in highlighting Aniston's greek ethnicity at the top of the article (the user is himself Greek Cypriot) so he set out to make a WP:POINT by trying to replace nationality with ethnicity on Michael Douglas, Kirk Douglas, Lauren Bacall among others. Arniep 00:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If another admin is convinced that he violated WP:POINT, I won't object to a 24-hour block - I'm just not convinced enough that it's warranted to do it myself. It seems he has stopped, though, at least temporarily, so it's probably moot. If you think it's clear what "nationality" means, go state your opinion. If you already have, in a couple days I'll deal with it by announcing consensus (if it's clear), and if anyone repeatedly reverts against consensus, they can be blocked for that. Quadell 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

it's pretty obvious that the consensus is against him already, just look at the messages on his talk page User_talk:Cypriot stud. Arniep 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I wasn't involved in the dispute regarding nationalities, but I commented on his talk page in response to his edits to Katie Melua in which he changed the section headers against WP:MOS guidelines ("Early life" to "Early Life" etc., see ), despite being asked not to before. However, I don't think that he's a deliberately disruptive editor, just unaware of the importance of the MOS (though as I said, I haven't been involved in the nationalities dispute). On a related note, are administrators allowed to use the rollback feature for MOS violations? I thought that it was only supposed to be used in response to vandalism or spam. I'm not an administrator, so I don't know much about this. Extraordinary Machine 19:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jonah Ayers/Biff Rose

I have blocked Jonah Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some associated IPs and usernames, for one week due to persistent disruption. The most recent incidents have been vandalism of a user's page. The editor has been very disruptive to the project, including abuse of sock puppets and harassment of editors. -Will Beback 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

it is apparent that the vandalism Jonah Ayers points to by Sojambi Pinola is actual. this block may very well be unwarranted abuse by an administrator.Wallawe 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wallawe" is most likely another Jonah Ayers sock puppet. -Will Beback 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is apparent that this was Wallawe's fourth edit. · Katefan0/mrp 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

New socks, user:Kevin hopetter and user:216.244.3.79, blocked for the same duration. -Will Beback 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:LawAndOrder

LawAndOrder (talk · contribs) just spammed a bunch of pages b3gz0ring for votes from people who voted oppose on William M Connolly's RFA. Time to hang this sock out to dry, please. -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I knew this was a bad idea. —Ilyanep (Talk) 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's sockcheck it for SEWilco first. :) Phil Sandifer 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked LawAndOrder for 24 hours for this blatant violation of WP:POINT. Ambi 01:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's SEWilco. I think it's a combination of WP:POINT and the user's hatred of myself (why, I'm not exactly sure). Ral315 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is SEWilco either. SEWilco wasn't targeting "oppose" voters. Maybe someone should ask. (SEWilco 06:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

School IP blocked, please review

209.226.83.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) does lots of vandalism and no good edits, as far as I've seen from my sampling (I expect there are a few helpful edits hiding in there if you look hard enough). It resolves to ns.hpedsb.on.ca, and a note at the top of the talkpage implies that it's a school with a static IP. I have blocked it for one week (please just look at the talkpage before you lynch me), and I request that someone with a better head for these things would kindly check; if it's not in fact static IP, it must of course have a block of at most 24 hours (of less, IMO). I left a note, I hope prominently enough, on the talkpage to explain that there's a lot of vandalism coming in from the school and for students to please ask the IT administrator to e-mail me to work something out. I absolutely don't want to keep a school blocked for a week, any more than other people do, but I just don't see the point of having all those warning templates waste their sweetness on the desert air. We need to do something more practical in these cases. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

Nah, this is definately a static IP. Judging from the name, its a nameserver, and seems to be responding to dns queries. - FrancisTyers 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Full many a t*rd is born to stink unsmelled. The talk page is a work of art: they've got warnings and blocks going back nearly 3 years. Students can still research on Misplaced Pages while blocked, and, honestly, what they have to write from the school can be accomplished by setting up a named account. They haven't seen fit to do so in all this time, so it's highly unlikely that there is going to be editorial damage from the block. Geogre 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What G said is exactly what I was planning to say while reading this. Students can still read WP so it doesn't affect those who want to research. Finally resolving Bug #550 might help in this too. —Ilyanep (Talk) 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a static IP address for a domain controlled by the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board. This board, like all others in Ontario, provides a number of services for its schools, including internet access/routing. Thus, this IP address provides access to 54 schools in the district (of which only eight are high schools), plus to staff of the school board itself. This block is far more aggressive than you may have intended. Perhaps it is better to simply contact the board's IT department and work in conjunction with them - they certainly won't want to be associated with vandalism and trolling. Mindmatrix 20:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. No, I didn't intend to block 54 schools, it was exactly to ensure against something like that that I posted here. I'll leave the contacts to abler pens (=to somebody who knows what they're doing with IPs, IP ranges, and district boards; where's User:Hall Monitor when you need him?). Unblocked. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unitheism

The article Unitheism needs some serious attention, as it has been the subject of vandalism, POV pushing, and some complete nonsense. -- Jonel | Speak 02:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, so we either get a definition by the guy who coined the term, or a disambiguation page to three things that "unitheism" doesn't actually refer to... Yeah. -GTBacchus 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation was a quick revert to something coherent. I didn't know anything about the topic and didn't expect to have much time today to learn about it, so I brought it here. Turns out I have got some time today, and having done some more research into it, I agree that AfD is the way to go as the term is a neologism (and, incidentally, all four of the disambig page items were erroneous). -- Jonel | Speak 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Aren't neologisms a case for AfD? Aren't dictdefs something for Wiktionary? (Yeah, I know: I think deletion is the answer for everything. It is, you know.) Geogre 11:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I said "definition", I guess I really meant "short essay". I can't think of a way to construe it that isn't AfD-able. -GTBacchus 16:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Maoririder

This guy is quite a problem, as anyone who has run across his edits will know. At the end of last year, after a series of bewildering edits, and a course of mentoring which didn't work at all, he was banned for a week. After the week was up, there was no sign of Maoririder... but up popped User:Jingofetts, with an identical style, and eventually he revealed himself to be Maoririder. Having lost his password, he had simply come back with a new user name. So far so good, except that his extremely distinctive editing style hadn't improved any, and in his first week back, he was blocked again. Now Jingofetts has fallen silent, and we have User:MaoJin. Exactly the same MO, and the user page says that the user "lost password".

Something needs to be done about this guy. It's fairly clear that his intentions are good, but it's a hell of a job mopping up after him - unintentional vandalism would be the best way to describe it. And since he keeps losing his password and coming back with a new name, it's never easy to know where he'll pop up next. Cleaning up his patent attempts at stub-templates alone takes long enough... he seems to have a fixation with using as many templates as possible (have a look at this for a fine example. So, what to do? Grutness...wha? 12:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

d'oh! should also have noticed the name: Maoririder/Jingofetts. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole, as with the B-Movie Bandit back in the day. We've spent enough time on this guy. Ambi 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

From my limited experience at the Reference Desk, I did note he often asked childish, though legitimate, questions. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, he became obsessed with the word "nigger" which caused a lot of problems. Rhobite 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

He accused several users, including me, of calling him by that word, and became very disruptive about it. android79 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, the B-movie bandit. Those were the good days. Ilyanep 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

AAAH! Where'd my sig go? Ilyanep 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up here, Grutness. Maoririder is currently under mentorship following an ArbCom case filed against him. I and several other users have been trying to help him. I'll try and deal with this, but if anyone notices that he's using any other accounts, please let me know or post here. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that MaoJin has been caught by the followign block: 13:22, 12 January 2006, Hall Monitor blocked 169.244.143.115 (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (severely high ratio of vandalism from this IP; please contact an administrator to have this block removed) DES 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised people think this user's intentions are good. He admits to trolling here: . He has not only done a great deal of damage but did so with full intent. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a combination of assuming good faith and the fact that he seems (hm.. how to say this delicately...) not the sharpest needle in the box. Personally I suspect some form of mild intellectual/psychological problem, but I also feel it's wrong to speculate too much on that without evidence other than his bizarre edits. Grutness...wha? 08:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Maoririder is currently under mentorship. This doesn't seem to be going particularly well considering he has yet to give any indication that he has read WP:YFA, as you have asked him (on many occasions). --TheParanoidOne 12:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at his contributions and his user page for that matter I first have to grope for a political correct way to express myself here. I have to agree, saying he is not the sharpest needle in the box is probably the nicest way of putting it - but this is by no means me passing a judgement of such magnitude out of hand over someone I have never met in person, but merely the impression I get reviewing his contributions. I would also like to note that I know personally a few people that are not considered particularily bright but in the end all that is "amiss" with them is that they take a bit longer to think things through. Interestingly enough, sometimes they come up with anwers and insights that elude most of us "smart" people. Now as far as Maoririder is concerned, the situation we are put in with him is not one of our or his making but a result of misguided, ill politics taken to the extreme that do much harm and little good to both sides of the equation. However it is not our place to try to convince this individual not to remain in this project do to his mental ineptitude and thus I recommend more mentoring and damage control where possible. The vandalism Maoririder engaged in recently, I would ask you to let that slide in this case. I think he vandalized that page more out of frustration than anything else. 84.160.220.48 00:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

vandal at wikinews

193.39.158.195 see his http://en.wikinews.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=193.39.158.195 all he does is vandalize... please ban.

Sorry, but Misplaced Pages administrators do not have access to those priviledges at any other sister project. Please check with administrators on Wikinews to report vandalism. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

More fun with Bigfoot

I've indefinitely blocked DrJoe (talk · contribs) and Dr Joe (talk · contribs) for being obvious sockpuppets of Beckjord (talk · contribs). Beckjord is an abusive editor who refuses to heed just about every Misplaced Pages policy and guideline that there is; these and other sockpuppets have routinely filled in for him when he's been "out of town" or "on expedition". I can provide detailed reasoning for this block if requested, but a quick glance through the contribution histories of all three accounts should make it readily apparent.

Since I am involved in a dispute, such as it is, with Beckjord, I welcome review of my actions. android79 13:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain how DrJoe/Dr Joe are abusive sockpuppets of Beckjord? I reviewed this when it was on WP:RFCU and I didn't see evidence of abusive use of sockpuppets (and refused to do the sockcheck as a result). The use of sockpuppets to be merely annoying is not clearly against policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit from Beckjord's IP, 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs), may be the most illuminating regarding this situation:

do not tell me what to do. Your best bet it to take some of what I edit, and make the references changes that make you pedants happy, and save it. Cooperate. Because I WILL NOT go away. Go work on your own pages. I will accept NO orders. I will come back in a 1000 otehr means and ways. Got it? Now go home to momma.

Note that the Dr Joe (talk · contribs) account recently became active again today, to make this edit , which contains material present in the preferred version of 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs), here: . In the meantime, the Beckjord account has conveniently gone out of town: . The DrJoe accounts have been used to revert war, inserting the same material inserted by Beckjord, and to campaign for the inclusion of said material on the talk page. I think this is abusive. Using multiple accounts in this manner is covered in WP:SOCK under "purposes of deception" and "create the illusion of broader support for a position". I feel this goes beyond mere annoyance into a blockable use of sockpuppet accounts.

If consensus is that these blocks are inappropriate, well, so be it. A request for arbitration is forthcoming; I just wanted to confine the incessant POV warring by this lone editor to one username. android79 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am most definitely not saying that the blocks are inappropriate, just that I don't feel that there's enough of a violation here to reach the level where I can use CheckUser to confirm the sockpuppet allegation. I agree that Beckjord is a vexatious user who needs to change his editing practices. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So, to recap: annoying, blockable, but not quite CheckUser-able. Works for me. android79 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits on 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs) have been variously signed "beckjord" "DrJoe" and "Jeff", so a CheckUser will only tell us what we already know. All "three" of them on that IP and also individual accounts consistently add the same highly POV and OR content, vanity/spam links to his own site, unceasing personal attacks on the article talk page and other locations. Kelly, would you suggest admins blocking on their own, or straight to ArbCom with evidence, or what? DreamGuy 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User vandal out-of-process deletion reversed

Please comment on my undeletion of Template:User vandal, which was deleted at 12:32 13 January by Doc glasgow, despite a TFD discussion that is clearly at "no consensus" (and was so at the time), with many people saying that this joke template (it refers to the University of Idaho mascot, not Misplaced Pages vandalism) should be kept. ~~ N (t/c) 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, that userbox's template name is very similar to {{vandal}}, so that was probably the reason for the TFD. So, what I did is I moved the template to {{User uni idaho}} and that should end the problem. Zach 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

A certain User:Ruy Lopez has for months been trying to add an allegation in this article concerning US involvement in the 1970 coup that brought Lon Nol to power in Cambodia . Yet he refuses to answer questions regarding his source in Talk:Khmer Rouge, which have been posted for months, and his efforts are also opposed by everyone else who is contributing to the page. Can someone do something about this since he refuses to give a decent response after repeated appeals? CJK 20:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, sounds like many someones are already doing something, namely reverting him. What else would you suggest anyone could do? -- SCZenz 21:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, perhaps some sort of a penalty, such as a block. I don't no. He shouldn't be allowed to put his propaganda on the page for one second, IMO. I would arbitrate him if it wasn't so trivial. CJK 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• We don't give blocks as punishment. Perhaps a request for comment might be in order to bring broader input to the page? -- SCZenz 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Been there, done that. If no one here actually punishes anybody, can someone point me to a place where they will? CJK 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Because Pol Pot's regime was hostile to Vietnam which was a Soviet client state, but I guess the Cold War was but a dream ... no massive bombing campaigns by the US in Cambodia, no arms flowing to Pol Pot from Thailand and the PRC. The US was a totally neutral participant in the incredibly bloody conflict in Indo-China (namely Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos). Someone wake up the millions who are dead to verify. El_C 21:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. I guess you must feel proud of yourself, having single-handedly exposed my evil plot to subject this article. I'm sure Che would be proud too. Lets just ignore the fact that you didn't bother to take two seconds to scroll down in order to see the actual dispute concerning Samuel Thornton and the coup. CJK 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am beaming with shame that I suddenly have no clue who Lon Nol is. In answer to your querry: WP:DR. El_C 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything in that has already been attempted, and the matter is way too trivial for full-blown mediation, RFC, or arbitration. CJK 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not too trivial if it: a. continues-on; b. historically not insiginficant. But if you want content resolution by administrative decree... El_C 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who actually thinks this projects integrity is important and should not be damaged by propagandists? CJK 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I deal with pseudoscience all the time, which I suspect is similar. It's not easy, and requires attention, but you really can't call on admins to settle content disputes by blocking. -- SCZenz 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I note that with this edit, User:Ruy Lopez gives Samuel Thornton as a source. That is immediately reverted to an unsourced statement. I know nothing about the subject of this article, or the reliability of whoever this Thornton person is. I notice that there is discussion on the Talk page. The article may need protection to end the edit-war. There may also be WP:3RR violations, but I am not at all convinced that the major problem here is User:Ruy Lopez' disregard for WP:V. Even if it was, of course, admin action wouldn't be necessary or appropriate. Jkelly 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the subject, then with all due respect stay out of it. The questions were not whether or not the source existed, it was regarding the credibility of it. CJK 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was refering to this, gah! My mistake. I stand by what I said, of course. In advance: please refrain from saying "good for you" El_C 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will as long as you don't misrepresent what I say in a sarcastic and knee-jerk manner. CJK 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent what you said, I made a comment about history, here on WP:ANI. El_C 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But you put forward a strawman arguement. CJK 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that would be an historical misrepresentation. El_C 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not. CJK 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. El_C 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit obviously implied that I was in denial about US bombings and aid, which was flat out untrue. CJK 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As noted, I was refering to another edit; it wasn't an "untrue" response to it. But that isn't important at this point. El_C 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was untrue. No where did I assert that the US did not bomb Cambodia or that the US did not support the KR after their overthrow. CJK 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We've already established it wasn't your edit I was refering to. El_C 01:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of that as well because it was factually incorrect (as the US never supported the KR while in power). CJK 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That depends what is meant by support — they didn't press on the right-wing govt. in Thialand to halt arms supplies and so on. But this really isn't the venue to explore these issues. El_C 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what I'm beginning to understand that nobody actually does anything here. May I request an outlet in which people actually block disruptive users relatively quickly? It would be somewhat rediculous to go through mediation, RFC, arbitration etc. over one sentence. CJK 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You mention to Jkelly "to stay out of it" if he isn't familliar with the topic, noting that it isn't "whether or not the source existed, it was regarding the credibility of it." But, like Jkelly, most admins are not familliar with the subject. Then you say "I'm beginning to understand that nobody actually does anything here". That does not strike you as somewhat contradictory? El_C 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant nobody does anything useful CJK 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not moi, but I think Jkelly blocked a vandal during the early days of summer. El_C 23:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically there is no such place. If the matter is not worth those steps, and it is a content dispute rather than vandalism, there is nothing in the blocking policy that justifies a block, and no one is likely to impose one. Of course if you convince any particular admin that a block for "disruptive editing" is justified, there you are. DES 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. So there is no policy for blocking users who insert maliciously distortional information repeatedly short of arbitration, which would not be accepted because of the minor nature of the incident. CJK 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not unless you can prove it's malicious. See Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy. -- SCZenz 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I understand now. Thanks for your advice. It is just immensely frustrationg to know that I will be spending the rest of my life removing this questionably credible sentence. CJK 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand this approach. Why do you find the DR steps to be worse than "spending the rest of life removing" that addition? El_C 01:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we are dealing with a sentence. When is the last time an arbcom case has been accepted on the basis of one disputed sentence? CJK 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For information purposes, I note that Ruy Lopez was sanctioned previously by the ArbCom (see the case here) 'for failing to discuss reverts' on articles including Communist state and Opposition to U.S. foreign policy. He received a one-week ban. If he is engaged in similarly inappropriate behaviour, a warning might be in order.

I note that in the history of Khmer Rouge () CJK and Lopez engaged in a revert war back on or about December 15 on this topic. A request for comment on the article content might be appropriate, as might an RFC on the users in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerald15

I have blocked Gerald15 (talk · contribs) for one week for repeatedly creating hoax articles and adding hoax information to existing articles. He has made up a city called Comerica City, which he claims, with no documentation, is the name of the city that the Peanuts characters live in, and has created multitudes of articles about each street in this made up city. He has been warned many times about the hoaxes, but now he has created The Five Peanuts Cities, which he inserted into the Peanuts article, and which I have speedy deleted, and have blocked him for it. User:Zoe| 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Such vandalism is more heinous than simple vandalism, and a week is probably lenient. I'm still wincing over the User:RyanCahn insanity. --Golbez 23:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I still see Ryan trying to edit on a weekly basis. User:Zoe| 21:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Increadible volume of vandalism on List of ethnic slurs

(Comment has also been posted on 3RR notice board for faster response.) Upon review it appears 155.84.57.253 has reverted the edits of several users on the List of ethnic slurs entry giving the explanation non-notables, repairs, version by ---, last credible version, or reliable , , , , , , , , , , (as if one can distinguish reliable versions in an article with almost no citations). And this is only in the last 12 days! Thus, it appears as if many quite possibly valid entries have been deleted. This anon has been editing just this page since November, 2004 . Most of his reversions appear to remain unfixed. --Primetime 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, it appears as if the anon has deleted comments on their talk page warning them to stop reverting other people's changes . It also appears as if they were given a 24-hour ban on January 6, although they have continued their ways unabated. --Primetime 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to resurrect Misplaced Pages career

Bishonen made an interesting comment subsequent to my three-day departure from Misplaced Pages. I had returned today to search for something and while I was here, decided to browse through some disputes that have grown old. Analyzing her talk page history, I came across that comment and decided to proceed to post a comment here. I would like to take this opportunity to announce that my Misplaced Pages career had been cut short due to a ridiculous situation. I had been blocked and subsequently banned from this website because various users assumed bad faith (I am tired of bringing that guideline up) and insisted that I had been conducting the accounts User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario and operating them as sock puppets. This was due to an IP check. However, without allowing me to go into much detail and plead my case, both of the accounts were blocked, and my account User:Hollow Wilerding was subsequently banned up to two weeks. This had been based purely on assumptions, bad faith, not allowing me to have a major case, and ignoring a compromise. I had suggested a compromise by creating the account User:Siblings CW, for my brother who previously operated the User:DrippingInk account. The User:Winnermario account was operated by a roommate of mine who abandoned it because she was temporarily blocked. I attempted to file an RfC against Bishonen because of her misuse of administrator abilities; this part is truly laughable, as it presents poor judgement from the Misplaced Pages community, instantly painting a bad name for the website. The "cookies" and "cupcakes" is basically speaking the following: personal attacks. No compromise was suggested at the RfC either. So what is the use of the request for comment option if the entire community is going to laugh about the situation and suppose that they're correct? They had never considered that they could be the ones who are wrong.

I would like a compromise and a chance to operate another account solely, without my brother or roommate accessing Misplaced Pages. (They're both... infuriated with the situation that occurred.) The only reason I came to Misplaced Pages was to make it more wholesome and widespread. If this is the way Wikipedians are going to treat others on the edge of slippery slopes, then we're far from ever completing the encyclopedia. As I am attempting to plead my case, please don't block this IP. It'd be appreciated. 64.231.179.104 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• snores* This is boring, Hollow.--Sean|Black 01:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. Why are you ignoring my case? Do you think I'm joking and am so incredibly bored that I decided to come and waste my time posting this? Why don't you give this thought? Why don't you say something productive and help enhance the Misplaced Pages community? Your attitude presents that you don't care if the encyclopedia had one less editor who has taken the time to improve a few articles. Please just listen to me. 64.231.179.104 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Come back on the 16th. If you're truly dedicated to the project, prove it by waiting. Blocking IP until then.--Tznkai 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How is proving dedication done by refraining from editing? I feel as though my editing skills have not been meaningful. 64.231.179.104 01:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked until 20:00 JAN 15 UTC. I hate time syntax, I don't get it. Block evasion is a no no. Take it up through proper channels.--Tznkai 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) ::Surely you could have found a more civil way to say you were not inclined to support HW's request, Sean. KillerChihuahua 01:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only five days; why not take the time to collect thoughts/materials on what contributions you want to make when the block ends? Rd232 01:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I could have. But if she wants to come back, it's obvious that her old accounts won't get unblocked, and that if she keeps insisting that she never did anything wrong, we're not going to listen to her. Get a new account, don't say that you are the same person, and move on.--Sean|Black 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean all that after going through a two week block, don't you, Sean? So far, this user has not stopped editing at all, so the block counter keeps getting restarted. The two weeks begins, at this point, on Jan. 13 or 13 Jan. 2006. That's when it starts, because the user continues to edit as an IP during the block. Geogre 12:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody would question that you are devoted to the project.

Whether or not you're devoted to helping the project, on the other hand, seems manifestly up in the air. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Although Snowspinner — Phil Sandifer — has blocked the User:Hollow Wilerding account indefinitely, it's my earlier two-week block that's the operative one, since shortest block rules. My block will be released on January 15th or 16th — whatever your timezone says — together with any longer block. I won't reblock, personally; I've blocked HW—the main account—twice, and that's enough from me. It's indeed obvious, as you say, Sean, that all the other old accounts won't get unblocked: they've been used for block evasion, vote stacking, and other abuse, I can't imagine them ever being unblocked.

Sean, I have to say, though, that I'm quite opposed to advising Hollow to get a new account and pretend (yet again) to be somebody else — hasn't there been enough of that? A truly new departure, IMO, would be to start the new career, if any, with acknowledgement of the past and the use of the original (more or less) account. If the HW account now appears, understandably, as an albatross, I advise an open change of username. Bishonen | talk 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right.--Sean|Black 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, this user has been committed to block evasion. The user was blocked as Winnermario, then became Hollow Wiledering. When that was blocked, he immediate became Siblings WC. When that was blocked, he became Empty Wallow. When that was blocked, he continued to post as a series of dynamic IP's. Now, what's clear is that the user has not endured any block time and will not play by the rules that all other users have to abide by. For me, this is a far worse case than any given misbehavior (personal attacks, voting for himself three times, supporting his own motions, etc.). The misbehavior shows a dedication to lying, but the block evasion is an attempt to avoid the only method of discipline (not punishment) that Misplaced Pages has. That cannot be tolerated. When the user ceases to edit, from any IP, for two weeks, he will have simply caught up with past offenses. The offense of block evasion is a separate matter, with a separate penalty. In the Willy case, I believe we wanted a hard ban. I am not recommending that, but I wouldn't be too shocked if others wanted it. After all, the behavior while editing has been deception upon deception, although not article vandalism. How much should that count? However much it does, block evasion counts more. Geogre 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I can simply no longer refrain from participating in this conversation and therefore must post a comment. I would heavily appreciate it if User:Geogre, User:Bishonen or any user finally answered a question that has constantly been ignored (which I'm beginning to find peculiar): what is your evidence that I am one user and I operated all three accounts? Also, User:Siblings CW was not created after I was blocked but two days before. Please do not post a comment if you are unaware of the accurate information because it makes me look like a criminal. I believe that I deserve to post on Misplaced Pages just as anyone else does. After all, the motto is "The 💕 that anyone can edit!" It is not "The 💕 that anyone who is not a vandal, sock puppet, or user who has been accused of something that has not been proven can edit!" Besides, if it weren't for my contributions, Cool (song) and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask would not have become FAs. I find it very questionable why one would come to edit Misplaced Pages, make enhancements like these, and subsequently be called "a useless contributer". I would like to create a new account (unless User:Hollow Wilerding is unblocked). I would also like to know where a few users are getting the idea that User:Winnermario may be me, but User:DrippingInk is not. Please be as civil as possible when responding and do not block this IP. If I never have a chance to edit Misplaced Pages again, what will be one's reason for blocking my IP in the year 2020? Block evasion? Uh... 64.231.176.254 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your various lies by various sockpuppets all run into each other. Here's a good one: . And please don't insult our intelligence by telling us that edit wasn't made from your account. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not type that. It was my brother in an attempt to settle the score but he made it worse. Yes, that contribution came from our computer, but was made by my brother. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil answer from an administrator who has no involvement in this whatsoever and no ties to any of the other administrators previously involved:

1. All the answers to your questions are right here on this page, as well as the demonstrations that many of your assertions are mistaken. I saw them and have no other source of knowledge about you.
2. For example, no one is keeping you from editing wikipedia. You are welcome to make a fresh start with another account. It is the previous persona, behavior, attitude, and bad faith that have been blocked and are unwelcome, and the paragraphs on this page provide direct or indirect evidence of all of them.
3. Please do not argue about this any more. We are all sick of it. Your next post is your choice to make. Either
   1. Start editing an article of interest in a different manner than before under a new name or even just an IP number, or
   2. Keep arguing here about how you don't understand or don't accept the community response to your previous behavior and it will tell us that what you really want is a public theater or courtroom to play out your victimization psychodrama; if you choose this course it will of course confirm everything you are denying.

Be a grown-up. Enjoy the chance to make a completely fresh start with people you have offended in a way that never happens in the real world. Join the community as a new account and be a different person. Your move. alteripse 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will therefore register a new account. User:DrippingInk, my brother, will not edit, and my roomate User:Winnermario will not edit either. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow Wilerding/64.231.75.102 (talk · contribs) wrote on user talk:Everyking that she had originally joined Misplaced Pages under the Winnermario (talk · contribs) account , but above she says that it was operated by "a roommate of mine". Coupled with continued incivility (among other things), it's clear that Hollow Wilerding has not realised the error of her ways, and I'd recommend that the ban on her editing Misplaced Pages, whether anonymously or not, be maintained indefinitely. Extraordinary Machine 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That was also written by my brother in a foolish attempt to resurrect our lives on Misplaced Pages. It was posted from our computer, yet I was not the contributer. I am not User:Winnermario. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Smn? How did this notice get to the bottom? El_C 01:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

here El C. I thought about reverting it, but I decided not to. Zach 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Worked some magic. That's all. 64.231.64.211 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new account, the one I came currently contributing from. I would appreciate it if no one blocked this account, and I will go around informing people of this. My name will not be displayed in my profile, but I will continue editing my usual articles including Gwen Stefani singles and other music-related categories. All hail Mariah Carey! Thank you for allowing me to return to Misplaced Pages. Solar Serenity 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm so confused; tempted to block on account of that alone. El_C 01:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Alteripse noted that I should create an account and just go on and edit. Why not? It was an opinion from another admin. I agree; I never meant to cause any harm, I'm just another editor here improving articles that I desire. User:El C, your concern appears to be stable, but let's have this entire façade end. I just want to help the articles that I feel require article enhancement. I'll see you all later. Please let me be from this point forward. If one has a concern, just talk to me on my talk page, and please don't block. Discussion should always be conducted first. Thanks! Solar Serenity 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Though User:Bishonen sure doesn't want me to edit. She plans on blocking me again. How about a discussion first? —Solar Serenity | Ytineres Ralos 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't plan to block you again; you're still blocked, and therefore the new account is yet another sock. I certainly will block it. Sorry, but I'm quite confounded by alteripse's statement that "no one is keeping you from editing wikipedia. You are welcome to make a fresh start with another account." Making a "fresh start with another account" while blocked is one of the things that have gotten the person — not any one of her accounts, or all of them — into all this trouble.I'm surprised at the need for saying this, but I'll say it: HW — the person, the user who operated the account User:Hollow Wilerding, is not welcome to edit under another account while blocked! No blocked user is welcome to create another account while blocked and edit from it, as I'm sure alteripse knows. Alteripse, I'm wondering if perhaps there's a date confusion: did you realize she is still blocked? My two-week block will run out in two days' time, and when that goes, so does Snowspinner's indefinite block. We have been talking, above, about letting her start editing again at that point. You haven't unblocked HW yourself, and nobody else has either. To Hollow: I've blocked the new account. I'm sorry if you were given the wrong impression, and I won't hold it against you that you created a new account at this time, since there seems to be some misunderstanding. But as you can see above, you are expected to sit out this two-week block. It's frankly little enough to ask, considering the circumstances. DO NOT try to edit until the two-week block runs out, unless a total change of consensus is indicated here, in this thread, before then. So far, nobody but alteripse has suggested that it's remotely appropriate for you to start editing before then. Please don't try. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who may not know, this isn't solely about creation of sockpuppet accounts, deception and disruption (though those infractions in and of themselves I would consider grounds for permanent banning). Winnermario was blocked for 24 hours for making homophobic personal attacks not too long ago, and also became one of the subjects of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pop music issues (there's more to be said, which I'll leave out for brevity's sake). I have an extremely difficult time believing that Hollow Wilerding's admittance that she had previously been Winnermario was "written by brother", especially given the falsehoods that whoever this person is has been coming up with while rotating through new accounts and IP's. See also this edit to Sorry (Madonna song), in which user:Solar Serenity formatted a track listing in violation of normal English conventions or Misplaced Pages's manual of style, despite several previous warnings about this. Additionally, Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy states "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked." To say that Hollow Wilerding/Winnermario/etc. has "exhausted the community's patience" would be extremely accurate in my opinion, and she should be blocked from editing articles at least until the two-week block expires in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. Extraordinary Machine 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

I just checked my log to make sure I'm not crazy, but Hollow was blocked until the 16th. I reblocked Hollow's new IP until the 16th. The USER is blocked, and evidently Hollow, her siblings, her dog, and anyone else who has access to her name is also blocked as they all have showed spectacularly similar conduct. At the very least Hollow is blocked. This has not changed, and continued block evasion is just asking for a new block.

Anyone able to give me a good reason NOT to block the new user name and IP until the 16th if not later?--Tznkai 01:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Both IP and new account are blocked until 20:00 Jan 15 UTC, although I'm considering extending them.--Tznkai 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, please see my reply to alteripse above. I really think he may be unaware that she's still blocked. Anyway, I very much agree with you, and I've also blocked the new (sock) account. As I said, still higher up in this thread, I'm not planning on re-blocking HW after the two-week block runs out (unless there are more shenanigans). Please don't sanction her for creating the Solar Serenity account, as it looks like she was led by alteripse's post into thinking she had a right to do that. But honestly, if she now, after my clarification above, can't or won't sit out the remaining two days now, I'd be all for you re-blocking. Behaving herself for two whole days would be the very first gesture of good faith and cooperation she has made since this sorry business began. I don't think that's too much to ask, as a token of respect for the community and its policies. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Bishonen. The user has not been two weeks without editing. In fact, the user has evaded the block on every day but three during the two weeks. Re-blocking this one particular account name may be moot, as the user now has six accounts, but I would not be satisfied until the user goes fourteen days with no edits as an anonymous IP, as Siblings WC, as Empty Wallow, as Solar Serenity, or as Winnermario, or as Drippinglink, or as Cruz Along, or as any of the other accounts the user has set up to evade blocks. After those two weeks, let there be Arb Com or Mentoring. If no one but Everyking is available to be the user's mentor, then I'd suggest ArbCom and permanent blocking on sight. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the only method of discipline the project has is the block. Evading the blocks is vandalism, no matter the content of the edits. Geogre 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a suspicion about 70.27.215.204 (talk · contribs) as and are exactly the same edits that Hollow Wilerding has previously attempted while blocked (see and , for example). IP's only edit prior to the last few hours was to the page Harajuku Lovers Tour 2005, about a Gwen Stefani concert tour (a substantial number of edits by Hollow Wilerding and his socks/IP's are to Stefani-related articles). Note the similarity between the summary in the edit to that page and those at Special:Contributions/Hollow Wilerding. In any case, I've left a comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser. Extraordinary Machine 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanket Block

On the off chance Hollow is telling the truth, I'm going to issue a blanket block for all person's in that house because of their inability to clearly show a lack of sockpuppetering, individual identity, and civil behavior. In otherwards, they are all blocked for the same duration, for disrupting the Wiki, whether all is one or twenty. Objections?--Tznkai 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, the ArbCom already formally defines such households as one person. But, since this has been explained to HW several times and she seems to have trouble grasping it, I think the blanket block is a great idea: it may help her get her mind round the concept that she's responsible for anything, including any lies, that are posted from her computer with her password. Bishonen | talk 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me once more say very clearly, in words that the user can grasp: fulfill the two week block by not editing, under any guise, for two full weeks, and then you can have an RFC on your actions. At the very least, you would need someone trusted and dispassionate to be your mentor. I don't know why user:alterpise said what he did, but his view is not supported by any of the other administrators (except one) who has reviewed the case. You are not free to open yet another account and edit away. In fact, you are responsible for each of the edits made by the brother/lover/husband/roommate/self (and you've explained each each way). The lies pile upon each other to such a degree as to render each and every statement null. There is no information you can offer about yourself that can be believed. At this point, the single user case you remind me of most of all is Michael. He was blocked for over a year, and when he came back, it was only with a very patient mentor. Let ArbCom decide on what terms you can edit, if you wish to edit at all. Otherwise, you are going to be treated by many administrators as simply a vandal to be blocked on sight. Geogre 04:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine the problem and its source

I don't know alot about this case, but believe that we - as a whole - should look over the issue from the beginning, for if an unfair block was leavied against this - as I believe* - decent editor and contributor it would drive her to protest any way she could, which since her talk page has been shut down (one of the worst things that you can do to a blocked user IMHO) would include making new accounts. In one of them she plainly states who she is - doesn't sound too sneaky to me...

Also while I don't know the situations of her family I do believe that you are being hasty for unless you know 100% that she's the only one in the house you don't have a right to cite those edits as coming from her. A block pertains to a person not an account right, well does that block automatically trasfere to anyone using the same computer and their accounts? I believe over all we should step back and trace this conflict to its roots. Chooserr 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

*Just looking at her contributions for a few seconds I find quite a few contributions, such as adding categories and exapanding the articles. Chooserr 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a Michael-like situation. Block 1 for personal attacks came to Winnermario. Instead of taking the block, the user created the account of Hollow Wildering. For several weeks, the user edited there, maintaining that the user was a 24 year old teacher in Toronto. The user also had two other accounts. These accounts were used to vote for articles created by HW on FAC. In one case, these false votes were the only ones cast, and the article got promoted. CheckUser showed that three accounts were, indeed, the same IP. The user lied on at least four occasions about that (one is brother/roomate/neighbor and another is neighbor/boyfriend/husband/roommate, depeding on which diff or day you check). That block was for two weeks. Again, the user immediately evaded the block by setting up yet another account (bringing the total to four). That was blocked, since the editor had not yet served a single day of the Winnermario block, much less the Hollow Wiledering block. The user then set up another account (now we're at five) to evade that block. When that was blocked, the user began editing as a series of dynamic IP's. The user has now set up a sixth account. Notice that the user has not served a single 24 hour period of block time. The user has evaded five blocks. The issue is not the edits, it's the mendacity and the complete unwillingness to abide by the rules of the project. (Or am I the only one reading this who remembers the Michael situation?) Geogre 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Michael situation, but I must say that you have to examine all sides of the situation, and the blocking of her talk page is extremely rude/wrong. I think at least we should unblock the talks and give her a chance to defend herself. Also it's quite plausible that she does have a brother, and a roommate that also contribute. Maybe look for differences in their writing styles or a large amount of similarities to see if indeed they are the same person. Chooserr 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read the lengthy convo above, you will see that whether they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets is unimportant. And, for what its worth, User talk:Winnermario is not protected against editing. Jkelly 01:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Assistance for Chooserr and others in examining the problem and its source

Chooserr, you say frankly that you don't know much about the case. I hope this selection of relevant links will be useful for your research, I picked them with some care. If you click on them and read these pages you will become well informed and better able to discuss the issues. I hope they may also be convenient for others coming late to the party:

1. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl
2. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding
3. WP:ANI: Votestacking FAC sockpuppets: Hollow Wilerding
4. User talk:Hollow Wilerding
5. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bishonen

Here is a summary I've written of the reasons Hollow Wilerding was blocked. I really don't think it can leave you still wondering "if an unfair block was levied against her". She has been blocked twice altogether, both times by me. (Of course the block-evading socks she created while blocked have been blocked also, by many different admins. Not blocking those would have been a) very weird, b) starkly against policy and practice.) The summary demonstrates that the Hollow Wilerding blocks I placed were conservative — were short — in relation to the gross violations committed. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

P.S. User talk:Hollow Wilerding has apparently been protected against editing for ten days. I didn't know that, and I don't see why it should be. I've unprotected it. Bishonen | talk 03:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I looked over your links and while I think that her continuous renomination of Hollaback Girl, or whatever the exact spelling is, was uncalled for what I see is that she and her brother both edit from a "family computer" and have tried to avoid controversy by making a joint account, which has been blocked. I do see that she has made excessive accounts (not including the two for her brother, and roommate) to circumvent blockes, but I have no problem believing she did this in a sort of defense. The "empty willow(?)" account clearly stated who she was, and the "solar" one was used here to discuss, neither was hiding anything. I'm not condoning what she's done, but I believe that there should be outside people contributing to this discussion that aren't biased. I suggest we 1) make her list all who contribute on the family computer 2) allow each a seperate account 3) get rid of the infite block prescribing instead I don't know a few weeks, but make it clear that this block is for the whole computer Chooserr 04:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your points 1+2: I wish people wouldn't keep suggesting things that are based on the idea of Hollow Wilerding providing reliable information, because tht's pointless. I'd so much rather not keep repeating this, especially since I believe the user to be very young, but since you twist my arm, here goes: HW doesn't have any credibility on wikipedia. Even if you've studied my links thoroughly (and I hardly see how you would have had the time), those links only contain a fraction of the real list of her deceit, misleading statements, and circumstantial tall tales, always, as I've said before, with the words honesty and AGF in her mouth. I don't want her lists.

Point 3) I seem to be repeating myself since forever about this aspect too. :-( The infinite block will disappear automatically when my two-week block expires, which will be Real Soon Now. Please scroll up to where I explain this: "Although Snowspinner — Phil Sandifer — has blocked the User:Hollow Wilerding account indefinitely, it's my earlier two-week block that's the operative one, since shortest block rules. My block will be released on January 15th or 16th — whatever your timezone says — together with any longer block." Geogre thinks the account should then be immediately re-blocked for another couple of weeks, since HW has so notoriously violated and disrespected the present block, and ought to have a block during which she behaves with some decorum (for a change) and demonstrates that shewill have some respect for community policies. I wouldn't object to that. Nor would you, by the sound of it. Bishonen | talk 05:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

Briefly: The user must fulfill the two week block by actually not editing from any account or IP for that long. It is only after that that we can talk about how good or bad the editor's work is, whether any of the multiple versions of the family romance-family setting the editor has described should be believed or not. Until the penalty for personal attacks and then for vote stacking and then legal threats is served, we should hear no discussion of how good or bad the edits to Gwen Stefani articles are. Geogre 12:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is now after 20:00 Jan 15 UTC. The block has expired. It is time that I make my case.

I am not going to fulfill a two-week block because, as stated by me numerous times before, the three of us had not intended to harm Misplaced Pages. It is Bishonen who turned the situation into an uproar when it could have easily been prevented. For example, User:Siblings CW was blocked before User:Hollow Wilerding and Siblings CW was tagged as a sock puppet account when I had confirmed that we attempted to compromise by creating an account for us to share. Out of nowhere, Bishonen "informs" us that public accounts are not allowed. There is no such policy or guideline on Misplaced Pages, and also, let us say that Hollow Wilerding had been operated by three different people from the start, nobody would have figured, making this "policy" completely useless to Misplaced Pages. The blocking of User:Siblings CW presents obvious facts that Bishonen did not want us to be capable of compromising and be blocked for "using sock puppet attacks". Furthermore, she has been attempting to continuously enforce my block because she did not like my response(s) at the nominations for Hollaback Girl. Had the two of us never met before, I'm sure this situation would have differed greatly, and an actual discussion would have commenced instead of a ridiculous argument where the admins can only guess at poke at the three of us with fun. Geogre's above comment is solely backing-up Bishonen's comment as they appear to be friends, so of course he would say such a thing. What would be the point of talking about family/friend(s) issues after a block when the family/friend(s) had not meant to cause harm? I should have just asked my brother and roommate to not vote, or have removed their votes from the FAC.

Sometimes people are sent to prison, and twenty years later, it is discovered that they did not commit the crime. That person is therefore capable of placing a legal lawsuit. The same situation sort of holds ground here as well, though I don't believe the lawsuit is necessary as that would just be silly. In other words, I do not accept the terms of a block without solid evidence. Once again, assuming is not enough evidence. I thank Chooserr for actually analyzing the positive side of things. You should be an honoured God on this site for such a thing. Bishonen's negative response full of assumptions is purely predictable. 64.231.119.224 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr, it may be of your interest that Bishonen and several other users were having a very biased, POV and bad faith conversation about why you came to my aid. Care to see the conversation? 64.231.119.224 20:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am awaiting the next step in the procedure. 64.231.162.68 21:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to say those things here, too, except that it didn't apply to AN/I. Now, whether you intend to comply with a block or not, you were, indeed, blocked. You see, it doesn't matter if you agree with it. Now, I suppose I will have to get involved for the first time and block your accounts. Obey the same rules everyone else does, and keep your misstatements to yourself, please. Geogre 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, it definitely applied to AN/I. You see, you will not be blocking me because you still have no evidence. I also see that User:Everyking was blocked because he was attempting to help me. Are you really that positive that I am operating three accounts? Are you so positive that you'll begin taking it out on the others who oppose you and don't believe it? God, this has become outrageously pathetic. I am not going to keep "mis"statements to myself because you have to learn that you still have no raw material, no raw evidence, no raw resources that we're one person. 64.231.162.68 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hollow, since you opened the RFC on me yourself, why don't you go read Kelly Martin's explanation there of the view the ArbCom takes of such "household editing" as yours? And now I ask you to please pay attention and click on the links, because I'm only going to tell you this once: I'm one of the wimpy admins. When CheckUser caught you using votestacking sockpuppets on FAC and supporting the deceit by posting fake dialogue with yourself on your own talkpage/s, as well as I-don't-understand-this-technical-talk protestations on your RFA, I blocked you very gently in relation to such chicanery — only one week . I warned you immediately against creating sockpuppet accounts while blocked ("if you have any interest in continuing to edit this site, don't evade this block by creating any new accounts whatsoever during the block. If you have any more sock accounts already established, don't use them while you're blocked"),. When you wrote to this noticeboard pretending to be a stranger supporting you , I extended the one-week block very conservatively for such deceit — into two weeks all together. Oh, and of course I, and many other admins have also blocked your abusive sock accounts indefinitely. We always do that. These are my crimes against you, my immense grudge, my failure to AGF, my hounding. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

In fact, Bishonen's mistake was in not beginning an ArbCom action against the user immediately. Apparently, she believed that the editor would reform after a two week block. I have always felt otherwise, but I am more Draconian when it comes to process abuse. Geogre 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the last edit I am making until User:Hollow Wilerding's block runs out. This is a promise, and I am not editing this website because if I continue evading the "block", then I'm not going to be able to take this Arbitration as I plan to. The ArbCom is full of ****ing bull****. I don't even require proof, as I'm 100% positive that there are multiple editors who edit from the same household. So that thing can say what it wants, but it's full of it. Y'know Bishonen, let us pretend: if I filed a lawsuit against you, all Mariah, Cruz and I would have to do is show up at court and you would immediately lose. 64.231.78.228 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OMG, don't you have any capacity at all for learning from experience? Are you planning to take it to arbitration because you liked the result of the RFC so much? Look, you're probably just a kid, you're in a hole, you need to stop digging. Do you plan to keep going till you reach the center of the earth? Bishonen | talk 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-block of Hollow Wilerding

The IP campaigning (pretending first not to be the editor) for Hollow Wilerding then says, "I am not going to fulfill a two-week block because, as stated by me numerous times before, the three of us had not intended to harm Misplaced Pages." That is an admission both that the first statement (that the IP is not the user) is incorrect and offers an admission that, until the user agrees with the block, he or she will not abide by the block and will continue to create accounts. Therefore, I have blocked the account for one week, which is far too little. Please note the following:

1. No user on a block is allowed to create an account
2. Any account created by a user on a block is supposed to be blocked indefinitely
3. No one gets to pick and choose which policies apply to him or her
4. By editing any data at Misplaced Pages, one is agreeing to abide by its policies.

Therefore, this block of one week for admitted block evasion and for a promise to continue to evade blocks until the user feels like they are just is, admittedly, too brief. My goal in making it only a week is yet another vain hope that the user will suspend editing until the block expires, then return to the account, at which time his or her behavior can be properly assessed by the arbitration committee. Geogre 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are laughable. When the one-week is complete, I'll be filing an arbitration against both you and Bishonen. Two weeks of wasting my time with policies, fictional guidelines, assuming bad faith, constantly accusing me of being a child or a male, not allowing me to discuss the issues, and even wanting to go as far as calling my house. It has become obvious that you're desperate. 64.231.168.115 02:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang stalking as a subpage

Nrcprm2026 recreated Gang stalking as a subpage of Conspiracy theory. I deleted it. Someone speak up if that was wrong. Tom Harrison 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind: on second thought I'd rather not have to shepard my proposal to merge the two. So much for my bold attempts to propose a compromise. I just want to state for the record that I though part of the article has merit, and part didn't.

I do think that the content presents a few fairly important questions. It does seem to be partially verifiable. If I offended anyone, let me know how, please. --James S. 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a personal essay without sources, and subpages in the article namespace are never good. --Golbez 00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So my proposal to put fiction articles like Daniel Jackson in places like Stargate/Daniel Jackson is a nonstarter? --James S. 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. We used to do that; it was specifically deprecated. Check Misplaced Pages:Subpages. --Golbez 04:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted after a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. Deletion applies to the content, not merely to the content under a given name. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to merge the content piece-wise. I realize now that, even if I actually wanted to do that, which I don't -- and I was more hoping to try to convince the people who keep re-creating Gang stalking with sockpupets to merge it -- there's no reason to completely re-create the whole thing. I screwed up. Live and learn. --James S. 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang Stalking should *NEVER* have been considered for deletion. It is absolutely essential to Misplaced Pages to have something about that. The piddly little piece on Misplaced Pages:Harassment for Wikistalking is thoroughly inadequate.

Sure, we can sit around here and debate policy, and say that "the people spoke" and that it was deleted with consensus, etc etc, but the reality is that it never should have been deleted in the first place. Just look at Misplaced Pages's pathetic articles on cyberstalking and cyberbullying and how little attention that Misplaced Pages gives to this important subject. It is especially important in the context of an online community, which Misplaced Pages is.

What we should be doing is debating about what to include and so forth. It shouldn't ever have been deleted. It shouldn't have been nominated for deletion even. And it should be undeleted. This shouldn't even be a question.

We talk about putting process ahead of content, but this is a case where we've really totally blown it. We sit around deleting user boxes and banning users on a hunch and being totally untransparent with things like that, yet we sit around here worrying about whether or not an absolutely essential article about an incredibly relevant topic should have a part here.

If we are building an encyclopaedia, Gang Stalking belongs. If we are trying to be a community, Gang Stalking belongs. But if we are trying to be a place that is so full of rules that it misses the point, then delete it.

At a bare minimum put the darn thing on to Deletion Review already, and give it a chance, rather than this ridiculousness. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR, which was widely cited as a reason for deleting this page. Radiant_>|< 11:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Masssiveego

User:Masssiveego has gone through over a dozen Rfa's and made numerous votes in the arbcom elections, all with the vote "oppose" and no reasons given whatsoever for his vote. Editor has apparently been around since 9/2003 but has less than 700 edits total. Contributions: .--MONGO 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Does he not have suffrage? What am I missing here? --Aaron 03:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the contributions...every single one of his votes in the arbcom elections and on Rfa's has been an oppose and no reason given. Does that not seem trollish to you?--MONGO 03:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should consider this to be trolling to the same degree as someone who votes "Delete" on all articles up for deletion. In other words - no. The only issue should be whether they are suitably new. Why block someone for trying to state their case about which administrators they think should be promoted? It is supposed to be some kind of a vote after all. Zordrac 03:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does appear trollish, but he either has the right to vote or he doesn't. If he wants to vote against every single person that ever gets nominated, that's his right. --Aaron 03:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I think its laughable that people even criticise this. I got criticised for voting "keep" on a whopping 40% of articles nominated for deletion, and then criticised for voting "oppose" on about 40% of candidates on RFAs. So did Freestylerappe. Its laughable really. Unless we are supposed to automatically vote delete on every article that's nominated and support on every administrator, it just reeks of an attempt to try to de-individualise people. We are all individuals, and should be allowed to vote outside of the box. Its little wonder there is so much paranoia about sock puppetry. Zordrac 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is about User:Masssiveego... --W.marsh 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Really, it's not all that disruptive. I'd say wait and see if the behavior continues. BDAbramson T 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they first logged in in early 2003, and made almost 1,000 edits before first commenting in an RFA. I am pretty confident that there is no rule prohibiting someone from voting oppose on candidates for a period of time. Zordrac 03:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You're joking of course...for three days, this user has voted oppose on every single nominee he has cast a vote on. Where do you see the 1,000 edits in total? I saw less than 700 in 27 months. Up until the voting a few days ago, nothing was eyebrow reaising, but my guess here is that we're dealing with a drug enduced trance at this point.--MONGO 04:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems harmless to me. There's often one or two people hanging around RfA and opposing a lot, just because they like to do that. User:Zordrac opposed my RfA, and I felt really good about it. If User:Masssiveego is carrying the torch for a while, so be it. They're not really affecting any but the most borderline decisions (not much harm done there), and if they make us think a little more often about the whole admin system, then good job. -GTBacchus 06:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A troll is still a troll. Bad faith votes like the ones I pointed out have nothing to do with keeping the good editors inspired to continue to produce quality work. By just saying, oh well, it's no big deal, all we do is condone such behavior.--MONGO 08:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

His voting habits have been (somewhat) explained on his talk page. It's not optimal to oppose without stating a reason within the vote, but it's also not unheard of. A single vote isn't going to topple the process, and skirmishing over it benefits no one.

I certainly agree that his voting habits could be seen as trolling, but it becomes Misplaced Pages to extend the benefit of the doubt in the absence of unambiguous evidence to the contrary. If someone feels that admin standards are too low, it's their right to vote their conscience.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever...look at his contributions history throughly...the evidence is quite obvious.--MONGO 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If we accept your contention that this user is trolling, then by recognizing his actions -- which, by themselves, are facially not disruptive -- we magnify any disruptive potential they might have had.

Their edit history -- the same edit history that you're looking at -- suggests to me a potentially valuable editor, with some positive contributions to Misplaced Pages.

It seems to me that you feel very strongly about this, and you're assuming bad faith. I'm genuinely interested in better understanding your stance, and hope you can help me with that :)

Cheers, Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

all with the vote "oppose"—not quite all. Very strange. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, when an RfA has a weak, obviously unqualified nominee, with 0/10(S/O) he will support. If the nominee is well qualified, and its like 25/0, he oppose and say something that makes his support votes highly ironic and contradictory. He does this for every RfA. His arbcom votes have no net affect so he did it just to make a point (WP:POINT). Conclusion=trolling.Voice of All 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All, you responded with what I had to say on the matter. I was merely bringing the issue to discussion and I am entitled to my opinion and respect those with a differing view. Some of us are really interested in writing an encyclopedia and maintaining and perfecting the regulations that help make this a fruitful project. I have neither the time nor the energy to waste on those that have made so few major contributions and then act in a disruptive manner. Had I felt so strongly about the behavior, and Rfc would have commenced and or further actions as well. But as I said, this was merely brought to discussion and that is all.--MONGO 07:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, let him oppose everyone if he wants. It's only disruptive if people choose to be disrupted. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackjohn

User:Jackjohn is a newbie consistently adding her personal images and creating and re-creating articles that are useless and speedied. She has already been blocked once. I've made some attempts at explaining her misuse but to no avail. Now she has taken to leaving nasty messages on my talk page. Y'all might want to address. Wknight94 03:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked for a week by User:Bunchofgrapes. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a softie. The user was creating nonsense pages with text "Ban me" or similar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

defamatory user

User Beckyhtchang is an obvious bad-faith newuser creation intended to defame some poor third-party, most likely the eponymous Becky, per the content of their userpage.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted, and I'll indef blocked if recreated.--Sean|Black 04:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Her talk page is a red link. Has no one talked to her? User:Zoe| 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

I have indefinitely blocked User:IAAL for making legal threats. See the bottom of Talk:Main Page. Should I remove the discussion from there?-gadfium 05:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but for those who cannot tell, IAAL stands for "I am a lawyer." Zach 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that was a legal threat, though. Bogus or legitimate, it was a notice. Quite different. It doesn't say "I'm going to sue you"; it says "this legal thing happened and you might have a problem". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like its related to Misplaced Pages Class Action, and how seriously you take it probably depends on how seriously you take the Class Action bit. I think that the links provided should be presented somewhere and answered by Wikipedians. Whether there is really a restraining order or not, I don't know. But does WP:NLT cover threats against Misplaced Pages as a whole? Or even bogus notices against Wikimedia? I am not convinced that it does. Even if it is bogus, I don't think its bannable. And, depending on the legitimacy of the links (I don't read German, sorry), I am not sure if they should be deleted either. Perhaps moved to the Village Pump or some other appropriate place though. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read his contributions, it looks like he's a lawyer who stumbled on Misplaced Pages, and then thought he'd alert us to a problem, rather than threatening us himself. If this is the case, I'll unblock him so he can discuss this here rather than on the main talk page.-gadfium 06:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

I read it and reread it. There was absolutely no threat there. He even says on his user page that he is a lawyer but does not work as an attorney. Are we going to start blocking everyone who mentions legal liability at Misplaced Pages? Unblock immediately and cool down. -- DS1953 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hm. This deserves some browsing in the German media. Here's a discussion of it from a few days ago: . There are some fascinating aspects regarding German law and defaming the dead! See for some of that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He's confirmed that he's involved in the case - he's supposed to be faxing documents to Jimbo. The matter is being discussed in German at . I'm not sure if it is necessary to also discuss it here. I can't hang around; if anyone wants to unblock him, I won't object. I will move the original item from Talk:Main Page to here.-gadfium 06:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock. I am also discussing this with him too. Zach 06:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much to unblock me. Hello Gadfium. No, I am not insolved in this case. It is a case between the parents of Boris F. and Wikimedia Foundation, Jimmy Wales. My part here is only to inform or to warn Jimmy and you admins, simple to avoid big damages to Misplaced Pages. The decision was filed on 14. December 2005 and the Marshal is already on the way to Jimmy Wales, see also my complete report. Thank you very much. --

IAAL 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning: IAAL is a troll. He is not a lawyer, while he likes to make people to believe the opposite. On his use page in the german wikipedia he states "Here i am again as a jurist" but at two other places (in the discussions about the case) he admits that he is not a jurist or lawyer. It is commonly believed that a well known german troll (famous for legal hasslement, harassment and a lot of other ugly actions) is behind that nick, because the actions and posts reflect the normal behaviour of that troll. Before creating a user account under the name IAAL in the german wikipedia, this person trolled by abusing an open proxy in the US. -- Kju (de) 13:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ACK --ST ○ 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Main Page

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION (+++URGENT+++)

TO:
Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
Mister Jimmy Wales 200 2nd Ave. South #358
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
United States of America

Tron, Boris F., Boris F(amilyname), Case-No. 209 C 1015/05 of 12/14/2005, AG Berlin: In the case between the parents of departed Boris F. and Wikimedia Foundation, the Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany) decided on December 14, 2005, that it is forbidden to publish the complete familyname of Boris F. anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG. This restraining order has to be respected by everybody. If this decision will be ignored, then the Court will be allowed to impose a fine up to 250,000 Euro or to place under restraint up to 6 months. It is unknown, if Wikimedia Foundation will file an appeal to the Municipal Court of Berlin. According to the german law, filing an appeal will provocate a hearing in Berlin. The next step would then be the mainhearing in front to the same Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany), next instance County Court of Berlin (Germany), next instance Higher Regional Court of Berlin (Germany). The last instance is the Federal Court of Justice of Karlsruhe (Germany), which is also known as the Highest Appelate Court in Germany for Civil and Criminal Cases. After it, there is also the right for both parties to let check the complete case by the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. And then there is still the European Court of Law, because Germany is part of the European Union. I personally would suggest to lock this article about Boris F. especially his familyname, simple to avoid a disaster for wikipedia. Another nice idea would be to forward his familyname into a list of "bad words" to filter out this familyname within this software of wikipedia. This would then be a global solution and the Judge of Berlin will not be angry because of the danger to post a fine to Misplaced Pages. I know, it might be, that some wikipedians will not like this decision by the Court, but the current english version is also aviable in Germany and also to the german Judge in Berlin. -- IAAL 22:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1. How do we know that this is a real case?
2. Misplaced Pages would have legal standing in this case just as Encyclopedia Britannica has the rights to publish Bill Gates' name
3. Germany cannot rule on the United States Wikimedia Foundation.
4. Why don't you actually send this to the board if it's that urgent and real?

&mdash; <span style="color:black;">Ilyanep</span> 05:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Two words: BS and Trolling.Voice of All 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• See also press
  • Telepolis: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21750/1.html 00:56, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,394374,00.html 17:08, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • http://www.symlink.ch/articles/06/01/10/1926208.shtml 10.1.2006
  • http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,kulm1/kultur/artikel/970/67903/ 12. Januar 2005, S. 13
  • Der Standard http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2302429
  • http://shortnews.stern.de/shownews.cfm?id=605027&u_id=330694
  • http://www.netzeitung.de/internet/377381.html
  • http://www.n24.de/wirtschaft/multimedia/index.php/n2006011318422600002
  • http://www.sat1.de/news/wirtschaft/2006/01/13/n2006011318422600002/index.php
  • ...
  • more http://news.google.com/news?q=wikipedia+tron&hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
• See also blogs:
  • fukami http://fukami.vakuum.net/archives/2006/01/10/tron-und-realnamen/ 02:13, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Hal Faber: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/68103 08.01.2006
  • R-Archiv: http://www.r-archiv.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2219 20:44, 10. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Blog „Sex, Drugs and Compiler Construction”: http://www.andreas.org/blog/?p=122 01:50, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • burks.de: http://www.burks.de/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=28997 07:00, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Bloh The Lunatic Fringe http://tim.geekheim.de/2006/01/11/tron-der-ccc-und-wikipedia/ 10:25, 11. Jan 2006 (CET)
  • Berlin Blawg http://sewoma.de/berlinblawg/2006/01/11/sevriens/das-postmortale-persoenlichkeitsrecht/
  • Netbib http://log.netbib.de/archives/2006/01/10/wikipedia-kriegt-arger/
  • wortfeld http://www.wortfeld.de/2006/01/wiki_p_und_die_namen/ 10.1.2006
  • Winfuture http://www.winfuture.de/news,23722.html
  • Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,394833,00.html
• See also statement of CCC
  • http://www.ccc.de/updates/2006/wikipedia-vs-tron 13.1.2006

-- IAAL 05:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, google news returns nothing, all the sites are in german, and this doesn't have solid legal grounds (and I can see that even though IANAL) — Ilyanep | Ilyanep 05:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

how does all this rambling have anything to do with the main page? Go talk to the designated agent. Don't post this on that page's talk page, either, just use the information there to contact the proper person. Gentgeen 05:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked IAAL for making legal threats. Please discuss at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats-gadfium 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a legal threat but rather notice of an actual temporary restraining order made by a German court against Misplaced Pages, on the grounds of privacy. On the order itself, I don't see any problem with complying with this temporary order, which seems to be genuine. It may be that Misplaced Pages can comply by refusing to serve the page to German-allocated IP numbers. IAL should probably be unblocked. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Some neutral facts:

• Mr. Attorney-at-law Friedrich Kurz ("Creative Law", cp. ) plead the parents' case. After the cryptic death of Boris F., who was find suspended on a tree in Berlin, the parents and family - with all the pains they have been in deep mourning because of loosing their child - the parents do not want the complete familyname being published anywhere at wikipedia.org. This wish can be respected.
• The Wikimedia Foundation, some german admins of wikipedia.org have ignored this wish of the parents. This is the reason why the German Municipal Court of Berlin was called.
• The Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany), cp. , filed the restraining order on December 14, 2005. The main negotiation can then be done in quiet hours while the hearing before there will exist a final decision. The restraining order itself is only a temporarily solution. Only the best lawyers are allowed to become a District Court Judge in Germany.

I collected some more links for you onto my User:IAAL. Thank you very much. -- IAAL 00:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

More discussion

Zscout370 (talk · contribs) has deleted the page. Personally, I do not agree with this action. Comments? — Scm83x 07:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The lawsuit looks genuine to me, so I complied with his wishes. The Germans already deleted their page and moved it to the same title I moved the new page to Tron (hacker). Honestly, I am surprised this page did not go to AFD, but if you think my actions are wrong, revert my changes. I will not change it back, nor I will call for others to change it back. Zach 07:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You are under the misimpression that the german wikipedia changed the page title because of this legal threat. This is not true. We already had long discussions about the subject about half an year ago, and the change of the page title was only meant as a compromise (typical for german wikipedia) to get both sides satisfied. So the impression that german wikipedia is following the injunction is wrong. The opposite is true: The article still holds the full name (and thats what the injunction is about), and was locked by administrators to keep it that way (and prevent the edit war which occured when the article was not locked). And one more thing: Despite what IAAL is trying to make people belive, most german jurists who have commented on the case believe that the injuction is junk and won't stand a trial anyway. -- Kju (de) 13:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zach. This was an excellent job by you. Nickname is ok, short form Boris F. is also ok - and the complete familyname is locked. Perfect! :-) The other things in the other languages, that's still awful, because all the articles with his complete familyname (note: The Judge said "no familyname anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG") are still accessable to Germany especially to the German Court via the Internet. Is there a technical solution, to make an entry of "global bad words" into the Misplaced Pages-software, so, the complete familyname will not appear anywhere in any languages? If not, uh.... aren't there about 170 different languages at wikipedia, and so all articles (existing, non-existing) must be locked? -- IAAL 07:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how a German judge has power over the English Florida-based Misplaced Pages. Can someone explain precedent? I don't think there is one. Scm83x 07:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p16_internet.html says that even if the content is posted in the United States, as long as it is accessable to Germany, the German courts can rule to have such materials deleted or bocked. Zach 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they can certainly pass that law in Germany, but that doesn't mean people in completely different countries with completely different laws have to pay any attention to it. The worst they can do is try to impose fines on us that we won't have any legal obligation to pay. This is a gross overreach of their legal power, and, furthermore, an admin taking it upon himself to delete the page based upon the claims of a lawyer party to the action is a hugely bad precedent that will only lead to more and more censorship. I recommend restoring the page and keeping it there until US law recognizes German authority on this matter (i.e. likely never), or until an AfD or Jimbo says otherwise. Furthermore, why is IAAL still posting here? This is a clear case of a party to a threatened legal action talking here, that's against all policy. DreamGuy 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zach and Scm83x. You are very correct, this strategy by the german attorney-at-law is very intelligent, because in one side there exist the internationality of wikipedia and in the other side there exist also the internationality of the Internet. This is why you have all national laws of each nation within one pot. A chance to lump together all the laws and to provocate international conflicts especially to abuse it. In the other side, there has never been a reason to publish an article about Boris F., because he has never been a person of the contemporary history. Goethe, Einstein, Schiller, Mozart, no problem, but Boris F.? It is the free editing, that everybody is allowed to create an new article and now the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy have a problem. Onto my User:IAAL I collected the information of law-steps. HTH! :-) -- IAAL 07:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is still a minor problem: the recreated page presumably uses content from the original page, but as that has been deleted the authors of the original are not credited as they must be under the licence, GFDL. This is not an urgent problem; if we take a few days to sort it out I'm sure no one will mind. We could decide to have no article at all on this person; we could rewrite the article entirely; or we may be able to do something clever with selective undeletion of the original so the exact earlier contents are not visible but the article history is. Cutting and pasting the original's history page (without the surname) to the talk page would be the simplest method of preserving the GFDL requirements.-gadfium 07:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gadfium. Wonderful. Thank for your info. I personally think, that Jimmy should be insolved into the right one technical solutions. -- IAAL 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My intent was to nuke the previous article and write it from scratch at the new location, so GFDL concerns will be met. But really, I do not see anything notable about this person at all, but with what has been going down in Germany, he might get an article. I will nuke my new entry and start it from scratch. Zach 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page for Boris F should probably be deleted as well. Although there is nothing linking to it, it is using his name on Misplaced Pages in a manner which would annoy the German judge. The article itself, which now just bears a protection against recreation notice, contains no material on Boris himself and so I would assume is okay.-gadfium 07:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

New article nuked, and I started it from scratch again. All references to the hacker's name and gender (the gender part was my bit) are no longer in the article, so I hope this works. BTW, Scm83x, if you think I did something majorly wrong, please turn WP:RFC/Zscout370 into a blue link. Zach 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the discussion page, me and Scm83x had a small discussion about why this ruling, though we are a US based website, can still take effect from a German court. Zach 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, please check out these two links that Zach found concerning the law and its implications: and . — Scm83x 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I have no interest in an RfC. After reviewing the law, you did the right thing. It was a "just wondering" query. I was hoping that you weren't being reactionary and you weren't. This is definitely merited. Scm83x 07:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the family name is readily available elsewhere (e.g. http://www.legal-rights.org/NDSTHEFT/breakingthecodes.html), and WIkipedia can still inform its readers by linking to it and stlll comply with the judge's order until it is properly disposed of. Misplaced Pages (or, for that matter, the Internet) cannot afford to censor itself inorder to conform with Germany's idea of a "free" press.- Nunh-huh 08:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While it might be considered ideal if German law didn't apply to the US, the precedent of Dmitry Sklyarov, who broke no laws of his own country, and who broke no US law while in the US, yet was still arrested in the US, might give us all some concern.-gadfium 08:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That case is not relevant to this article unless we wer eto travel to Germany. Scm83x 08:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't likely to come to this, but would you really not want to ever be able to travel to Germany? Even on a stopover to somewhere else? Since Germany is part of the EU, that restriction might even be wider. Anyway, this is getting rather off the topic.-gadfium 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, the point here is, whenever any large group (organization, business, etc.) has a legal threat come in, they don't just let some individual working on his own take it upon himself to do whatever the person making the threat says. That's why there are legal advisors. This action is hugely bad precedent, and the deletion should not be done by admins trying to interpret laws on their own. Furthermore, this is a clear question of censorship, and we can't anyone just come along and make a threat and get some naive but well intentioned person to do whatever they ask. This is nonsense. The article needs to be restored until Wikimedia lawyers, Jimbo, or some official decision is made through some other process. The German law is totally bogus. The same thing happened with the Canadian courts when they tried to gag people on details of various murder trials there, and we never followed their threats, and if Iran comes along and tells us to remove everything for our servers that they feel is objectionable, then China, etc., we won;t have anything left. Stop and think about this. DreamGuy 08:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The German law is totally bogus. Please don't judge the german law on grounds of a single injunction. Such injuctions are issued without much checking into the legal background of the case. If the argumentes brought before by the plaintiff sounds remotely reasonable, such a injuction is granted. It is up to a court to decide if the injunction will stand. Also the injuction was issued by a so called "Amtsrichter" which is the lowest grade of a judge in germany. More often than not such judges make wrong decisions (often even ignoring general decisions made by the german supreme court) and their decisions get invalidated by the next higher courts. Many german lawyers have commented (in germany) on this case, and most of them believe that, while the topic is fishy, the injuction does not stand on real legal background and is trash. -- Kju (de) 14:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If you can point to diffs and precedent for the Canadian thing, we should definitely undelete. Scm83x 08:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as is for the moment, and let Jimbo, the Board etc decide what to do. We've made a good effort to avoid damage, and it can all be reversed by more knowledgable people if need be.-gadfium 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, as they say "this is way over my pay-grade". Regardless of who makes the decision, if DreamGuy (talk · contribs) can provide links, etc. then that would help whoever does make the decision to make it. — Scm83x 08:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is perfectly unacceptable. You deleted a perfectly good article, replacing it with a stub referring to Misplaced Pages and Jimmy Wales instead of the actual case, without AfD, just because some user posted legal threats to Talk:Main?? I say, undelete at once, post the threats to the board, and do nothing until board members request deletion.

Friedrich Kurz, der von Trons Eltern beauftragte Anwalt, will zu dem Fall nichts sagen, redet aber vage von einer "Strategie", die man verfolge.

Heise.de thinks the threat is void, and quotes Friedrich Kurz, the lawyer of the F., alluding to a "strategy" they have to get their way. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Kurz' strategy was to sign up under an ominous username, such as "IAAL", and try to confuse Misplaced Pages admins into obliging him. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello dab. I am not Mr. Kurz, the german attorney-at-law of the parents of Boris F. -- IAAL 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is another hint that you can't take IAAL serious because he does not know what he is talking about. Mr. Kurz is the attorney of Müller-Maguhn and the parents. He is not an attorney-at-law, and i belive there isn't even any attorney-at-law involved in this case, because its not about criminal matters (currently) but about a civil law case. Müller-Maguhn just got some lawyer who went to the court and got a injuction against wikipedia. There is no attorney-at-law involved in this, and it should also be noted that such injunctions are often granted without checking the legal background very deeply. So many such injuctions are just junk. Warning: I am not a lawyer. -- Kju (de) 13:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

However, you had identified yourself to gadfium (talk · contribs) as being involved in the case: "He's confirmed that he's involved in the case - he's supposed to be faxing documents to Jimbo.". Any involvement calls for immediate block until the case is resolved. — Scm83x 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's getting rough to type anything with all the edit conflicts (om 6 now), but Misplaced Pages:No legal threats specifically says to refrain from taking action until AFTER it is resolved. DreamGuy 08:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It might be, that some wikipedians will not like this decision by the Court (me, too), but the current english version is also accessible in Germany. There would be 1000 arguments with an endless discussion especially emotional arguments ("censorship", etc.). We are American. We are cool. We calm down by a very easy way because of this provocation from the German Court. Fact is, that there is just now - temporary(!), note: it is only temporary - the restraining order with the tenor of the German Judge "no complete familyname of Boris F. anywhere at WIKIPEDIA.ORG, or a fine of 250,000,- Euro or up to 6 months jail". And the american admins made a perfect job to realize this as soon as possible as well as possible especially to avoid big damages for Misplaced Pages and Jimbo. Removing the familyname does not make anybody poor but ignoring. So the final things things must be regulated by the Wikimedia Foundation themselves and Jimmy Wales himself, who are responsible for this case. I am sure, they have phantastic attorney-at-laws, who will help them. I am also sure, they will bring the crazy case to the right one and correct end. It is just now unknown, if Wikimedia Foundation will file an appeal to the Municipal Court of Berlin in Germany or whatever. But after it, everybody here will know what's going on with the familyname of Boris F.. This is only my voluntary advice to the admins. If you will do another thing especially without asking Jimbo, then you will clearly have to stand for the consequences, f.e. regress, damagefees of regress, etc.. I hope, I could show you a little bit my goodwill to you. Thank you very much. -- IAAL 09:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning: IAAL is a known troll. See hints above. Thank you for consideration. -- Kju (de) 13:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are involved with this threat you should not be discussing the issue here, you should be discussing things direct with out legal counsel. Wikimedia doesn;t have to file an appeal in Germany, as it isn;t in Germany and doesn't have to pay attention to any of its laws, all it has to do is ignore the stupid overreaching and nonsensical ruling by a judge who doesn't respect other countries' rights to govern themselves. If they send a fine, it can be ignored. If they threaten to arrest someone if they ever go to Germany, well, fine, I love the beer and chocolate, but Australia is close enough. This whole thing is idiotic, and if you are involved with the court case you should already be banned. Goodwill has nothing to do with this, it's just scare tactics to trick people into doing what you want them to do. DreamGuy 09:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with above, undelete post haste pending a realistic legal consultation. This is absurd. And if they want someone to sue, have them bill me. --Ryan Delaney 09:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument of censorship runs contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Censorship is not merely an "emotional argument", it runs contrary to the entire spirit of Misplaced Pages. Where is the slippery slope? Of course, I'm not too sure what to think about this, and we should of course, err on the side of caution, but I hope you understand, that we will not take kindly to bullying. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Andy Müller-Maguhn, speaker of the Chaos Computer Club is among the people who stand behind this. It is a fact that people who used to fight themselves for free information and know the "spirit" of this project did not sue one of several german newspapers or publishers mentioning Tron's real name but Misplaced Pages. This is one of the main reasons for the irritation and it has caused several critical remarks in german media. Recently, the CCC has reacted and stated that it does not take sides in the case. --Lightlike 09:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiegel speculates that Mueller-Maguhn wants publicity because he thinks Tron was murdered and wants to keep the issue vaguely live. It also says that a recent novel gave Tron's full name; the publisher received a restraining order but refused to endorse it. (Oh, and I don't know if it's been corrected yet, but the restraining order to Wikimedia was initially misaddressed to St Petersburg, Russia.) Rd232 11:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It should also noted that Müller-Maguhn is losing his (rather small) supporter base even inside the Chaos Computer Club. Many people nowadays see this a a private business of Müller-Maguhn and the CCC has officially distanced the club from the incident in a recent press release (see url above). So don't see this as a case of CCC against Misplaced Pages but rather a case of some (probably misguided) people against Misplaced Pages. Most people in the CCC are of sane mind and do not believe in legal hasslement. (Disclaimer: I was a member of the CCC and left it for a couple of reasons. Some people believe that i'm working against the CCC because of this. This is not true, but you might want to consider that). -- Kju (de) 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia

There is a revert war going on this template, I have been trying to resotre tens of userpages getting broken due to this. Can someone please lock the template meanwhile? --Cool Cat 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, that goes straight to the Oxymoron of the Month award. Radiant_>|< 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we allowed to move the "locked" tag to the talk page? It looks really nasty on userpages. Mark 11:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

(after ec) Locked (by me) - but I don't have a clue what's going on, so if anyone does and disagrees with the protection, feel free to reverse. I think the 'protection' notice has been fixed (I screwd up). If not, then yes move it. --Doc 11:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had a general guideline against metatemplates on grounds of server load? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That template really shouldn't be used. It would not be difficult in the slightest to make separate templates that don't cause outrageous server load. If people don't want broken userpages, they shouldn't use templates that put undue strain on the server. ] 12:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just creating the userbox in ones own userspace would eleviate any problems concerning people messing with the template. Why, may I ask is that so difficult..? Just make your own userboxes. This is getting out of hand. -MegamanZero|Talk 12:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. I have removed all the meta templates. {{User wikipedia}} now just says "this user is a member of Misplaced Pages". In contrast to Radiant!'s oxymoron, we now have a tautology by mere existance. ] 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me why are you breaking tens of useprages? If you want to edit templates please be responsible and fix every userpage it links to. While it is easy enough for me to fix my own useprage, it is imperative that such large scale removals be done carefully. Lots of userpages are broken which perhaps is none of anyones business as its not userpage. I fail to accept that level of apathy, sorry. --Cool Cat 12:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As Tony said, there's a general guideline against this sort of thing because of the servers. In this case, the onus is on the users of the template to update their userpages, and not the other way round. Johnleemk | Talk 12:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between 'avoid using meta-templates' and 'go out of your way to break things'. The reason that meta-templates are to be avoided is that when you have a template which calls many other templates that is used on many pages updates to the template can cause significant server load. That isn't the case here. The load from this template is insignificant. The thousands of un-subst'd 'welcome' messages on various talk pages are a bigger deal. The babel templates (yup, those are meta-templates too) are a bigger deal. There is no reason to remove every 'meta template' in Misplaced Pages. Even if there were... there would then still be no need to go about it in the most disruptive and uncivil manner possible. --CBD _☎ 12:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I broke nothing. All the templates still worked. I'll agree there is no need to get rid of every meta template. On the other hand, there is no reason to use them when it is unnecessary. See for how to avoid unnecessary meta templates. I was not uncivil. I disrupted nothing. There are bots that subst welcome and test messages. Stop attacking me for following policy. ] 13:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<?> I wasn't even talking to you. Which should be obvious if you 'broke nothing'. The template got broken. Some people were saying 'this is a good thing'. It isn't. Yes, there are ways to fix it. Yes, we should look to not use meta-templates (or templates at all) when we don't need to. None of which changes the fact that breaking things and saying, 'Ok now it is your job to clean up the mess I just made' is equally "unnecessary". Most meta-templates can be seemlessly replaced without anyone noticing that something changed (see Template:Journal reference for example). For those which can't a plan to convert them should be announced and the changeover accomplished as quickly / cleanly as possible. We should never be talking about how it is 'good' to make a mess of things and then force people who don't know what is going on to sort it out. That is needlessly disruptive. Which also ought to be obvious. --CBD _☎ 13:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I just removed the entire meta-template thing from the template, so I assumed I was being addressed. My mistake. ] 13:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no - the reason we don't use meta-templates is server load. The policy has been there for a while. And the only pages we are breaking are userpages. The right of userpages to have their pretty userboxes do not trump the server issues under ANY circumstances at all. Simply put, user pages just don't matter enough to keep meta-templates around. Phil Sandifer 16:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

....Especially considering the obvious fact that userboxes can (and should) be made independently of ones own userspace. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

First - "the reason we don't use meta-templates". False statement. We use meta-templates all the time. The Main page is chock full of meta-templates. Both of your userpages (Snowspinner & MegamanZero) contain meta-templates. The policy is "AVOID" using meta-templates, not "DON'T" use meta-templates.
Second - only templates which get called by many pages cause significant server load... and then only when they are updated. This template was seldom updated and appeared on less than four hundred pages. The 'server load' issue here is virtually non-existant. Updating the 'Test1' template would be a bigger deal... even though it is not a 'meta' template.
Third - even if the policy were to hunt down and destroy every meta-template no matter how insignificant its impact on server load... it would still be wrong to 'break first and sort it out later'. There is no need for it. Just plan ahead and transition the templates to new methods smoothly. Why would we ever advocate causing annoyance and disruption for no good cause? --CBD _☎ 17:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The main page uses nested templates, not meta templates. That modifying Test1 would cause more harm is not a reason to cause harm this way. It's an argument to stop the harm Test1 does. ] 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, if you want to get technical then actually the Main page uses 'meta-templates' (templates "created and used to keep other templates in a standard format") and things like 'Qif' and 'Switch' are the 'nested templates' (templates which call other templates). Either way the root issue is the same (and applies equally to simple templates like Test1)... every page which calls a template (or which calls a template which calls that template, and so forth) must be updated when the template is. This creates server load. Because some of the 'if' and 'boolean' templates get called by MANY other templates, which are in turn called by MANY pages, these sorts of 'nested' templates (technically not meta-templates per the definition on the page) are amongst the most problematic. My point with Test1 and other examples is that we need to establish some degree of sanity here. This 'all meta-templates (widely re-defined as 'nested' templates) are bad' concept results in 'fixing' problems which don't exist while leaving significantly worse 'non-meta' templates in place. We should be seeking to remove templates used on thousands of pages... whether they are simple, nested, meta, or whatever is irrelevant. Once you get down below a thousand pages linked I'd question just how significant the server load is... but if we want to avoid even those minimal drains then people need to understand... we aren't talking about doing away with 'meta-templates'. We are talking about doing away with templates. In my opinion going after relatively harmless things like the main page, babel boxes (not the userboxes, but the actual babel meta-templates which call them), open tasks lists, picture of the day templates, et cetera would be silly. The 'server load' issues are insignificant for those and the hundreds of other nested templates in common use throughout Misplaced Pages. We should be looking at how many pages the template links to and how frequently it gets updated. Those are the determinants of 'server load'. --CBD _☎ 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is a misconception that templates only cause significant server load when updated. The main page templates and babel templates are among the most widely viewed, and are definitely candidates for demetafication. Radiant_>|< 19:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  Nested (or 'meta') templates take longer to render than straight text, but there was a recent discussion on WT:AUM about the fact that some 'simple' template implementations can take longer to render than the meta equivalents (e.g. evaluating 50 parameters vs calling one of 50 sub-templates). Longer rendering on frequently viewed pages can slow down response time... but in most cases this 'rendering' issue is fairly minor. Reading over WP:AUM shows that it is the added load when updating heavily linked templates which is the primary concern. If you want to make an issue out of rendering double transclusion templates like the Main page and Babel then we are back to getting rid of virtually all templates... which, again, also take longer to render than straight text, and indeed can even take longer than meta equivalents in some cases. For example, the main page templates and that 'pic of the day' meta-template on your user-page would either have to be updated daily as straight text OR require a large parameter switch which would take much longer to render than the current double-transclusion. --CBD _☎ 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  So don't implement any fancy template design. You'll survive. Trust me. ] 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Zen-master apparently has problems with the term "conspiracy theory" in article titles. Rather than using WP:RM for this purpose, he has created a policy proposal (Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory) which was soundly rejected, and has now made basically the same proposal under a bowdlerized name (Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality), and now insists that this must be voted upon despite the fact that many people (Cberlet and Uncle G, among others) already objected to it on the talk page, and Zen is apparently the sole supporter. Any suggestions on how to handle this persistent wikilawyering? Radiant_>|< 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant omits some pertinent facts. For starters a proponent of "conspiracy theory" in titles, I believe it was Adhib, just 2 days ago added and updated the keep as is counter argument here so other editors are actively working on it besides me. Secondly, a week or two ago there were half a dozen editors on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories that agreed "conspiracy theory" is pejorative for a proposed subsection split to a sub article (6 other editors or so disagreed so there was no consensus). Thirdly and fourthly, title neutrality is drastically different and updated compared to the original "conspiracy theory" proposal but even if it wasn't the original Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory vote closed over 6 months ago which is more than enough time to have elapsed before proposal resubmittal. Feel free to vote against it but please don't censor it. If you have a problem with the title of Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality then voice your concerns on the discussion page, I am open to renaming version 2.0 of the proposal, but I am not open to letting you censor or misclassify it. zen master T 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting a page would be censorship. Flagging it with {{rejected}} (as I have done) is not. And policy or guidelines are not generally created by voting on them. There already is substantial criticism on the talk page, which you have entirely ignored. Radiant_>|< 19:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism and 3RR at Elevator levitation

Over the past few days, several anonymous IP addresses have been deleting the article at Elevator levitation and replacing with variously worded copyright infringement claims, alleging that the article violates copyright from a magic-information commercial site. The issue was posted at requests for immediate removal. The copyright claim is not valid: Unless the exact text of the article was stolen from another source (that is, the wording, not the concept), there is no violation. Magic trick methods are not copyrightable, and although they can be patented, a patent only prevents an unlicensed party from performing the trick, not describing its methods. For more information, please see Intellectual rights to magic methods. The anon has only claimed that our article discloses the method, not his wording, so there is no violation. I cannot continue to revert his vandalism without violating 3RR (although he has already violated it himself when you count the many IPs in use), so I am not going to continue, but I would appreciate some help from other users and admins. Thanks! -Lanoitarus .:. 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another round of deletions out of process

...this time by Voice of All (deletion log). He seems to have developed his own Speedy Deletion criteria, and yesterday speedied four articles with the comment "vanity". At least one of those articles clearly asserts notability, but with only 50 Google hits it didn't meet Voice of All's standards. When I asked him about it, he dismissed it with a "Lets try to keep BS off of Misplaced Pages" () and "Anyone can challenge at deletion review" ().

This new admin seems to prefer the convenience of the one-click "delete" button he has over the trouble of an AfD: "I wish listing AFD could be done automatically with a click" (), and isn't interested in process or policy.

I would appreciate a third party's help in dealing with this. Owen× ☎ 18:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, out of context. "One click" was refering to the 3 stop listing process, as in LISTING it automatically, as in not having to add {{AFD}}, follow the link, list it on the WP page. I am not "new" either. "Vanity" has been used for years to delete nonsense, so mentioning the other deletions is just a red herring.

Also, the Google hits only mentioned the name and banjo. I went to the pages and he got less than a line of mentioning, such as noting him a player and moving on to the main topic. I found no articles on him, and nothing that said anything about him, other than being a banjo player who played with more notable people.

Oh and I am interested in Policy like the correct (WP:V) assertion of notability. I have argued for Semi-Protection policy, WP:NOR, WP:PP, WP:V and others to be enforced more. Please stop making false strawmen accusations, all of this drama is making my head spin.

Please try not to make a huge issue over one Speedy Deletion. You disagreed and restored, fine. I am not wheel warring over, disagreement keeps admins actions checked.Voice of All 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Let's see...
  • Corrosive Bat is apparently a group of seven people founded in 2004 that have created several movies, most of which five minutes in length, or shorter. Nothing there claims they're more than a group of friends with a handycam.
  • Douglas Dunlop was a Scottish teacher and missionary in Egypt who advised the minister of education there. No evidence of significant deeds, awards, etc.
  • Kim Anderson is the lead singer for a band that hasn't released its first album yet and that claim to have created a new style.
  • Louis 'Lou' Black seems notable enough by the article.
• That would make two obviously right decisions, one that may be borderline (Dunlop), and one that is apparently wrong. Which is a far cry from the alleged "round of deletions out of process". I'd say he's doing fine. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. While I apologize for using the word "BS", and I probably should have listed that one article (if you have to do research or even think twice, then don't speedy) just to be sure, I dont see the need for all this drama, including the RfC threat on my talk page. I am just trying to keep Misplaced Pages from being a "big trash bin". I found that article while cliking random articles (just to see the ratio of good/total). As I said, I don't mind if admins look over and correct each other. It is better than listing every vanity page on AfD, which wastes time for everyone and leavs embarrasing material on Misplaced Pages. Voice of All 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Douglas Dunlop contains a clear assertion of notability a Scottish missionary and He was entrusted to modernize the Egyptian educational system - remember if it is a debatable assertion it is not a speedy. Whether the assertion makes him notable, is a matter for afd. I've restored this, with the intention of researching it. Unless I can establish notability, I will send it to afd myself. --Doc 19:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've already researched it, but if you find something, then let me know. All I get are Misplaced Pages mirrors, 404 errors, and Dunlops technical systems.Voice of All 19:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunlop is clearly notable, he should never have been deleted - and certainly not speedied (Doc fears that he is turning into Tony_Sidaway) --Doc 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • You can't just use google for this sort of thing. Secretlondon 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All, you'd do better to not use "vanity" as your description. It is not a CSD. An nn-bio, or an A7 is. An article not asserting notability is. But vanity is not, and has never been. It's kind of psychologically important too, since, if you are working on "vanity" as a CSD, that's an entirely more liberal version of "nn-bio" than is acceptable. -Splash 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally when people say vanity, they mean nn-bio as well, otherwise they would just do a POV fix. Vanity usually is a non-notable bio, nn-bio is not necessarily vanity. I should have just tagged the damn thing, but whatever...let the pile-on continue (except for Radiant)! Voice of All 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've accepted the speedy was a mistake - no big deal, we've all done it. Story over, further pile-on unneccessary. --Doc 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Having multiple comments to something, from several users, is not a pile on. Particularly when one of them says something not previously said. It's just people commenting. If one person only could comment, we'd be in a pretty poor state, imo. -Splash 23:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a pile on at all. Don't be disheartened. I'm really inclusionist (within reason) especially on less covered topics. Band vanity we could all do without, however. There is a liberal<->nonliberal spread within the admins, and diversity is good. Whenever banning/blocking/deleting comes up, and it is controversial there will always be some people who go "whaaa!"Secretlondon 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd point out there's Speedy Review, where other admins check the deletion logs for speedies in error and ... restore them. Note that this does not involve harassing the newpages patroller - newpages patrol is fundamentally swimming through a sewer. This solves the problem in a way that results in less red tape, not more. If you're an admin worrying about speedies in error, go through the log and restore the ones you think were in error - David Gerard 16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I think that the comment "Anyone can challenge at deletion review" was taken out of context, I would remind all admins that only 800 of the thousands of editors can see the content of a deleted article, so for most most of us, the speedy deletion of an article is final. -- DS1953 23:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Puppeteer

There has also been some recent creations of users that have been calling themselves sockpuppets of each other and I feel that "The puppeteer is an inappropriate user name.

1. The_Puppeteer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. reeteppuPehT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. ATeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. BTeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are the list of "Puppeteers". SWD316 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just come across ATeppup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), adding "speedy delete" tags to articles (including Wiktionary and Central Intelligence Agency); he/she adds it at the bottom of the article, enclosong it in "div" codes to make it invisible in the article (though the relevant category shows up). If it can be established that these are sockpuppets, could all but one of them be banned? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I alreay blocked ATeppup and added a comment on the fact over on WP:AN. The initial message from SWD316 was posted both here and at AN for some reason. --GraemeL 00:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

IP 195.93.21.10

This IP just did a couple of blanks. I went to the talk page to post a warning, but it seems there are already several. It appears nothing has ever come from the many warnings. Perhaps someone should look into it. If this is not the right place to post this please let me know so I can get it right the next time.--◀Puck▶ 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Once a user has been warned that they will be blocked if they continue to vandalize, and then they do so again, you can use Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism to let us know. I've left a warning at User talk:195.93.21.10 about today's blanking. Thanks. Jkelly 19:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's bound to be a shared IP address. Secretlondon 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an AoL proxy server. The IP reverses to cache-los-aa10.proxy.aol.com. --GraemeL 19:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that pretty much makes it an impossible situation to deal with, right? You guys have my sympathy.--◀Puck▶ 19:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

68.109.223.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps reverting my edit, in which I move the Bias section to its own article, saying that I'm destroying the article. I told him on his talk page to check the article talk page but he ignored me. I'd like to actually be able to do this without being bothered in such a trollish way. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the content dispute the IP violated 3RR so I have blocked for 24 hours. Jtkiefer ---- 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Edbon3000

Edbon3000 (talk · contribs) is contributing a vast amount of articles concerning the Filipino film directory. Of the articles I have checked, I can not find evidence for the existence of any of these people, or indeed even the films credited in filmography or the studios producing them. I'm not assuming bad faith, but unless Edbon is able to provide a published source of his information, it's not suitable for inclusion. Edbon has already been asked by other editors to cite his sources. // paroxysm (n) 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

An example of a (partially?) verifiable contribution: Lvn Pictures. // paroxysm (n) 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Filipino film may not come up very much in google. Secretlondon 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, I just came here to mention this user as well. Like Paroxysm said, there is an enormous amount of junk being added and modified by this user. He's also messing up categories, etc. I could spend all day adding {{cleanup}} to his articles and deleting his categories. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I don't know enough about his/her article subjects to say they aren't real - but almost every one of them needs a lot of cleanup from the first edit. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Rate is around 20 articles per hour while s/he is on. That's a lot of cleanup for people that we have difficulty verifying in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

But actual articles on Korean cinema is a good thing. We probably need loads of work on world cinema generally. I'd rather have them on cleanup then not have the info as English language google can't verify. Other Koreans will pick up if it's rubbish. Secretlondon 22:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He should at least comply to the requests on his talk page and provide a source. I'd be much more inclined to clean up all these articles if I knew they weren't going to be deleted at any time, but if he doesn't even provide a reference there's no basis for including them in Misplaced Pages.

Edbon also added this tagline to some of his articles, which I think's interesting:

Movie archieves by Edebro

And more recently his email address. // paroxysm (n) 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, he had his email addy in there from the beginning. I came accross and tagged some of his stuff on Newpagepatrol earlier today, and removed his addy. I was revisiting my tagging to follow up and was about to mention him here after talking to him like Wknight. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

They should be kept if verifiablity can be established, otherwise they shouldn't. It should be noted though that Google isn't the end all when it comes to internet knowledge and even though a huge amount of stuff is indexed by google it isn't everything that's on the internet by any means. Jtkiefer _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, this could be worse than we thought - going back many, many weeks, he has hundreds of additions of unsourced and otherwise unverifiable Filipino entertainers. Yes, google and IMDb aren't the only test, but we need to find a threshhold of inclusion, and soon, because there are a TON of these. And whatever is keepable (if anything) needs serious cleanup. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Projects sockpuppets

Can we get some permanent relief from this person? The info about the case is here: User:Dijxtra/Sock. This user is either actually demented or a very sophisticated troll. This has gone on for weeks and weeks, one article is really bollixed up, this could go on forEVER, it take's people's time every day, and there is nothing more to be done but block the entire range for a while, please. Just read User:Dijxtra/Sock, I request a 1 or 2 week block on the entire IP range and all the puppets. Herostratus 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master (talk · contribs) 3RR and probation violations

Zen-master has reverted the addition of the "rejected" tag on Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality (created by him) five times in 16 hours. Three different editors have reverted him. The 3RR violation has been listed here at WP:AN/3RR, but hasn't yet received comment from an admin. In addition to blocking him for the 3RR violation, I also ask that an admin ban him from editing this page for at least two weeks, per the terms of his probation. Carbonite | Talk 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Izehar has blocked him for 24 hours. I'm agree with Carbonite that Zen-master should be banned from editing the article. What do other administrators think? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he should be banned (yet). The talk page of that page has never been used. If he was revert warring with three other users, they should have discussed the reversions on the talk page. The way I see it, they have been just as disruptive (of course I do not know whether what he has been doing has any merit). IMO when the block expires, if the trolling resumes, then ban him. If he takes the hint and walks away, then there is no need to. Izehar 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair to me I guess. I don't think the other users are being disruptive though, the proposal has the support of only Zen-master and one other person. Hopefully he does lay off of the reverts. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of banning him from that (and related) policy or proposal pages. "Title Neutrality" is an intentionally misleading name. What it actually is, is a proposal to rename articles to not contain the term "conspiracy theory", which Zen finds offensive. If you read the proposal, it refers only to those kinds of "neutral" titles. This has previously been proposed on Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory, and was soundly rejected. Zen has been requested to use WP:RM to discuss page moves, but prefers to create a policy page to "back" his opinion. He's already using this page in discussion as if it were policy. The guy seriously needs to stop wikilawyering. Radiant_>|< 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He broke the terms of his probation -- there should be some consequences for it. That other people were edit warring with him is unfortunate but immaterial -- he was placed on probation for a very good reason. Katefan0/mrp 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master has requested to be unblocked - User talk:Zen-master#Unblock request. Just thought you all should know. Izehar 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Can he edit the talk page while blocked? Tom Harrison 23:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a blocked user can edit his/her talk page. Izehar 23:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the talk page Misplaced Pages talk:Title Neutrality. If he can at least take part in the discussion there I would say leave him blocked. If he cannot, I could support unblocking him if he agrees not to edit other than on the talk page. Tom Harrison 23:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

From past interaction, Zen-master has demonstrated that he has an extremely broad definition of "vandalism", expanding to include basically any edits he disputes. He's well aware of what it actually says at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, but still continues to label edits he disagrees with as vandalism. I see no reason to unblock him early and rather strong justification to temporarily ban him from editing Misplaced Pages:Title Neutrality. Carbonite | Talk 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • There's really no point in unblocking him to allow him to edit those talk pages. In my experience, he simply repeats the same arguments over and over again, not listening to anybody else (and calling them vandals, cabalists, etc). Not just on this page but on others too, e.g. check the history of Misplaced Pages:User prerogatives. Zenny is unable or unwilling to understand, even after repeated explanation, such concepts as consensus, or the fact that policy isn't created by voting on it. Radiant_>|< 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to put a request in the clarification section of RfAr to see if he can be blocked. There is precedent for users just being put on probation and then after multiple violations, a blocking occuring. I think it's time. Just since early December, he has been blocked from I believe 3-4 articles and he's been banned for 24 hours for 3RR violations another 3-4 times. Probation is failing. --Woohookitty 07:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Chime in at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Zen-master. --Woohookitty 08:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

New Chapter on Gibraltarian

The Gibraltarian vs. Ecemaml edit war has spilled onto Gibraltarian's evidence page. Here's how I see this situation: Gibraltarian comments on this page. Ecemaml replys. Gibraltarian removes Ecemaml's reply. Ecemaml restores them. Edit warring ensues. Gibraltarian claims that Ecemaml "has had his chance" and that this page "is all now" - which, if I'm not mistaken, is a violation of WP:OWN. It's about time to act on this situation - to be honest, my mood sinks everytime I witness Gibraltarian's hate-filled comments. --TML1988 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The instructions clearly say that each involved party is to present their evidence in their own section. "Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user," and "This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page." --bainer (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is a banned user. The proposed decision page is already SP. I think the evidence page should be as well since it's not as if he's even attempting to follow the rules. --Woohookitty 07:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:International space agency

This user keeps posting legal threats on his talk page and talk pages of others despite repeated requests to cease and pointing to WP:NLT can someone review please. I haven't blocked yet. --pgk 14:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely. It's not just the legal threats mind you; there's the constant spamming and disruption. The user was politely warned and responded with a tirade of legal threats laced with racist inneuendo. We don't need that, especially not when I haven't had my morning cup of coffee yet. But seriously, we don't have to take legal threats from a spammer. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

He does make a lot of valid (and valuable) contributions. I propose we amend the block so we may reform this editor. A possibly valuable Wikipedian that needs mentorship, perhaps. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)]

This person hit Usenet a while back; mention of an "international space agency" as a general concept was met with a screed to "correct misinformation" about posts dating back to 1990(!) which had "nothing to do with "the International Space Agency (ISA) Organization, Trademarked & Copyrighted (1986-2005) Name & Public Identity". (See, for example, this thread) The organisation appears to exist, according to my research at the time, but the legal noises are fundamentally baseless. They're legit, but it seems to be a personal-vanity thing by a guy in Nebraska.

Lots of googlebombing involved behind the scenes, too - I suspect the International Space Agency page is just another part of this. I'll dig through their contributions now. Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the current block on this user since he/she has repeatedly made ongoing legal threats despite being warned. Jtkiefer _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

All of their stuff seems to have been reverted, bar some meaningless junk on talk pages of redirected pages. I've deleted Talk:International Space Agency as it seemed to be entirely their linkspam, to prevent confusing future users. Shimgray | talk | 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This editor has only been around since three this morning, and got off to a roaring start with this edit here: , which I'm going to go and revert. He's a corporate spammer by the looks of it, and litigious to boot. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In he writes "It is very clear from your speedy and focused actions, that you are indeed a "Skull & Bones" CIA/NSA plant here at Misplaced Pages" I wonder which business school he went to :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And, as expected, I've got an email in my inbox which calls me a "brownshirt" and informs me that a "legal letter" has been sent to Jimbo. That's quick work on their part; although I do hope that their corporate attorney has a better command of the English language...Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just a coincidence that Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_creation/Today#International Space Agency, I.S.A. showed up on Articles for Creation today? --GraemeL 15:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Immidiate attention needed: User:Freestylefrappe and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

Can another admin please take a look at the actions of myself (Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/EurekaLott, my talk page, and FSFs. It began with FSF taking umbrage with me pointing out a voting pattern. FSF then accused me of "harassment." After a brief exchange, FSF then voted oppose on Eureka (and another) for my and BDAbramson's (percieved) actions. After I (twice) changed the header of FSF's message on my talk page, FSF blocked me, and then for some entirely perplexing reason, let me know on the RfA first (which is hideously innapropriate, not just for the RfA, and especially the nominee, but the community at large who have to be subjected two admins' argument). As you can see, I have unblocked myself because the block (IMHO) is unwarrented (I only changed the header, not the content or substance of her diatribe), and FSFs actions are genuine trolling at this point. Nevertheless, this needs some outside help, and fast. I feel FSF is trolling, FSF feels I changed her comments. I have no wish to wheel war on this, so I submit to the will of the admin group at large. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The RFA for EurekaLott has sparked a wheel war. Freestylefrappe complained that Jeffrey O. Gustafson (who had originally nominated EurekaLott) was harassing an oppose voter . After a brief exchange, Freestylefrappe decided to block Jeffrey O. Gustafson for changing others' comments (although I cannot find an edit where he does so, other than repairing a format). The block was then applied . Following this, Jeffrey unblocked himself . I just thought I would bring this to everyone's attention. David | Talk 14:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's bad form to unblock yourself, Jeffrey. Having said that, I think the initial block was patently unjustified. Modifying a user's header on your own talk page is not modification of another user's comments -- IIRC this policy exists only to prevent misattribution of one's comments. I don't think anyone could have confused the headers for being something written by the original commenter. I also think it's bad form to block in a dispute where you may be biased -- it should have been requested that another admin block Jeffrey. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself is grounds for deadminship. There is no circumstance under which an admin may clear a personal block (not IP block, which could just be collateral damage) of him or herself. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(lost in edit conflict) The "changes" in question appear to be these: , in which Jeffrey changed the headings of items on his talk page. That's far from being a blockable offense—indeed, it's common practice for purposes of organization and categorization. I'm concerned that any admin would block someone for such a slight action. Regarding harrassment, Jeffrey's comment might have been somewhat abrupt but I see no pattern of abuse here. I'm not a bureaucrat, but I know that users who oppose all adminship nominations on principle generally do not carry much weight, especially when they do so without articulating the principle. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, and I do not like the principle of a blocked admin unblocking themselves - even when a block has been applied which is not in accordance with Blocking policy. I would also question Freestylefrappe's decision to cast an oppose vote for the candidate and citing only his dispute with the nominator as the reason. David | Talk 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, it is not acceptable to unblock yourself. Whether or not the block was acceptable, Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions were an abuse of his sysop powers. Arbitration cases have been started for less. ] 15:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Calm down there Sam. I agree Jeffrey should not have unblocked himself, but you also aren't supposed to block someone you're in a dispute with! I think an RfC is called for, certainly, but I'd view Freestylefrapp's actions with far greater skepticism. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added one incident from the block log, where an Admin inadvertently blocked themselves rather than the vandal, and then swiftly unblocked, to BJAODN. I've seen a second one there as well. So I wouldn't make an absolute rule that no admin may unblock themselves. David | Talk 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, with the exception for where the block was by themselves. ] 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not about to start one. Nevertheless, wheel warring is super evil, and must not happen. Neither the blocks nor the unblocks should have happened. Both have behaved in a manner unbecoming to admins. ] 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord. Everyone needs to take a step back and chill... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice to finally be notified of this discussion, which Gustafson should have done, but obviously did not want me seeing this. Why dont all of you actually look at the original header, which was a gentle warning, and his change. Until then, I see no reason to "explain my version of the events". It's all pretty straight forward. It's also already being discussed on the RFA talkpage. If you harass other users, you face the consequences, just that simple. freestylefrappe 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you could point us in the direct of an actual justification for blocking another administrator when you're involved in the dispute I'd be most grateful. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed the crux of this dispute. ] 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. One instance of abruptness does not a series of personal attacks make. We can only block if a user refuses to stop making personal attacks, and I don't think anything Jeffrey has done yet constitutes a series of personal attacks. In addition, please see my comment regarding his ostensible "modification of comments". You are gaming the policy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked Jeremy. Do not block him again unless he actually violates policy. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget it then. Let him harass everyone. That's essentially what you're saying. Anyone who votes oppose is a subversive. freestylefrappe 15:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Alex, (and good news for Jeremy, too <grin>). I was actually in the process of apologizing for unblocking myself when I got blocked again. I should have used a normal, accepted avenue of recourse rather than taking the course of action I took. I was wrong, period, regardless of how the block came to be. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think in the light of circumstances here, Jeffrey's unblock of himself is a technical abuse of admin privileges which there is no need to take further. David | Talk 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey's apology is good. I hope his interaction with the rest of the community begins to show some more respect. If you want the privilege of being an admin, you should respond with respect even when being shown none yourself. ] 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Im a bit concerned by Freestyle's last few edits:

I'm particularly worried about number 226 and 230. FSF already has an RFC/RFAr filed against him from his past conflicts. I think more has to be done to control FSF anger problem. SWD316 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry my children (Or else...) Freestyle has been placed in a reeducation camp! He will blindly vote in support for all future candidates (Or else...). His anger over the subjugation of his fellow subversives shall be morphed into a gentle, but fierce love for the motherland (Or else...)! If anyone has any concerns regarding other troublemakers, report them to the Misplaced Pages:Cabal noticeboard immediately. Long live the Cabal! Long live the Cabal! The Cabal 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking note of the above edit, I think it best if Freestylefrappe was left alone for a while so long as he does not start becoming disruptive. It does not help users to become productive if they are provoked, and we seem to be over the immediate cause of the problem. David | Talk 16:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe makes a good point (although the way he expresses it is not so great). It is common in RFA's for every Oppose vote to be questioned repeatedly, often by the nominator. If the opposer gives no reason, a reason is demanded. If the opposer gives a reason, it is belittled. Support votes receive far less scrutiny. This practice does not respect the right of those who choose to oppose candidates. When you nominate someone in an RFA, you are asking for the opinions of the community. Nominators and others who challenge each oppose vote appear petty and lose my respect. Nominators, especially, need to chill out and not take it personally when someone has a different opinion about the nominee. In the case of frequent opposers like Masssiveego and Boothy, I believe that the way people react to their votes is far more disruptive than the actual Oppose votes are. This contentious atmosphere discourages people from participating in RFA, and it winds up representing the opinion of the admin-inclusionists instead of the community. Yours in gentle but fierce love for the motherproject, FreplySpang (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

While I generally agree with what you say, Freplay, I think you're losing sight of the particular case we're dealing with here. The user in question, Masssiveego, was pointed out for opposing not just one, but all candidates running for ArbCom and RfAs within a time span of merely hours (with the exception of merely two - strangely enough, one of the users he supported had a total of 117 edits, a flagrant contradiction with his stated high standards), only providing an explanation in two cases. This being said, I think it's natural that at least a request for an ellaboration of the voting conduct is professed by the community. It is in this ugly context that FSF jumped in, and let's just say that his way to express things didn't quite help with the already agitated mood. My question: was it really harassment to question a (seemingly) disruptive conduct? Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was deliberately addressing the larger question. I agree Masssiveego's voting behavior is odd. So do the b'crats, and it's not necessary to create a big fuss to bring it to their attention. Community requests for elaboration are fine too, but some of the ways they have been expressed in this situation are not. FreplySpang (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have anything to contribute here, but I'm just amused by the fact that someone who defends trolls and banned users all the time, not to mention voting for them in the Arbitration elections to and I quote "destroy the committee", then pops up on ANI crying because they had their own run-in with one of the people they usually defend. It's not quite so fun when the boottee is on the other footee, eh? Ambi 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Exercise Wikiquette please. Intimating that someone is a baby is hardly becoming. Behave above those we disagree with. --LV 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ambi. I can be a bit (very) paranoid, but I think that comment may be directed at me. While I did vote support a particular candidate with the comment "Because if he's elected, Arbcom will be destroyed", it is because the arbcom is such a disaster. And "someone who defends trolls and banned users all the time" is a bit weird, as I've never defended a banned user. Um, ever. Not wishing to start anything, just setting the record strait. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the arb com election not publicised at the top of every page?

Last year's election had a notice that appeared automatically at the top of every page (in the same way as Jimbo's personal appeal) telling people about its existance.

How many users are there in wikipedia? Its certainly something in the thousands

200 isn't remotely near a quorate, its a small minority of the community. Specifically, the members of the community that always hang about the arb com pages, or know the people in the election. A clique, cabal, call it what you will, it does not represent the community; most editors do not hang around these pages.

Not telling the masses about an election is a very good way of stitching up the result. It's gerrymandering. It isn't right, and it looks very much like an attempt to rig the election by choosing the electorate.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Announcements are on your watchlist and the Community Portal, and it's been announced frequently in the Signpost. The arbitration committee is a community thing, not an encyclopediac thing, so I disagree that it should be announced on every page like Jimbo's notice is. If you have any other recommended pages (not in article space) where it should be announced please be bold and add an announcement there. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias and Closure

When closing an AFD, the closing admin should neutrally consider the outcome, right, not skew it towards their own desire?

For Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:5, Splash declared no consensus. The results were

• Delete 19
• Merge or Delete 5
• Merge 6
• Keep 14

The total voting for delete or merge/delete was 24. This compares to the 14 keep and 6 pure merge votes. As splash pointed out, this makes the delete position the majority. There was 1 abstention. I think this should have been closed as an obvious delete - 24:14 is a clear majority.

Splash also closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthew 4:14 as no consensus. The results were

• Delete 15
• Merge or Delete 4
• Merge 1
• Keep 13

This is slightly less obvious an outcome, but the total voting for delete or merge/delete was 19, compared to 13 to keep, and 1 purely to merge.

Splash also closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John 20:19 as a delete. This was owing to the unavoidable obviousness of the result

• Delete 18
• Merge or Delete 4
• Merge 1
• Keep 6

The total for delete or merge/delete here was 22, compared with 6 for keep, and 1 purely to merge. 3 of the delete votes also expressed a desire that the article be allowed to be recreated if it was done more substantively. Splash insisted that these 3 were more important than the other 19, and refused to delete anything other than the article, i.e. explicitely refused to orphan it.

Additionally Ichiro closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthew 2:21 as no consensus. The results being

• Delete 22
• Merge or Delete 3
• Merge 2
• Keep 15

The total for delete or merge/delete here was 25, compared with 15 for keep, and 2 purely to merge. I think this is an obvious delete, 25:15 is a clear majority.

I think the closing admins' own religious prejudices had a say here, particularly in the case of Splash as Splash's closing comments indicate that Splash clearly didn't want to delete John 20:19, but had no choice as the outcome was stunningly clear. And I also think that these articles should clearly be deleted as per AFD consensus, and orphaned.

Anyone disagree/agree? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should notify Splash as a courtesy of this discussion and invite him to explain why he closed the AFD votes as he did. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to note that a delete consensus is usually regarded as a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority. Dragons flight 19:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but many admins (me included) do not like combining merge and delete. They are not the same thing. The problem with combining them is that if you combine them and say that delete/merge is the majority, then you need to pick between delete and merge. --Woohookitty 06:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And I just want to note that a merge counts as a keep, not as a delete. --cesarb 19:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And I just want to point out that a merge or delete counts as a merge and as a delete, depending on which has the greater number. And that a merge does not count as a keep but as a merge. I.e. as a "get rid of this article, but keep the content and put it inside another article" not a "keep the article". --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure precident is that articles about bible verses are to be kept (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses), so long as they can provide referenced commentary. No such article should be deleted whatever the "vote". Shouldn't this go to WP:DRV though? --W.marsh 19:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As to precedent for Bible verses, see Misplaced Pages:Bible verses and Misplaced Pages:Merge/Bible verses. Rd232 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, each adminstrator is empowered to use their discretion in understanding what "consensus" is. There may infact be a consensus as to what consesnsus is but ehhh.... Anyway, if you think he has a bias I'd discuss it with him privatly first. This is the sort of thing that RFC can be used for with some sort of chance it doesn't explode into a massive choatic mess, as long as we all handle it with the civility displayed thus far. If you do think there is a clear bias you should chek against Splashes' non bible verse closures.--Tznkai 20:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing administrators are given wide leeway to judge the validity and sanity of arguments instead of counting numbers. Overwhelming support for a position (Something that these articles don't have one way or another anyway) is only one of many criteria taken into account. Phil Sandifer 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Splash was right, even by a legalistic reading like "delete at 2/3." My understanding, subject to correction, is if a vote isn't 'delete,' it's keep. If he wanted to, he could probably have justified keeping John 20:19 as 18/29 is less than 2/3. Tom Harrison 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, deletion is almost NEVER a vote to salt the earth and forbid all future creation of an article. I do not think that anybody would seriously argue that there are not very, very important bible verses that detailed articles could be written on. Leviticus 18:22 strikes me as a verse that could easily generate a featured article. It is well outside the jurisdiction of AfD to make long-term claims about which verses are which - they ought merely judge whether or not this particular article on this particular verse is an encyclopedia article or not. Phil Sandifer 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you'd be wrong. Leviticus 18:22 is repeated somewhere in Leviticus 20 or 21 (I forget the precise location), so the article discussing the content issue would have to deal with both verses, not 18:22 on its own. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The complainant actually has a link in his signature to a page meant for vote stacking to delete bible articles. And calls his opponents fascist, also in his signature. Surely we're not taking his accusations of bias seriously? Radiant_>|< 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • • "Fascist" refers explicitely, and only, to comments about my prior signature - thus "victim of signature fascism". As for vote stacking, please remember that everyone can read my signature, not just deletionists, so it doesn't stack it to one side any more than the other. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At least as seriously as we'd take them on WP:DRV. --cesarb 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been moving house today, hence my tardiness in appearing here (W. marsh was good enough to point this out to me some hours ago). I do not have a great deal to add beyond my closure comments in the AfDs linked above. -Ril- observes a reluctance to delete the one I did: this is because I was aware it was below the quasi-thresholdy-thing of two-thirds that is the lowest numerical level that has any kind of community acceptance at all and yet I still saw the debate as a delete, without prejudice against recreation. -Splash 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User RK

RK is currently under several restrictions for 12 months following Apr 7 2005, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies These restrictions include “RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators." Another restriction he is under is "RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.".

He has violated these restrictions and has had his 12 month period reset see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive58#User_RK

Now he has once again violated his one revert restriction See the following diffs

Section of old reversion he is reverting to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&oldid=31907906

• 1st revert http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35308029
• 2cd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35308397

Addtionaly he has resorted to personal attacks by saying that I am trying to promote Messianic Judaism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35307759 --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to count this as two reverts because of the time difference involved (about three weeks between the version he is "reverting" to and the first diff) but I will block for the personal attack. It took me a second to realize why it was an attack; Eliezer is an Orthodox Jew, and accusing him of promoting Messianic Judiasm (i.e., a belief in Jesus) is highly offensive. I am not convinced by RK's subsequent post to Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch that he did not intent his comments to be an attack; he should know better, particularly given that he is on probation, and that his probation is a reduction from his original ban. I'm issuing a block, and since the last one was 48 hours, I'm issuing double, or 96 hours/four days. Also, the 12 month PA parole is reset. -- Essjay 21:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- (talk · contribs)

Apparently this user is upset by bible articles on Misplaced Pages. He has created three simultaneous "centralized discussions" on the subject (See {{cent}}) which kind of defies the point of being "centralized", and has spammed nearly a hundred talk pages on the subject. Also, he has a userpage intended for vote stacking to delete bible articles, and links to it from his signature. Could someone enlighten me as to the differences between this behavior and disruptive trolling? Radiant_>|< 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This behavior doesn't have userboxes associated with it? Phil Sandifer 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could create some and then liberally sprinkle them throughout the encyclopedia. Or perhaps ceremonial userboxes (I survived the Great Bible War of '06)? --Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That would help a lot, I suspect. :) Phil Sandifer 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In seriousness, yes, this is a pretty clear problem, especially since the AfD results are pretty clear here, and it's pretty self-evident that at least some bible verses can reasonably have articles. Phil Sandifer 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course some of them can. John 3:16 clearly deserves its own article, but does Ezekiel 23:20? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that he is sending invitations to join the centralized discussions only to those who voted delete or merge on the latest round of AfDs for Bible verses Dsmdgold 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing new. It has been about 6 months since the last round of discussions on this issue were raised at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses, and Misplaced Pages:Merge/Bible verses. It is unusual however that only persons who have displayed a desire to delete bible verse articles ever seem to be notified when the next discussion is started. --Allen3  22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I received one of Ril's messages, presumably since I have in the past voted to merge on individual Bible verses. I think it's reasonable to wonder whether we want (potentially) well over 30,000 articles on individual verses, especially since the verse construction is artificial to begin with. (And that's without getting into whether this would set a precedent for the Qur'an, Atlas Shrugged, etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to group by topic or maybe chapter, and have the individual verses as redirects? Ril makes some sensible points here. Regardless of your view on this - and I know there are reasonable arguments on both sides - I don't see how any of this amounts to "disruptive trolling". It looks to me like a good faith discussion on a policy issue. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the AFD's are fairly clear - e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:5 had the results Delete 19, Merge or Delete 5, Merge 6, Keep 14. Total Deletes, including Merge/Delete is 24 compared to 14 to keep. So that's a delete outcome, not a keep.

The question is whether every single one of the first 200 verses of Matthew notable in its own right? Or in other words do we really need all of the following articles?

Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25, Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34

Or should we merge/delete some of them? --Victim of signature fascism 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I looked at five of the above at random and they were all very well written... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Matthew 2:21 and Matthew 2:20. Not only are the verses near identical, the article even says it is. The only content of the article is a summary of the previous 20 verses, two translations of the verse, and a comment that it's identical to the previous one. Please don't be tricked by fluff. There is no encyclopedic content in many of the articles whatsoever that merits an individual article. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. If both articles are about the same thing, create a merged article with the content from both, and redirect both to it. --cesarb 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh I think you haven't read the thread you started earlier. A simple 51% majority in AfD does not mean an article must be deleted with impunity... not even close. Many informative comments were made and links provided that you might want to take a look at. --W.marsh 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

24 to 14 is slightly more than a 51% majority. So could you please address the actual question at hand - do we need articles for every single one of those 200 articles or somewhat less than that? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge votes simply do not count as delete votes... and even still, 24 of 38 is 63%, 66% is the bare minimum needed to delete in most circumstances. As for your other argument, this is not WP:AFD or WP:DRV, which is where that argument belongs. --W.marsh 23:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If a closing admin notes keep on an AfD, that doesn't preclude anyone from merging the article, particularly if there's consensus to do that. Closing admins won't necessarily merge articles for you. --Interiot 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again! Despite -Ril-'s long campaign, AfD has demonstrated over many months that there is no consensus to delete good Bible verse articles. When his AfDs failed last time he tried to 'manage' his own poll at Misplaced Pages:Bible verses - which evidently didn't give him the result he wanted. Now, since returning from his arbcom suspension for trolling, he's back at it. Whatever your view of Bible verses, this is just troublemaking. He is, of course, free to keep nominating them - and he will keep getting 'no consensus' = default keep. This is a boring as schools debates. --Doc 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is such a contentious issue. I personally do not see the study of Bible verses as much different from the study of varieties of insects or Songhai monarchs. All are obscure subjects of interest to only a small group. Perhaps this is because I personally am quite areligious and do not see them of more them of much more than academic interest. It also might be because I am not American, and failed to understand that for some that any interest in religion is an ultra political demarcation of one's position in a "culture war." - SimonP 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, let him carry on. If they're deemed not worthy of keeping then they can be deleted. If they aren't then all he has done is draw attention to the fact that we have them and encourage other people to possibly improve them. the wub "?!" 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

• Rather than deletion, I think the two issues should be 1.merging some of the stubbier bible-related articles, and 2.discuss whether bible articles should cite their entire source text. Both can be taken care of through regular editing and possibly RFC. There's no need to involve deletion. Radiant_>|< 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - as some of the comments above suggest, going through AfD sets up a false delete/don't delete dichotomy, with a strong (two-thirds) presumption in favour of keep. But take the articles on Matthew 1:1-5 - this is for me, unarguably Biblecruft. Misplaced Pages is not a biblical commentary. There should be articles on topics, and on the odd really notable verse. Rd232 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never been against merging - but as -Ril-'s own Misplaced Pages:Bible verses has shown, as with schools, there is no consensus to create any macro-policy here. Further, why the hell are we discusising content on ANI - take it elsewhere. The only valid question for ANI is whether Ril is entitle to behave as he is. And due to my past inteactions with -Ril-, I recuse myself on that question. --Doc 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Of "Fretwide" and "Run" genre of music

Do Not Delete "Fretwide" or "Run". "Fretwide" is active and has branded it's style of music "Run". www.Misplaced Pages.org is serving as the online reference for this information to be viewed by the public.

Sincerely, 68.1.33.236 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC) www.Fretwide.com 68.1.33.236 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Run this by me again? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fretwide. Radiant_>|< 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a block for personal attack parole violation

I would like to complain about the behaviour of Theathenae (talk · contribs). He is on a personal attack parole which should be enforced by bans and he just made a personal attack. He called my, an anon's (84.20.68.26) and user:Pjetër Bogdani's edits Albanian chauvinism. Look at the edit summary . I think he should be blocked for that. I am not an Albanian chauvinist. Rex 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the nicest thing in the world to say, but I don't really see that it's much of a personal attack. Friday (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be. If you look at the kind of attacks mentioned in the ArbCom case, it's very similar. Izehar 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Could easily be. I'm just saying I wouldn't personally block for it, regardless of parole. It sounds to me like he was referring to the content being chauvenism, not talking personally about a particular editor. Friday (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request review and possible block inre: WP:NLT

A relatively new user, User:Oldwindybear, believes that a comment I made on his talk page here (referring to meatpuppets I'd believed he had engaged), could be libelous. Though he has said he has no serious intentions on this score, he continues to reference our past interactions as "libelous." Despite cautions from myself and Dmcdevit about why even not completely serious legal threats are not okay , he has continued to post comments mentioning libel on numerous talk pages his talk page, T:Bonnie and Clyde, T:Bonnie and Clyde. I'd hoped that Dmcdevit and my requests for him to just move on and work on content would take hold, but apparently that isn't the case. Today he left this at T:Bonnie and Clyde. Now today Mac1953 (who has said he is Oldwindybear's brother) has left a message at WP:RFC on the issue here, as I had suggested he do (rather than banging on and on about it on article talk pages), again stating that I have "personally libeled" him. It's incorrectly formatted, but that's easily enough fixed. It's not that I mind the RFC, in fact I'll help format it properly; but I am afraid that at this point something more needs to be done than just asking him to stop bandying "libel" around the way he has been. I'd consider taking action myself, but we've been involved in some content disagreements. Thanks. Katefan0/mrp 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Even more worrying, he has now posted to my talk page here referencing courts and "a libel case." Katefan0/mrp 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Oldwindybear indefinately for legal threats. I have indicated, as with other users who have been blocked for NLT violations in the past, that he may request an unblock if he is willing to cease making legal threats. I invite any admin who observes such an agreement to remove the block without delay. -- Essjay 02:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, the guy has issues and an NLT block is appropriate, but don't you think that your final message was a bit over top? He obviously feels harrased and that kind of tone seems likely to make it worse, perhaps inspiring him to come back and offend again in new and obnoxious ways. Dragons flight 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dragons flight: One step ahead of you; he and I have had a very productive email conversation, we've both apologized for acting before thinking, and I've unblocked. Kate & I will be doing all we can to help him make the best of his time on Misplaced Pages. Thanks for bringing the issue up though; we all need to be whacked with the cluestick from time to time. -- Essjay 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Zordrac and related issues relating to personal attacks by User:Ambi

I just got blocked indefinitely, apparently because of supporting User:Mistress Selina Kyle. I have suffered extraordinary abuses by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and especially User:Antaeus Feldspar and more recently by User:Ambi, none of whom have been blocked because of it. Just now I got blocked, apparently an indefinite block. There is no evidence here, no post or anything for me to refer to. Just a warning that was absurdly ridiculous, by User:Ambi about editing User:Sean Black's user page, something which he himself requested. What the hell is this all about? And why can Ambi go around abusing people and get away with it? I haven't done anything against anyone here. I quit it because of the 2 people stalking me, and because not a single administrator would do anything about it (although User:El C subsequently apparently talked to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters about it, and thanks to him for doing that). Its just absurd, and that still I am being harassed and stalked by this horrendously abusive editor, Antaeus Feldspar, apparently because I dared to suggest that Daniel Brandt was written badly. I was considering coming back here, but such a ban is abhorrent. What was it for? For daring to support users who were abused? Or what? I am confident that the vast majority of my edits have been on articles (I believe in the order of 80%) and that the vast majority of them have been accepted as being very positive. Why am I being treated this badly? What justification is there for this kind of approach? Zordrac

If you quit, as you say, what is the problem? --W.marsh 03:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Block log gives real reason for block. No user mentioned above is actually involved. Jkelly 03:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can just note that he put this on my userpage, which I think anyone would have reverted.--Sean|Black 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I just found this: "14:31, 15 January 2006 Kelly Martin blocked "User:Zordrac" with an expiry time of 1 year (Sockpuppet of Internodeuser, who is serving a hard ban by order of the Arbitration Committee)." This year block will over-ride the indef. block that was set earlier. Zach 04:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how the identification was arrived at, Internodeuser used a common Australiann ISP with a IP assignment within a certain range, and was a conspiracy theory editor that made legal threats and viscious personal attacks. These things don't seem to be a hallmark of Zordrac's activities.--nixie 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the connection was not established through CheckUser evidence. I don't know what the evidence is, but I assume (and hope) that we will be made aware soon enough.--Sean|Black 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Kelly Martin tells me that the ArbCom has the evidence for this block. If a current Arbitrator could let us know, that would be helpful (obviously).--Sean|Black 05:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the particulars of Internodeuser's situation or activities, and (my feelings about arbcom aside) do not doubt the veracity of their evidence, but I know for certain that I had encountered Zordrac before Zordrac was Zordrac. I had AfD'd some chat room articles he'd written anonymously, and further interaction with him led to the creation of his account (unfortunately, I guess, now). My early (and rather frustrating) interactions with him did not give the air of one who knew the system, and his earlier contributions as Zordrac were not in conspiracy theory areas, but in areas regarding his chat room articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as IP information goes, they were using the same ISP in the same city. That on its own wouldn't be nearly enough, but there was also a great deal of very convincing circumstantial evidence quite conclusively tying the two together. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word (or that of any other present or past arbitrators who drop by) on it, as I don't think it's going to be disclosed, so as not to aid the next Internodeuser in better hiding their sockpuppets. I must admit that I was one of those taken in - I'd assumed Zordrac was a good-faith (if misguided and very irritating) user, and was quite surprised when I woke up this morning to find that he'd been found to be Internodeuser. In hindsight, however, and having seen the evidence, it certainly does explain a lot of things. Ambi 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, please don't take this question as anything other than me trying to understand the system better - these conversations appear to be rather heated, and I'd like to be clear upfront that I don't have a "dog in this fight", just a desire to learn more about how processes operate.

You say above that you have "seen the evidence" in this case. I realize that you may have been on the ArbCom during the Internodeuser days, but it was my understanding that you had left the ArbCom in June of last year. If you, as a non-arbiter and someone who does not have Checkuser priviledges, can see the evidence in this case, why can't others? I realize that privacy policy normally prevents it, but if Zordrac has waived that privacy, specifically allowing his IP information to be posted... and if other non-Checkuser editors such as yourself have seen this evidence, wouldn't it be better for everyone's peace of mind to simply reveal what evidence there is? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here, and will look silly when it's explained. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Internode users registered edits were to articles on conspiracy theories about Australian murders, the users was not familiar with Misplaced Pages policy at all. Before banned though the user particiapted in a heap of random afds, the after being banned made a brief come back as an IP harassing the user that had taken them to arbitration and posting legal threats on Jimbos page. As I said above, I don't see a lot of similarites, and IP evidence would be inconculsive given Internodeusers IP.--nixie 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Both seem to have documented interest in similar topics, such as Martin Bryant, Port Arthur massacre, Backpacker murders and Peter Falconio... that's evident with just a cursory glance. Although such comparisons could never establish more than a purely circumstancial case, of course. He also says "Zordrac has been using wikipedia since 2002" . I too await the grand unveiling of evidence that actually proves anything though. --W.marsh 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a bit more than that, but I'm afraid you're going to have to trust the people who you elected on this one, as the precise details aren't going to be disclosed, so as not to assist future sockpuppeteers in better hiding their work. Ambi 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if User:Zordrac is a sockpuppet of Internodeuser - which I see no clear reason to believe - does it really matter? If a user gives no indication that he is the same as a banned user, and if he follows our policies, what difference does it make, really? --Blu Aardvark | 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac does not follow our policies, because we have policies which prohibit telling malicious lies which damage other users' reputations. Zordrac has done this repeatedly, and the evidence collected at User:Antaeus Feldspar/Zordrac is just a very small sample. I have no idea who Internodeuser (talk · contribs) is, or if Zordrac is him, but Zordrac deserves a hard ban for just those edits he has racked up under that username, no matter what others he may or may not have used. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the user who originally took Internodeuser to ArbCom so I guess I know the habits of the former quite well. I've worked alongside Zordrac at the Peter Falconio article without issue, even being pleased with most (if not all) of his edits there. Initially I thought editing patterns between Zordrac and Internodeuser were similar, however I've had no reason to take anything further. I'm not convinced without supporting evidence that Internodeuser and Zordrac are one and the same. It's possible, but I don't like making assumptions without some facts first. The Arbcom has my full trust, but why hide the evidence? The biggest threat he can pose to us is to be a pain in the arse, and that's nothing new around here. We cope, don't we? -- Longhair 08:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence is suppressed for very important privacy reasons - the arbcom tells us the result of the evidence, not the evidence. Phil Sandifer 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't need Checkuser to confirm that he used the same ISP. That much is evident from the IP contributions Zordrac attributed to himself. However, I'm not convinced that using the same ISP happens to mean anything. --Blu Aardvark | 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And that is why Kelly has checkuser access and you don't - she's better at it than you. Phil Sandifer 09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the reason I don't is because I have not requested access, nor do I want it anyway. Thanks for your lack of civility anyway. --Blu Aardvark | 09:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be wary of just taking the ArbCom's word for it that Zordrac is a sockpuppet. Does anyone remember the Agriculture and TheChief incident? Clearly Zordrac's contributions have been pointed at times, but not trollish. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You can be wary all you want, but our policy is to take the arbcom's word on these things. Phil Sandifer 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Phil on this - this isn't a jury trial. But perhaps an assurance that three or four disinterested arbs have seen the evidence and are in unanimous agreeement, would reassure the doubters. --Doc 09:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I second that. I would prefer that some neutral parties affirmed they agree with this. Otherwise it might indeed be an wrongful assumption of bad faith, as happened to TheChief earlier. Radiant_>|< 10:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I well remember the Agriculture and TheChief situation....but looked over the probablitities and my suspicion is that they were one and the same, although I felt very differently at that time. I would also like to have some further assurance that Zordrac is the same person as Internodeuser--MONGO 10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I too would like some assurance from the Arbcom, especially since Kelly Martin left the Arbcom four days ago, well in advance of Zordrac's sockpuppetry block which she changed from indefinite to 1 year yesterday. AvB ÷ talk 12:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That was due to my not knowing that The Epopt had already blocked him. Feel free to reblock him indefinitely. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel you have really gotten out of hand with this. Have we gathered suffucent edvidence to warrent this indifinte block..? I feel some discrestion should be implemented regarding this issue, as there seems to be an assumption of bad faith on this situation. And lest we forget, this is not the first time you have jumped to conclusions so quickly... I think we should think this through more carefully. -Zero 12:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the block, as I pointed out here, there is no grounds for a block whatsoever given what's been stated here so far:

1. "They share the same ISP." - This has been stated to be a very large Internet Service Provider in Australia. As such this proves nothing other than that both the users are Australian. Are you going to ban other people in Australia based that they use the same ISP? It's a bit ridiculous.
2. "They are in the same city" - This is not true. Just because the WHOIS for the ISP shows the same city does not mean that they are in the same city, this is simply where the ISP's hubs and stuff are, not the actual location of where the person lives.
3. "Information on checkuser can't be released on privacy reasons" - Zordrac has had a message on his talk page, User talk:Zordrac for a while now stating that he gives full permission for all CheckUser evidence to be released
4. "They edited the same article once" - Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith? He could've heard about that massacre anywhere, after all he is another Australian.

--Mistress Selina Kyle 12:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading through that forum linked directly above, I'm somewhat more convinced Zordrac = Internodeser than I was when I posted earlier. I'm named (by username) a lot in that thread. Why? I'm nobody special, in fact, I'm nobody at all, especially on the internet where I keep my opinions to myself and choose to get serious work done as I can. The only person interested enough in myself to come up with enough crackpot theories on what I spend my time doing online is or was Internodeuser. The self-obsessed ranting, the false accusations, the overuse of lol's; all I need is the hard evidence and I'm sold it's the same PITA we've banned before. -- Longhair 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood something a bit:

The person in the above forum you're referring to (bliss2yu2) is Internodeuser and I was not implying otherwise, and he has said himself that he is prior to this whole "Zordrac is internodeuser" garbage:

Zordrac however, doesn't post there (although he may be one of the many anonymous readers, I've been told a lot of admins regularly read it too), and the person you're referring to is not Zordrac and doesn't claim to be him either. } --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood. It's late here, excuse my sleepy eyes. Thanks for clearing that up :) I'm choosing not to get overly involved in this issue this time around, and quickly skimmed over the posts. One thing I'm not sure about however is, why the hell does Internodeuser care about Zordrac at all? Whilst I'm here, I might as well add my piece that most, if not all accusations aimed at myself on that forum are just more of the same Internoderuser style bullshit he was banned for in the first place. -- Longhair 15:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To have another voice here, I've just seen the evidence myself. I don't remember Internodeuser, really, but if he and Zordrac are not the same, I would like to see one very good explanation for the evidence. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Innocent until proven guilty/Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith?

Seriously, is the evidence more than those I quoted above (having been said already here: "they use the same ISP", etc)?

Because if there isn't more than I mentioned above (with the reasons why), there really is no grounds or proof for a "sockpuppet" accusation and so a block at all.

Also, as for the evicence itself, Zordrac has already said that he wants the CheckerUser evidence made public and has given up the right to remain private and so there should be no issues with posting what the actual "proof" is here, which seems far from definitive. --Mistress Selina Kyle 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Antispammer

From User:Antispammer's contributions I think it is fair to say he deserves at least some kind of pubishment by the Admins. In Talk:Operation Northwoods page he uses the entire page to attack other posters and as you can see he has done the same in other user's talk pages. He has also tried to insert alot of POV statements in the State terrorism article. I ask something be done about this. Thank you.-User:Jersey Devil 03:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither Misplaced Pages administrators, nor anyone else here, have the authority to punish anyone. This is a cooperative project, not a hierarchical one; administrators are janitors, not judges. Administrative tools (such as blocking) are for use only to protect the encyclopedia project from specific problems, as discussed in Misplaced Pages:Administrators and elsewhere. Nobody is authorized to use those tools as weapons of "punishment" or other forms of assault. Please do not ask for administrators to abuse their tools. --FOo 03:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From the description (I haven't had time to cheack the contribs) It sounds like a case for RFC.Geni 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrator's regularly block for personal attacks, what's with this "administrators aren't judges" thing? --Mistress Selina Kyle 12:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for personaly attacks doesn't happen very often. I think I've done it once when the personal attacks had risen to the level where they were dissrupting wikipedia.Geni 13:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress... Calm down.. :) -Zero 13:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am calm, I'm just asking a question o_O honestly, I'm not angry all the time.. --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is though:

"Neither Misplaced Pages administrators, nor anyone else here, have the authority to punish anyone. This is a cooperative project, not a hierarchical one; administrators are janitors, not judges. Administrative tools (such as blocking) are for use only to protect the encyclopedia project from specific problems, as discussed in Misplaced Pages:Administrators and elsewhere."

Either the policy needs to be changed to reflect new usage of the policies by current admins, in that people ~are~ blocked for "personal attacks", or administrator's maybe don't understand the policies themselves. o_O --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for personal attacks is permissible under the disruption clause of the current blocking policy; no revision to policy is required. Egregious personal attacks or continued mild harrassment/incivility both serve to create a hostile environment on Misplaced Pages and drive away or disrupt the work of positive, useful contributors—hence, such behaviour is blockable. Except in the most severe cases, I support warning the editors in question before blocking, but it is sometimes necessary to use blocks to convey the seriousness of their behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be grateful for some help dealing with persistent personal attack

As a result of an answer at the Reference Desk to which he took exception, a new user (user:bethefawn) has decided I must be publicly chastized as a "homophobe" on his Talk page (User talk:Bethefawn). I have twice removed it , and explained with civility our no personal attack policy. He has twice replaced it and made it more inflammatory. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me but I have not had to deal with this sort of thing before. I would be grateful if someone else would take the next steps and get it through his head that this is unacceptable behavior. Thank you. alteripse 13:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

MARMOT

I have blocked this account for a period of one month as a temporary measure based on the information at User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report. I have taken this action as a temporary measure in order to permit time for a consideration of whether the previous ban on MARMOT should be reinstated. I am unsure of whether this should be a matter for Jimbo, the ArbCom, or the Misplaced Pages Community at large. Given the accusations of exploiting vulnerabilities in the Mediawiki software to spoof the IP of another contributor, thereby getting that user blocked, and the level of planning involved, as brion sets out on the incident report, I am inclined to refer the matter directly to Jimbo. Taking into account the recent problems with "vandalism bot tests" by MARMOT, I am inclined to believe the matter is similar to users like Wik, who were banned by Jimbo directly.

I have discussed the matter with brion (I was in #wikimedia when he was asked to perform the tests, and was present and participated in the conversation of the results) as well as with Kelly Martin, who performed the checkuser. In boiled down terms (for those like myself who do not always follow the technical details involved) the evidence set out by brion, as confirmed by Kelly Martin's checkuser, is very, very strong evidence that the spoofing was performed by MARMOT, and that he has continued to engage in the same conduct for which he was banned during the terms of his "probation."

I am reporting my actions here to begin the process of considering the appropriate remedy; I will also raise the matter with Jimbo directly, and with the Arbitration Committee if he determines that they should make the decision. I encourage those who have comments either way to make them here, as I will point Jimbo and/or the AC to this thread. Essjay 13:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Per the above evidence, I agree that this is probably the best thing to do. I was greatly willing to allow his prior actions to fly, but spoofing Cool_Cat shows that he hasn't changed. Ral315 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I warmly welcome this desicion. --Cool Cat 15:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That ... fucker. - David Gerard 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like none of you have a clue whats going on:

Looking at this from an animal - enviroment standpoint, its obvious MARMOT is getting revenge on Cool Cat for several reasons stated in my thesis below:

• Cool Cat is a cat, which are predatory by nature. MARMOT, is of course defined in the rodent category, and this makes the two mortal predator and prey (ie. enemies)

• Seeing the decendents of one of his predatory enemies, MARMOT quickly decided to take action - by continually harassing Cool Cat. That would show him to hunt his species.

It was really quite simple, and none of you noticed it. Its simple, Cats and rodents will aways be enemies no matter what the enviroment or habbitat. -Zero 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that MARMOT was taken to ArbCom before the initial ban, and the case was rejected, because any sysop could have just blocked him. And it was so. So, I don't really see it as any different now. --Phroziac _. o º 16:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, because when we issue a simple block, it is subject to a simple unblock. The probation, while a good idea and a worthwhile effort, (and I commend those who tried for having the patience and good heart to AGF) has not worked, and hardbanning will prevent similar problems in the future. Essjay 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

2 questionable users

1. User:Alphabetagamnma: Check their contributions. They seem to be putting up a lot of images of nude or nearly nude men (especially movie stars) and then tagging them as being copyrighted but free to use. Also check their additions to the Dong article. They seem to be confused at least, a vandal at best.
2. User:OleMaster: Their edit summaries and talk page entries are juvenile and combative to say the least. They have continually changed working links to non-working links but at the same time they'll add some good edits. This makes the next editor have to pick and choose which edits need to be reverted.

So, can someone take a look at these users and maybe step in? They've both been warned about their actions in the past. Dismas| 13:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair blanking his talk page

Copperchair (talk · contribs) has blanked his talk page tens of times over the past month or so. Wouldn't that constitute a need for protection? --TML1988 15:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What a conisidence... I was just coming over here to discuss this very issue. Copperchair may have stopped the edit-warring and breaching of policy he has shown in the past, but now he has stooped to balnking his talkpage to annoy editors 'round the clock. Several administrators and users have inquired him to discuss this issue and/or simply archive his page, but to no avail (I even offered to do it for him). He is simply not to doing it in good faith, (see his rfar and rfc) and some action must be taken. Coutless users have been more patient than they should have. -Zero 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is no rule against blanking you talk page. I certainly don't like the practice, but it's none of our business what users do in their userspace (within reasonable limitations of course). I know many users who blank their talk pages - should they all be protected? I don't think making it a rule would make practical sense anyway. It would be impossible to enforce. Izehar 15:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So you want his page full protected so he cant blank it? How could anyone else then add anything to his talk page? Mike 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Real simple: They don't. There's nothing to discuss, there's nothing to chat about. Copperchair was just relesed froma month long ban, and looking through his contributions, its saturated with edit wars, vandalism, and actions requiring blocks and rfars. Also take into account the fact he isn;t making any useful contributions as well. -Zero 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:OnwardsCS

User:OnwardsCS has just recreated the previously deleted {{Pro-life-stub}}, as well as changing the redirects at Stem Cell Research and Fetal Tissue Experimentation into articles thickly laden with anti-abortion POV. I've reverted the edits and deleted the template. Probably best to keep an eye on this user. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards