Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 12 June 2006

• 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 admins 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

*Sight*

Can somone undelete User:Striver/users that view the 9/11 attacks article as govement pov, it was nowhere close to consensus to delete. --Striver 17:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin?

Alkivar uses profanity in his edit summaries and practices incivility. Here are just a few examples. Check his user contributions, and you'll find regular use of "shit" and "fuck". Check out his talk page in which he routinely removes comments that are not vandalism (also notice the number of complaints he receives on his talk page). Only administrators can do this, but notice his inappropriate use of deleting histories. Check out the brassiere page where he tried to add some awful picture to it that everyone hated, and then he insulted everyone (except one user) who complained about the picture. He also seems to be in the habit of provoking vandals by making his feuds with them personal. Why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator? This is a travesty. Duckdid 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't any opinion with respect to most of the points you raise, as I've only a passing familiarity with Alkivar and am disinclined to spend time reading through his talk page. Apropos of his profane edit summaries, though, one finds that his profanity isn't directed in specific at other users (as would perhaps be in contravention of WP:NPA and would, in any event, be disruptive), save for those linkspammers whom we block straightaway. To suggest that his edit summaries are in bad form, then, one would have to argue that profanity is disruptive per se, irrespective of context, and I suspect that many users, like I, aren't willing to make such an argument. As to the history deletion, the last two months of his admin activity seem to have comprised no deletions of specific versions of a page/image (i.e., "history deletions") save for those in which an image was compromised (viz., either by an unencyclopedic image's being uploaded in its place or by a non-fair use picture's being uploaded). Now, I've seen several complaints here and elsewhere about Alkivar, and I think perhaps his style sometimes could be more decorous; I don't think, though, that any Wikipedian can say that he/she has never phrased something in a fashion he/she later regretted. Alkivar doesn't appear to be disrupting the community and appears to use the admin tools properly and constructively (if sometimes with terse explanation), so I can see no reason for which Alkivar ought to be desysopped. Of course, per WP:RfDA, one may always construct an RfC, which will surely bear out any actual malfeasance (even as I suspect none has occurred). Joe 06:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of some comments I found in his edit summaries and other places by searching just for a minute or so: "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards", "why do idiots insist on adding images without reading the HELP documentation first?", "All i've gotten is shit over this picture ... fuck you all its deleted", "Fuck You." Yes, Alkivar breaks incivility and he uses profanity to further that goal. Please, don't try to ignore this obvious fact. Doing a search on Misplaced Pages, I also found a reference to Alkivar deliberately trying to lure a guy he was feuding with into a 3RR block. Duckdid 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling when people add in the worst-written shit you have ever read. Makes me want to say that first think, too. However, the rest is just unexcusable. Either this is a different user than the person elected to admin, or it has gone to his head in a bad way. --mboverload@ 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've talked to him about this, which should be the first step rather than taking it here. Talk to him first, try to work it out, and if that doesn't work bring it here. I'm tired of people complaining on this NB without first trying to actually resolve the issue (wow! what a concept!). Snoutwood (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking to him is a great idea, but it's not a terrible idea for a fellow admin to do the talking. As it stands, he appears to be an ongoing embarassment to less potty-mouthed admins.

When you loose a cannon, you have the responsibility to reign it back in. Every person who voted in support on Alkivar's RFA should be jumping down his throat right now. Al 07:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. He made what may or may not be a mistake, and going "Ohnoes, sysop abuse!" is absurd (as per "why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator?"). Talking to him is exactly what should be done here, as always. Snoutwood (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying we have TWO standards? Because when I once made a single edit comment that could be taken as an insult, I was blocked for a week. This guy is cursing out people repeatedly, but since he's an admin, all you suggest is that someone speak to him politely about it? With all due respect, there is clearly at least the appearance of disparity here. Al 07:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Alienus. Admins should be blocked, or not, for violations according to the very same standards (at least) which would be applied to any other editor.Timothy Usher 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But I'm not playing a double standard, see below for details. Snoutwood (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know your situation, but I reckon that you should've been talked to first as well. If you'd already been talked with or warned or whatever, then I'd understand it. No one's brought up the subject with Alkivar. In fact, no one who brought this topic up appears to even have had the decency to let him know that he's being talked about on this noticeboard. Talk to him, take it to RfC. That's the dispute resolution process. The whole way this wiki works is through communucation. A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that when they don't like something, the best thing to do is shout over here, Abuse! Abuse! and then not bother to tell the "abusing" person anything about it or do any leg work themselves. If you'd mentioned the issue and then he'd said Fuck off, this post would be far more reasonable. But then that hasn't happened. Snoutwood (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a user is uncivil, why are we shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the problem. Fine, if Duckdid is a banned user, ban him again. But don't just assume that because a banned user brings something up, the complaint is ipso facto invalid. Alkivar's edit summaries DO contain problems, regardless of whether someone haas talked to him about it yet (and maybe no one has talked to him about it because of the perception that it will do no good, vis double-standards?). -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not shooting the messenger, nor do I think that the complaint is invalid. I'm saying that the messenger is taking the wrong steps. If I have a problem with a user, I talk to him about it. That I've assumed that he'll respond poorly is no reason to not talk to him about it (I may be wrong, he may say, "Oh, feck, right, sorry about that," and the problem's solved. I've seen it happen). If he responds poorly, then that's a good reason to bring it here. It's just plain rude to post a message here before first even going over the problem with the person you have a problem with. Talking to them first is indeed the first step in our dispute resolution process, a long-standing policy. Try it, and you may get good results. If that's done, then come here with the problem and we'll do our best. Snoutwood (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys have to realize the near impossibility of not being an “insider” and trying to get things done. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t have posted this concern here, even though the directions at the top of the page say this is where to do it. I’ve been told to talk to Alkivar, which is impossible since he has removed my comments from his talk page in the past. I’ve been told that I should appeal to a committee instead of creating a sockpuppet if I’m blocked, but how do I do such things if I’m blocked to begin with? And what about Snoutwood, who appears (though this could be wrong) to be interpreting everything in the light most favorable to Alkivar? Snoutwood claimed no one had the decency to tell Alkivar that he’s being talked about, and that’s a non-issue. Alkivar tried to have me blocked about thirty minutes after I posted here. He knew about it. He just didn’t want to say anything here.

No one has looked at this from my perspective. Administrators go around making binding decisions with blocks and deletions and so forth. I just make a few edits and create a few articles here and there. When people talk about needing to do a WP:RfA because the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were violated when there was a WP:3RR or whatever, I don’t know what any of that means. I have to sit here for an hour clicking on the links to figure out what those acronyms mean and what the substance of those policies are. So, I’m stuck hindered by an overly bureaucratic process that I don’t understand (and several in this conversation have interpreted differently) while groupthink and the good ol’ boys network run amok. Dizzied 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, where's your proof that Alkivar tried to have you blocked?

As I've said, I don't have a stand in regards to Alkivar, and if it's in the interest of the encyclopedia for him to be desysopped or whatever else than I would wholeheartedly support it. I think that there's very much an isue that needs to be addressed here, and I think that you're going about this the wrong way. However, that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been saying. What I've been saying is that he needed to be talked to first. As that still hasn't happened, I left a message on his talk page asking him to talk about this here. I won't have anything else to do with this: all I was trying to do is bring in some dispute common sense, and since it's being ignored I won't reiterate it any more. Snoutwood (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can see now that my efforts to reign in Alkivar's terrible behavior have been futile. This thread has stagnated. I have been attacked rather than the substantitive issue of Alkivar's bad behavior being dealt with. Even though people here claimed they would help with this, Alkivar has already removed the comments from his talk page regarding his unacceptable attitutde.

I have no interest in circumventing Misplaced Pages policy, and despite the unjust nature of my original block, I request that an administrator block the account I am currently using, as it is merely a sockpuppet of a pre-existing indefinitely blocked user. Dizzied 04:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment: Duckdid appears to be a reincarnation of User:Beisnj, please see the respective logs or email me for details. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to him before under just my IP address before I had an account, and he just removed my comment. His explanation was that he doesn't respond to anonymous users. Later, someone made a similar complaint under a real account, so I thought that would settle it, but he just deleted that one also. I also realize this next comment will likely result in getting me blocked indefinitely, but the Beisnj account was my account. An admin blocked that account indefinitely, however, please note that none of my edits were vandalism, I never harassed anybody, etc. Under this account, I have continued to make appropriate edits as well. I could have easily hidden that the Beisnj account was mine simply by not adding to my user page the list of articles I've created. I just want to edit on Misplaced Pages from time to time and be left alone while I do it. The only people I've ever complained about was one guy who tried to overtake an article about French military history, and Alkivar because of his string of abuses. Two mure notes: (1)As an added note, I see that his RfA was approved by a 28-21 vote. Now, I don't know much about the inner-workings of Misplaced Pages, nor have I ever attempted to be an "insider", but that doesn't seem like a very solid vote. Most of the "oppose" votes voiced the same concerns I have voiced here. (2) This entire conversation is hypocritical. I'm being asked to go talk to Alkivar about it, but he hasn't attempted to talk to me about this. His immediate response was to petition to Jayjg to have me permentantly blocked. Notice in Alkivar's complaint that he doesn't have an argument of substance against me, he just saw a previous block and is hoping for the easy way out. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he uses my "self-incrimination" above to permanantly block me himself. Duckdid 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Duckdid indefinitely as a self-confessed sockpuppet of a banned user. Sockpuppetry to evade bans is not acceptable, no matter how well the sock contributes. Inicidentally, the RfA Duckdid refers to failed. Alkivar's third RfA was the one that got him promoted, by 69/20/8. The allegations of incivility are disturbing, but an RfC sounds like the proper venue for this, with evidence that people have tried and failed to resolve this with Alkivar, and allowing Alkivar a response. --Sam Blanning 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, RfC is the place for these kinds of complaints. ANI has become almost a replacement for RfC. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the header for this page needs to be reworded. Currently it says:

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both.

-- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He also called me a troll and blocked my user page for having a creative user name. (User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me) I saw someone named User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me in the Special:Recentchanges, and thought it was good user name, so I created a similar one. It is not impersonation.--4.19.93.2 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar didn't block that username, Jni and FireFox did. Snoutwood (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Although i have no personal insight into, or interest in, either editor's behaviour, i have to say that reading this section hardly instils confidence in our administration system. I reads very much like Admins covering each other's back, selectively quoting policy to justify awfully poor behaviour, and a warning to any non admin who dares to point out that some one may be abusing their tools. Per WP:AGF, i'll accept that is not the motivation of the admins here, but its hard to deny that is what it looks like. Irrespective of where or whether a complaint has been made, in light of the evidence quoted above would it not make sense of one of you to say youl will have a quiet word in Alkivar's ear and point out that such language and behaviour is unbecoming on an admin? Instead we say to the person making the complaint: "talk to him/her about it" then immediately we block them. Result? The problem goes away. Until next time. Rockpocket 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're worried that Alkivar will block you for criticising him, which I think is highly unlikely, I will personally supervise the exchange and make sure that it doesn't happen. O.K.? I'm not "covering" Alkivar, I've no particular attachment to him or admins as some sort of cabal. If an admin came here without discussion with the person they're having trouble with, I'd say the same thing. Discusison with the user is first and foremost, that's all. People seem to be forgetting that these days. Snoutwood (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was more that of nae'blis'. Irrespective of the situation, an editor had pointed out out what appears to be a very valid concern. That user not cannot resolve the situation him or herself (as soon as they self identify they will be blocked again, moreover he tried to talk anonymously and was ignored or the comment removed). So the situation goes unresolved and Alkivar will continue to edit in a frankly, occasionally offensive manner. Although it has nothing to do with me whatsoever, i'll happily ask Alkivar if he would mind toning down his language and improve his behaviour, seeing as User:Duckdid no longer can and no administrator appears willing to. I'm not concerned about being blocked for that. But its unfortunate that one of the admins here doesn't see that as the commonsense way forward, instead of telling him to resolve it by talking then banning him. Rockpocket 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Since no one else will, I guess I have to. Hopefully this shows that I'm not necessarily supporting these actions, a point which no one seems interested in trusting me on.

I just went over the history of Alkivar's talk page, back to January. No anonymous edits talking about this stuff. I didn't see any other edits talking about this stuff either. Course, I could've missed it. Can anyone provide the diff?

Until I see that I just don't believe that Alkivar would block him for raising a valid concern. If he would, that's a Bad Thing and certainly needs to be dealt with. Rocket, since you've got a problem with this issue, why don't you just go and deal with it rather than saying that it's an admin problem, or that we're covering each other's backs? I don't understand why you don't just go and talk to him (still not done by anyone who is involved in the dispute). I don't understand why you don't see talking to him as being the commonsense way forwards.

As for User:Duckdid, he was blocked, NOT by Alkivar or in a way having anything to do with Alkivar that I can see, for being a sock of User:Beisnj, whose story I don't know. However, if he'd like to appeal that block, he can always go to User:Jayjg, the blocking admin, and talk to him. That hasn't happened either, unless it happened via e-mail where I wouldn't know about it. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this, and I don't understand why people think this is "admin abuse" or that I'm "defending Alkivar," when all I've said is to TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND TRY TO RESOLVE IT. Snoutwood (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Yes, Alkivar knew about this comment on the ANI, and his response was to attempt to get me blocked. I posted here at 05:56, 5 June 2006. At 06:28, 5 June 2006, Alkivar requested from Jayjg that he run checkuser on me and block me. Alkivar hadn’t even posted on Misplaced Pages in three days, but he responded to that comment in roughly 30 minutes by trying to get me blocked. (Note also that Jayjg did, in fact, run Checkuser on me. As far as I can tell under these circumstances, that was not an acceptable use of Checkuser privileges.)

(2) There is plenty of evidence that these problems have been brought to Alkivar’s attention. At this point, you’re making it hard for me to not think that you’re not blatantly ignoring the evidence. At all three of his RfA the problems of his incivility and poor edit summaries were talked about extensively.

(3) A good example of Alkivar ignoring and deleting posts about his behavior can be found on February 8th. He went on a roll deleting comments critical of him with such edit summaries as “poof” and “wipe away useless post.” On December 6th, 2005, he deleted a comment from his talk page asking him to be civil, and Alkivar’s edit summary was “rv vandalism.”

(4) I was given the same kind of run-around as I’m being given now when I tried to get out of my block. I e-mailed Jayjg, and he basically said he wasn’t going to do it. I listed the unblock template on my talk page, and people basically told me that wasn’t the right way to handle it (which seems to be a common response to attempts to follow the bureaucratic process). Dizzied 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I see. Yes, you're right about that, and that he didn't respond to the issues listed is a problem. Note that I don't see you being blocked as necessarily being a problem, as the way things work around here is, if you're blocked, you don't create sockpuppets to get around the block, like you've done. You e-mail the blocking admin with your main account and talk to them about the issue (which it sounds like you did, but I don't know the story). In case you didn't see, I've already asked Alkivar to contribute to the discussion, and we'll see what comes of that.

2. I don't know almost anything about Alkivar. There are over 900 admins on this project, and there's no way I'm going to remember the issues brought up in each one's RfA, especially in ones where I didn't participate. Indeed, however, apart from this your point is well made.

3. Yes, those edits are definitely problems. However, they took place some time ago... I mean, they don't have any impact on current events, except to note that this has been going on for a while. More recent examples would be more germane to this thread.

4. I'm not trying to run you around, I'm trying to have you solve your own problems before coming to the admins' board. The block template just don't work well, unfortunately, e-mail is best (people don't notice the template). Now that you have shown that Alkivar didn't bother to deal with the issue although he was aware of it, then your position makes more sense. It appears to me that his civility is certainly an issue that he needs to address, and much as I don't want to get more involved in this I've posted a message to his talk page. It's important that he respond to criticism. Note that while I say this I don't expect anything to happen while you refuse to directly talk to him about your trouble with his behavior. Snoutwood (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood, when an admin deletes good-faith complaints and requests, I don't see what options are left other than ANI and RFC. Whatever the details, it's still clear that this admin made many uncivil edit comments and has not been warned, much less blocked, for it. It's also clear that the person who made this complaint has been banned. The end result is that justice is not served and it looks a whole lot like admins sticking up for each other. However untrue this may be, this is genuinely how it appears, and this appearance itself causes harm.

I suggest that we put aside all this endless debate and solve the problem: an admin who violates the very rules he is charged to enforce and gets alway with it. Ask him to stop. Block him if he doesn't. That would be productive. Telling people to go talk to him is clearly not. Al 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood has kindly requested Alkivar respond to these allegations. I think he deserves the opportunity to have his say. However, should he decline the offer to explain his contested edits or fail to justify them (admittedly, i can't imagine any valid justification for leaving an edit summary "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" when an editor had used "An" instead of "The" ) then i would also suggest that a process be initiated in the same way as it would if a non admin showed this pattern of behaviour. I concur with Al in how it "looks". That is unfortunate, as i don't believe there is any conspiracy here, but as he suggests, appearance itself can cause harm. Neverthless, i don't believe this is necessarily Snoutwood's problem and, at this stage, either of us could as easily engage Alkivar in a discussion about this since we are concerned. Rockpocket 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just talked to Alkivar on IRC, which I know isn't a substitute for onwiki comment, but it just sort of fell together and I seized the opportunity. Since no-one's bothered to show the "good faith" efforts to deal with the situation, I'll show the two edits shown to me by Alkivar as being the most likely to have been the "criticism" from Beisnj, seeing as they edited the same pages as Beisnj and he said that he posted anonymously: and . Jusge for yourself; those strike me as defiantly trolling posts and as such I refute Duckdid/Beisnj's opinion of himself as being the bearer of good-faith criticism, pending further information. As for the incivility and cursing, he said that he'd already begun to tone down on that and would continue to do so (there have been a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem). Seeing the situation in that light, I'm inclined to agree with the block of Duckdid and Alkivar's opinion that he shouldn't respond to a post from a troll, which is what this appears to be. As for the incivility, if it continues, which hopefully it won't, we can deal with it then; I don't believe any further action is necessary. Course, if you're inclined you can still talk to him about it, but I think it superfluous. Snoutwood (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you will note on the Duckdid user page that there is a list of pages I have created, and some of them were created from IP addresses. Those addresses were 209.30.22.214, 209.30.41.59, and 64.233.47.250. Dizzied 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Until you provide diffs of your "polite, civil, anonymous, criticism," I can't say that I really care what other IPs you've used. Snoutwood (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Snoutwood, you'll see above that Alkivar took three RfAs to gain the mop; part of that was likely his promise in that 3rd RfA to be civil and polite in his intereactions with others. So all arguments that he is "unaware of the problem" should be null and void; like any other user, he had been warned, repeatedly! Then above it's stated that his incivility lies in the past, citing diffs from as long ago as December 2005. This ignores the why do idiots comment from June 1, SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS on May 22nd, and the gratuitous usage of fuck or fucking in edit summaries from June 1 and May 30 respectively. Is that what he's calling "toning it down"? -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I believe you to be an honest, good-faith user, I'm going to say this one more time and then be gone from this thread (barring further information, of course): I have no interest in solving your problems for you, with no help. If you have a problem with Alkivar, talk to him. If you're worried about being blocked, I personally swear that if Alkivar blocks you for politely criticising him I will unblock (course, this isn't actually going to happen, since Alkivar isn't stupid). And, since I'm an idiot and can't help myself, a parting note: I see little wrong with any of your diffs, they're hardly admin abuse (not even admin related). None of them really attack anybody, and although they could certainly be better I think that he'll respond if you just try and talk to him about it. Snoutwood (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned, Snoutwood has taken this as far as he should, and i'd like to go on record in thanking him for that. Its clear that Dizzied was less than frank about his "good-faith criticism". Similarly Alkivar has been less than civil in the past, and while he recent summaries as still not what i would expect of an admin, they are not quite as blatantly offensive as some older examples. He has said he is working on it and now Snoutwood has expressed further concern, Alkivar will realise that this problem is not going to go away unless he pulls up his socks. Should he continue to be uncivil then this exchange can be used as evidence of his lack of progress in that area. Thats my opinion anyway. Rockpocket 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Its clear that Dizzied was less than frank about his 'good-faith criticism'." So, apparently, criticism of Alkivar requires several days, multiple posts, and a series of evidence. But "clear" proof against me requires nothing. Hey, wasn't Alkivar supposed to come by and say something? Dizzied 09:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying these were not your communiques with him: and ? You lack of denial at the time suggested to me that were. If not, perhaps you could provide the diffs that illustrate the "good faith criticisms" from you that he deleted then. Note, however, that i immediately criticised Alkivar's behaviour on the evidence provided also. You suggestion of double standards has no basis. Rockpocket 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Two points. First, while it is possible I may have used the term “good faith criticisms”, I fail to recall this ever happening. Secondly, I was deliberately cryptic about the two criticisms in question because I was protecting a privacy concern. I don’t want to say anything more than that I agree largely with the wording and intent of those two posts and that the IP address was apparently not blocked or warned for those comments.

I just don’t understand why people are taking a “wait and see” approach to Alkivar’s openly unacceptable behavior – the kind of behavior that would get others blocked – and meanwhile there is this ongoing attempt to strain a gnat to find the most subtle of evidence with which to persecute me.

Consider this: if I had never posted the list of pages I had created on the Duckdid page, no one would have ever known that I had the Beisnj account. Without any of these attacks on me, this whole thread would (hopefully) be nothing but a condemnation of Alkivar’s behavior.

So, what does that tell us? It shows that no arguments of substance have yet to be made in support of Alkivar. Every argument in his defense has really been an ad hominem against me. And then consider that even if every single accusation was true (except the CapnCrack vandalism), if I did make the two edits in question, if I never attempted to talk to Alkivar personally, and whatever else has been stewed up, none of that compares to the poor behavior of Alkivar (note that I haven’t even brought up Alkivar’s possible sockpuppetry). Yet I’ve been permanently blocked, and he is an administrator with not even a warning. Dizzied 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't've put it better myself. Very well put. Snoutwood (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Beisnj, contrary to your claims, I did not run a CheckUser on your User:Duckdid account, and I did explain quite clearly why your User:Beisnj account was blocked. The "CapnCrack" vandalism coming from your computer for months now has been quite disturbing, and your claims that although you found it amusing, it wasn't you, just relatives and friends of yours, were hardly re-assuring. I conferred with the rest of the CheckUser group regarding your block, and they concurred that it was justified. Jayjg 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I got blocked, but the CapnCrack vandalism has continued. Never let reality stand in the way of bias. Amazingly, as well, the precious CheckUser was unable to show that the Beisnj and Duckdid accounts originate from the same computer and same IP address. No doubt, I am probably an imposter of Beisnj and not the real Beisnj. But rest assured, I am, in fact, a real vandal, CapnCrack, a sockpuppet, JFK's assassin, and the person who shot JR. Dizzied 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This blatant and obvious smear campaign continues.

For example, you claim, “Beisnj, contrary to your claims, I did not run a CheckUser on your User:Duckdid account…” First note that I never specifically stated that you ran a CheckUser on the Duckdid account; I simply said you ran it on me. And my comment about user CheckUser use is a reasonable interpretation of your statement to Alkivar, “CheckUser is inconclusive at this point, so you'd have to block based on other grounds (e.g. being an obvious sockpuppet).” To act like I just made that up out of thin air is just bad faith on your part.

“…your claims that although you found it amusing…” An obvious distortion of the facts. I might as well say that every administrator who banters with a blocked user in the blocking edit summary must find vandalism to be amusing and is encouraging continued vandalism with the humorous edit summaries.

But, please, don’t stay on subject. Don’t talk about Alkivar’s profane outbursts, deleting of comments, incivility, bad edit summaries, attempt to add a bizarre picture to the brassiere page, or documented history of bad behavior in his three RfA.

It’s a lot easier to plop down on the drumhead and stir up the lynch mob.

PS: Speaking of Alkivar’s bad edit summaries, notice in the block log that the reason given for CapnCrack’s infinite block is “bad edit summaries.” Interesting how irony works, isn’t it? Dizzied 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Five week block for spelling change?

I've just come across what looks like a case of severe injustice. User:Pnatt has been blocked for five weeks for changing the spelling of television program from programme in Australian articles. "Program" is the correct modern Australian spelling, and "programme" is regarded as archaic. The blocking admin is not Australian and has promised to keep adding one week to Pnatt's block every time he returns and corrects the spelling. Understandably Pnatt is upset over this. Could someone please calm down what should be a simple discussion about consensus? --Jumbo 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's some context missing from that post, mainly this. 5 weeks seems a fairly minor escalation from the last block, which was one month and ran its full course, at which point the user again began doing exactly what got him blocked last time - uncivil edit warring over local dialect spellings. This seems to be practically all the user does, and I have no objection to this block. --Sam Blanning 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be upset as well? Looking at Pnatt's contributions, any incivility seems to be on a minor level. I've asked him to try to keep calm. The response of the blocking admin seems disproportionate and likely to further inflame the user. Pnatt's preferred spelling has been endorsed by other Australian users, and this really should not be this big an issue. --Jumbo 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually was not five weeks for a spelling change. User:Pnatt has only been on Misplaced Pages since April. In that time he had received continuous last warnings and 5 previous blocks, climbing from 24 hours right up to 1 month for continuous edit wars, misleading edit summaries, personal attacks, etc etc etc. Every time a block was imposed he was warned when he came back to stop behaving as in the past or he would be blocked again. Every time he would only be back on WP when he would take up where he left off and start the same behaviour all over again. On his second (yes, second) edit after the expiry of his last one month block he began the exact same edit warring on the exact same issues, abusing the exact same users, and carried on as if nothing happened. He had already been warned many times that such was his behaviour that the length of blocks would climb every time he was blocked until he stopped the edit warring and attacks. Given that it was a repeat performance of his previous behaviour, and the last block was for one month, this time, as warned, the block was upped again, this time to 5 weeks. BTW this user, when blocked, has also a habit of posting constant {{help me}} messages on his talk page, to the annoyance of many users who keep telling him to stop doing it. For his last block, his posting of false templates and attacks necessitated that his talk page also be protected for the duration of the block. Already since this block another user have had to threaten to protect the page again to stop him posting the disruptive templates. At this stage this user has been blocked for more often than he has been allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. He had contributed little but edit wars and attacks. It is getting to the stage where quite possibly he should be blocked indefinitely. In less than two months he has contributed nothing but aggro and edit wars. FearÉIREANN\ 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Thanks for chiming in. --Cyde↔Weys 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On investigation of Pnatt's edits, I must respectfully differ. His second edit on returning was this one, where he changed the archaic "programmes" to "programs". He was absolutely correct in this, and he has cited several widely used sources, such as current Australian dictionaries and the Australian Government Style Manual. He has not been abusive, nor has he made misleading edit summaries. He referred to correction of vandalism, which from his perspective (and mine) it certainly is. Articles on Australian subjects should use current Australian spelling, and when such a conservative network as the Australian Broadcasting Commission uses "program", we may safely say that this spelling is current. He does not deserve a five week block for making beneficial edits. New editors should be guided rather than chastised, and whatever his past sins may have been, he does not seem to have resumed them. --Jumbo 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to others' good faith edits as vandalism is provocative and incorrect. I'm not surprised it upsets people. "Vandalism" is when someone is trying to make the encyclopedia worse, not better. There's no compelling reason to think that someone using the spelling "programme" is trying to compromise the quality or integrity of Misplaced Pages - they probably think that's an acceptable spelling. I suggest that this user (and everyone) refrain from characterizing the other side of a style dispute as "vandals". -GTBacchus 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments:

• Six different admins have blocked this user. This isn't just one admin getting over-zealous.
• Some of his edits have been very blatant vandalism (e.g. , )
• The user is occasionally very incivil in his edit summaries (e.g. )
• This user spends a lot of time in revert wars, often with really strong POV statements such as this one
• This user has almost no productive edits
• The user does not seem to listen to warnings. See the user's talk page

Although I personally saw this latest edit war and was not planning on blocking him myself, I do support the block. -- JamesTeterenko 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some of those early edits are disturbing. However, I note that since returning he has made no similar edits. Maybe he HAS listened to advice this time? He has hardly been given a chance and if we can make a productive editor out of him than turning him into an embittered critic of Misplaced Pages, then so much the better. --Jumbo 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the very brief period before he was reblocked, his edit summaries included the misleading "revert vandalism" twice and he tells an editor " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" . That does not suggest to me that this editor is close to being 'reformed'. Note that "being right" is never an excuse for continuous edit warring (since everyone's right in at least one person's opinion). We have a dispute resolution process for people who think they're right when the other editors don't, and "edit warring" does not feature in any stage. --Sam Blanning 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not alone in stating that he is right. Other Australian editors prefer "program" over "programme". The naming of articles and categories such as List of programs broadcast by Seven Network indicate that this has been the preferred spelling for some time. Government and university style guides state "program not programme". The Macquarie Dictionary - the acknowledged standard for Australian English - has a headword for "program" and not for "programme". (See here for a page scan.) I had not given this matter much thought until this morning, but all my research indicates that he is entirely correct, and quite entitled to think of reversion to an archaic form as "vandalism". I note that it is common practice amongst established editors to label such small details as vandalism: here is one from the blocking editor, who could be described as Misplaced Pages's revert warrior par excellence, judging by his extraordinary edit history.

However, some of Pnatt's early edits and attitude (as pointed out earlier, for which many thanks, JamesTeterenko) trouble me deeply, and if he had returned to this style of editing, then I would not feel inclined to defend him at all. But there seems to be a gradual improvement in his attitude, and I feel that imposing a five week block and threatening longer for such a small impoliteness in a new editor is going too far. Such long blocks are more properly the preserve of the ArbCom, imposed for more serious and protracted matters. I feel that this matter should have been handled so as reduce confrontation and encourage co-operation. --Jumbo 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have protected User talk:Pnatt after he added the {{unblock}} template after I had already removed it. This is the fifth time the page has been protected to stop him abusing the template. I will not be lifting the protection until his block expires, as every time protection is lifted he goes right back to getting in the way of users who have a legitimate reason to be unblocked (see the log). --Sam Blanning 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this comment from him was extremely encouraging: "After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Misplaced Pages, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits." Now one more avenue of communication has been blocked off, and heaven knows what his opinion of Misplaced Pages management is now. Perhaps he's altering the template text because he feels that he's been, oh I dunno, harshly and unfairly treated? --Jumbo 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't altering template text, he was adding a template that he knew damn well he wasn't allowed to add again. That's not in the least bit encouraging, he seems absolutely incapable of learning from mistakes. If he feels he's been harshly and unfairly treated then he can wait for consensus to build up here that the block is unwarranted. --Sam Blanning 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, this behaviour came after he received a block of five weeks! I suggest that with sufficient provocation even the most angelic editor is going to get hot under the collar. On being unblocked - after a four week block - his Wikistress was at three. It quickly jumped to five: "Run for cover!". In such circumstances it seems reasonable to suggest that he's not going to be the perfect editor, and he should be calmed down instead of being provoked further. --Jumbo 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - his page has been protected five times now for abuse of the {{unblock}} template. The first time can be put down to ignorance, the second to frustation (or 'provocation'), but the third is downright refusal to listen, and the fourth and fifth are just taking the piss. It looks like no-one is willing to lift or shorten the five-week block, so I simply don't buy that throughout his block he should be allowed to continue adding {{unblock}} templates and get in the way of legitimate requests because he was 'provoked'. The block is, after all, already under review - the {{unblock}} template is for getting a second opinion and there are plenty of those here. --Sam Blanning 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on your reading of his motivation: "just taking the piss". It seems to me that this new editor feels he has been unfairly blocked and nobody gives a damn, except to kick him in the face longer and harder. I ask again, wouldn't YOU be stressed and upset under such circumstances? If your Wikistress level was set to "ready to pop', then how much would you care about niceties of policy? This editor started off on the wrong foot with some attitude problems, but all I see is steady improvement despite severe provocation. I'd like to see understanding and co-operation next time around. If he feels interested enough to return. In the meantime I can only imagine what he is saying about Misplaced Pages. --Jumbo 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He can have all the understanding he likes when he stops doing the same things that get him blocked and his talk page protected, over, and over, and over again. I don't know what he's saying about Misplaced Pages, but the truth would be along the lines of "Misplaced Pages has better things to do than act as the battleground for people who obsess over dialect spellings". --Sam Blanning 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you shouldn't lump the two misbehaviours together. It takes two to make a battle, and his changing of "programme" to "program" was quite correct, in Good Faith and he provided sources. See the discussion here. This should have been discussed at the time by the other parties, but apparently they chose to revert without discussion. His edit summary when he was reverted was perhaps a little incivil, but certainly not worth a five week block, which is what he got, with the promise of a much longer one. On that note, the blocking admin appears to be a big booster of monarchies and nobility around the world and User:Pnatt is apparently not. There may be some issues there. However, as has been pointed out, there are far worse examples of incivility in edit summaries which go unpunished.

After he was given a five week block for doing what he regarded as improving the encyclopaedia, then he sought outside assistance. I imagine that, as his Wikistress level indicates, he was quite upset. It is quite unfair to justify this very long block by what he did after getting it.

I am also quite concerned that the increasing improvement in his behaviour has been met with increasing harshness of treatment. He has also stated that he wants to be a good editor and this has been ignored. Surely he should be assisted in his stated aim rather than beaten and abused until he gives up in disgust? --Jumbo 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just asking for information, but how is the edit summary " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" a problem, while "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" reflects that the editor "sometimes could be more decorous" (Joe), and has "a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem" (Snoutwood) in #Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin? above? JackyR | Talk 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If Alikvar had been blocked six times for a total of about 40 days for that behaviour, that would be more of a valid comparison. --Sam Blanning 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a specific question. I'm not asking are Alkivar and Pnatt overall "good" or "bad". I'm asking, when assessing evidence, how is the first edit summary evidence an act <JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)> of wrongdoing, and the second not? JackyR | Talk 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC ) <rephrased to make less ambiguous JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)>

The first is part of a continuous pattern of disruption that has led six different admins to block the user and four to protect his talk page afterwards. The second is not. --Sam Blanning 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Still missing the point. You make a specific complaint about this edit summary, over and above the edit to which it refers. And you appear to be agreeing that a pattern of uncivil edit summaries by Alkivar is not a problem (did you mean to?).

Look, what I'm highlighting is how easy it is to make an overall judgement of a person, and then interpret all their actions accordingly (person X is bad, so action Z by them is bad: person Y is OK, so action Z by them is OK). This is the very heart of many accusations of admin abuse, and so unnecessary. Folk on this page routinely have to make evidence-based judgements – it's an important and often thankless job, and I'm grateful someone does it – but often end up putting the cart before the horse. Please, stop and think about this for a minute. I'm not getting at you: I'm just alarmed by what I see every time I'm stupid enough to come here. I care rather a lot about WP, and this needs to be dealt with – by everyone. JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said! I'm starting to regret that I ever stumbled across this, but I had to speak up. Admins do a wonderful (and largely thankless) job, but I am sure that mistakes are made, and it would have been remiss of me to walk past while another editor was calling out for help. --Jumbo 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked by how poorly this editor has been treated, especially when certain admins routinely leave uncivil edit messages yet are not blocked for even a minute. Al 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this conversation leading to consensus to fit the block on User:Pnatt soon, and give him a chance to demonstrate good faith editing? For what it's worth, I'm one of the previous blockers and reached for the Macquarie Dictionary before hitting the block button this time, and decided he is right (I would have kept "programme"). I think Pnatt has the potential to be a good contributor, although he shows poor judgement in selecting the changes to make at times, and certainly needs to learn to step back and take a deep breath instead of stepping forward with fists up. --Scott Davis 10:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike

I believe we have a problem with WCityMike - he's started a mass AfD against many Star Trek fanfilm related articles, and has apparently gone after several people, myself now included, who have questioned his actions. He's placed a warning about canvassing for votes on my talk page, when I have done no such thing, just reverted an edit he made that was critical of his actions and asked for an administrator's input. I would like an adminstrator to look into this situation, please. TheRealFennShysa 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second that request -- I've noted the same issue this morning, and would like to have a third party (preferably an admin) look into this as well. --Mhking 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed remark began, "I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films" and was on fan film talkpage. Removal of remark followed same methodology employed last night uncontroverrsially from BigDT. Note that complainant is a Trek fan film director, BTW, according to his talk page. User who posted original removed remark (Kirok) has made all sorts of sinister implications on his talk page based on my use of the afd_helper code. He's done wikistalking (investigating my monobook.js), personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and incivility -- which I did not bring here per the way MikeW...'s similar incident was handled here last night, but instead merely asked him politely to cut it out (see talk page). Merely asked user to stop being incivil/stop the personal attacks/etc. Complainant above restored vote-stuffing query from original user, thus restoring the canvassing for votes -- if the canvassing warning isn't policy (despite ArbCom rulings?), then why is it even on the warning page? — WCityMike  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Small point here - although I have an interest in the genre, I am not a Trek fanfilm director, and have never made a Star Trek fan film. Perhaps you're confusing that with Star Wars - it's such an easy mistake to make. TheRealFennShysa 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the clerical error. However, I've seen a great many Trek fanfilms on TheForce.net, and in my desire to get a response on the record to your charge above, did not read further in your profile. — WCityMike  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no Star Trek fanfilms on TheForce.net. TheRealFennShysa 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, those who oppose the deletion of the cited articles are assuming, without any proof, that I brought these nominations in bad faith. (That in and of itself seems to be not only textbook assuming bad faith but also personal attacks.) In actuality, I did not. Were you to see my bookshelves at home, you'd see I'm not precisely a detractor of Star Trek. However, it is simply that the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles, including each and every one I cited, has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote. Nomination does not equal deletion. Nomination states, "This user feels that the community should come to a consensus about whether this article deserves to be on Misplaced Pages." I don't think that that opinion is out of line, but evidently by expressing that opinion, I've given license to many hordes of Trek Wikipedians to engage in personal attacks and indignant outrage. It's a shame people (in general, not just in this incident) sem to have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. Those who can still pull it off usually come across as class acts. — WCityMike  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I could suggest moving this conversation off to a talk page again, but you're clearly looking for an administrator to act as a mediator or referee in this dispute. There's no blatant vandalism, attacks, or activity by blocked or banned users here. Again, you're looking for someone with administrative powers to simply witness and/or referee your content dispute. Administrators have the capability to delete articles, block/ban users, and maybe 1 or 2 other things, but they are not Solomonic judges. Work it out amongst yourselves and you'll be better for it. KWH 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, with regards to the "you're clearly looking" (as I'm not sure to whom you addressed this remark — it's an indent underneath my statement), I would note that although I brought the matter to WP:ANI last night, I didn't bring this complaint. Or, to use a legal analogy, yesterday I was the plaintiff, today I'm the defendant. I wouldn't have brought things here this morning, as last night I was told this wasn't the place for such differences of opinion. — WCityMike  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• This editor has now moved onto Lost-related articles. As he has stated above, he is on a mass AfD campaign ("the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote.), which appears to be contrary to WP:POINT. Rather than constructively aiming to develop consensus (or WP-policy improvements), he has chosen to list numerous fiction articles under the pretense of calling them "fancruft". I'm as against cruftiness as the next editor-- in fact, I have a back-burner proposal about the topic-- but disrupting WP/antagonising other editors is not the appropriate way to demonstrate the rightness of that belief. I would suggest that WCityMike should refrain from mass AfD nominations, and if he continues, to face appropriate sanctions. --Leflyman 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't appear he's nominated anything in the last few hours, but I do think a block may be neccisary should he begin again. --InShaneee 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I take respectful issue with InShaneee's comments. I have done my best to demonstrate good faith throughout the rather large outpouring of angry editors who have repeatedly taken issue with my nomination of articles that I felt did not meet Misplaced Pages's criterion for inclusion.

For example, I engaged in extremely long dialogues with NickC and Kirok on Kirok's talk page (dialogues which were time-consuming) to address their concerns and in an attempt to make peace with them, despite Kirot (as a new editor) posting rather egregious diatribes about the AFD Helper code and making incivil remarks all over the votes. And, indeed, with each of these individuals, I left the issue having made peace with them, as you can read for yourself.

The largest majority of other editors who have attempted to speak with me personally (including the two individuals bringing complaints in this section) have not demonstrated assumption of good faith or civility. But certainly, administrators should uphold these policies in their official actions as administrators. I have asked every single person who has accused me of bad faith in my nominations of articles to provide proof that I have acted sinisterly or with malicious intent. None have responded with same.

I respectfully posit that it would be a poor choice for an administrator to issue a block — which, from my understanding, is a preventative measure ("blocks are preventative, not punitive," I've heard several admins say) — to attempt to cease measures which are done in good faith.

Prior to reading this remark, and prior to posting this remark, I had nominated a handful of articles to AfD this morning. I emphasize that this was done prior to reading this comment, so it was not a retaliatory action to InShaneee's comments. However, it can now be argued I have "begun again." In these nominations, I did my best to offer more precise, reasoned criteria as to why I believed the article merited deletion, avoiding the seemingly inflammatory "fancruft" phrase, and I think it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that these nominations were made in bad faith and deserve blocking. (Indeed, no one has decided they need to take me to task on my talk page, as they had been doing yesterday.)

I am writing here not to prolong the issue in your eyes — as you can see above, I have attempted to make peace without administrator invention, once it was suggested that this issue was better handled without administrator intervention (see WP:ANI#Request that Admin Ask Fellow User to Cease Personal Attacks above).

But I did monitor this complaint when first brought against me, and I find it quite disturbing that an administrator is now seemingly ready to levy a block based on popular sentiment with no proof of the various accusations of disruption and malicious intent that have been tossed about by the people here and elsewhere. Thus, I'd respectfully suggest that said administrator reconsider their readiness to do same.

Thanks. — Mike •  18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not currently following the Afd discussions, but if (for example) the articles you nominated yesterday are generating strong keep consensus, it probably doesn't make sense to nominate more in the same class. If the consensus is mixed, with some going each way, I would proceed with a small number per day. Having fanfic based articles for a few extra days is worth fostering an environment of calmness and deliberation that focuses on the article content and not the nominator. Thatcher131 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your query, Thatcher131, without grabbing all the votes and calculating percentages to give you a precise answer, it's roughly a mixed bag. A very good portion of them are generating a delete consensus, a few are no-consensus, and I believe one or two are definitely leaning towards keeps (Star Trek: New Voyages, for example). — Mike •  19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like on June 6 you nominated about 35 articles (Trek and Lost, mostly). I'd say that a high rate of deletions demonstrates good faith, and that somewhere there is a number (less than 35, obviously) that will let people focus on the article rather than you. Thatcher131 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I just gotta say that I looked into Mike's history of communications with others on this and I think that he's got a good head on his shoulders and his commitment here is exemplary. I'm not even saying that I have read all the individual AfDs and judged that I agree with deleting them—just that Mike has used the AfD process correctly. KWH 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not to keep rehasing this matter, but this editor appears to be once again nominating AfDs. What seems to raise eyebrows is that two days after his self-nominated request for adminship failed -- which pointed out his limited understanding of WP policies, the first "oppose" suggesting greater participation in AfD-- this editor put forth dozens of deletion noms simultaneously. When criticised for this mass campaign by a number of other editors, he responded with claims of "assuming bad faith" and "incivility" -- at one point, engaging in an extensive revert war with one anon editor on two AfDs. (Note the repeated deletion of non-personal comments under the claim of WP:RPA, a stridently disputed guideline). This editor still fails to acknowledge that his mass AfD campaign has been disruptive, and in the case of the Lost articles he's listed-- DHARMA Initiative Stations, Oceanic Airlines, List of songs featured on Lost -- fruitless and time-wasting.

On his talk page and in comments on various AfD pages he accuses others of incivilities and bad faith, while simultaneously making comments like:

• "That one's going on my wall..."
• "If you find time inbetween writing your eloquent snarks..." ."

In short, this editor may have started out with "good intentions" but he's caused more harm and wikistress to others than had he followed AfD policy which advises that editors actually try to improve or fix a problem article prior to listing it. I would suggest that if this keeps up an RfC for user conduct be opened and this content be moved there.--Leflyman 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Breaking UK laws

There is a concerted campaign by just a few hardened and very un-Christian individuals, including it would appear two administrators, to demonise Gregory Lauder-Frost. I myself would rather the page was just deleted as I see a biased presentation of anyone on Misplaced Pages as unfair. But now User:Humansdorpie has deliberately contravened both English and Scottish laws by deliberately and illegally posting information about legal difficulties Lauder-Frost had in 1992-3. Wikipedians must not think they can ride roughshod over our laws. I urge action to stop this continuing. Lightoftheworld 09:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be very careful, you are bordering on legal threats, and legal threats are cause for an immediate, permanent block from further editing. Misplaced Pages is bound by US law, not UK law; if you believe laws are being violated, you need to raise it with Wikimedia's legal department. Your first point of contact would be Wikimedia's attorney, Brad Patrick. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re. the above, the following was posted on Humansdorpie talk page by User:213.122.46.228: You have deliberately chosen to flout the law because you think you are very clever. You are not. Believe me. Is this a threat? Yes, it certainly is. --Tyrenius 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Lightoftheworld indefinitely due to the above per WP:NLT. In my opinion, it is virtually beyond doubt that the IP address behind this post is Lightoftheworld, given that he has continued to carry on in the same vein. --Sam Blanning 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd urge caution about blocking people in this case. This has been a troubled article for some time, there are unsourced claims in it, and the intro indicates the subject is not being written about in a neutral tone. I've put the blp template on the talk page so the subject (if he's the one complaining) can see what policies ought to be followed. SlimVirgin 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Users cannnot expect to collaborate in writing an encyclopaedia with people they are suing or trying to get arrested. Preventing off-wiki intimidation takes precedence over everything else. He can withdraw his threats and edit (for good or for ill), or he can go to the police and not edit until legal action is completed. --Sam Blanning 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Preventing off-wiki intimidation takes precedence over everything else." Samuel, I agree that ought to be the case, but unfortunately it isn't. I also agree that editors can't be expected to collaborate with threats going on. All I know about this article is that it has a long and troubled history. It's a bio of a living person and so it has to be written in strict accordance with the content policies, and it currently isn't, so whoever is complaining about it is almost certainly right to do so. WP:BLP and the ArbCom both urge admins to handle complaints about living bios with sensitivity, so blocking the complainant may not be the best way to proceed, although I agree that he should offer constructive suggestions and not threats — but then again, this situation has been going on for a very long time. SlimVirgin 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If an article is in such a bad state that telling someone they are "evil" and "You are not immune from prosecution in this matter. I will be happy to act for GLF and we will locate you" is an acceptable reaction and behaviour that needs to be handled with sensitivity, then reduce the (WP:CIVIL)ing thing to a stub and start over from scratch if anyone really cares.

Let me put the sentence you quoted another way - keeping Humansdorpie on this project would be better for this encyclopaedia than keeping Lightoftheworld. (Though sadly, it's already too late .) --Sam Blanning 21:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully only for a cooling-off period, and he'll be back. From what I can tell, Humansdorpie was trying his best to improve the article - I really cannot see him having a personal stake in attacking Gregory Lauder-Frost. Unfortunately, Lightoftheworld and cronies/sockpuppets seemed to instantly believe anyone who wasn't 'with them' was an enemy.

I've noted on the article's talk page that I can't find any (online, at least) justification for Lightbringer's assertion that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 prohibits the mention of past, "spent" convictions when the information is obtained from public sources such as newspapers. It explicitly prohibits those with access to confidential records from releasing such info, but that doesn't apply here. In the UK, where suing for libel and defamation is commonplace, I'd have expected to find some mention of using this Act in such a way, and I did not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope Humansdorpie comes back. I know what it feels like to be driven off by off-wiki attacks. As for the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act: BLP says we should be sensitive to requests from subjects of bios to remove material that isn't relevant to their notability. I don't know how notable Lauder-Frost is, or exactly what he's notable for. I haven't heard of him apart from on Misplaced Pages and there doesn't seem to be a huge amount published. I'd therefore say that any minor convictions from a long time ago probably shouldn't be in the article. I don't know how others feel about that. I prefer to err on the side of caution where living people are concerned. SlimVirgin 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

His claim to notability is "as a political activist, describing himself as a "High Tory."" His own conduct in respect to the law is in this case highly relevant to his notability. Tyrenius 23:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As I just commented on the article's talk page, I fail to be convinced by Lightbringer/Sussexman's arguments that mentioning his conviction is illegal in the UK, since they bring no evidence to the table to support it (and in any case, these legal arguments are irrelevant to Misplaced Pages itself or to non-UK editors). However, I also remain to be convinced that mention of the conviction is necessary.

As you mention on the talk page, it's best to avoid our making a judgment at all - if we can track down genuine press quotations, for instance, then we can use those. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of any mention of illegality mentioning something of that nature in the UK. Besides which it's US laws that are relevant, as Wiki is hosted in the US. Tyrenius 01:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You insulting someone by calling them "very un-Christian individuals" is pretty disgusting. --mboverload@ 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

One might quote certain parables about motes and beams and suchlike back at those who call others un-Christian while behaving badly themselves. Though the insult in "un-Christian" only works on those who consider themselves Christians. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

we disscussed a simular issue a while back WRT a canadain court order. the general consensus was that we should ignore them although of ocurse editors should always be mindful of their local laws.Geni 13:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they are right as to UK law, but in the Robert I arbitration case we decided it didn't apply. I wonder though if the information is relevant. Gregory Lauder-Frost is mainly known for his political associations and views. It is hard to see how his legal difficulties are relevant or notable. If the point is to embarrass him, well done, but if the idea to record the history of his political life, it is a distraction. Fred Bauder 01:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza

This user is going to each article that has the term "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in it and removed the term stating "no propaganda terms" or has added POV tags to any use of the term. This user has done this on the following articles Jeffrey Chessani , Haditha killings , David Kay , Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. , Martin Dempsey , even Get Fuzzy

Is this the current standing of Misplaced Pages policy that military operation names are not permitted on any article space? Or is this over zealous editing. I am fearing this user is attempting to remove any mention of the operation from Misplaced Pages space. --zero faults 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add this user moved Operation Just Cause citing its a propaganda name, from what I see without any talk page disucssion except her own comment Talk:Operation_Just_Cause#Propaganda_title, to US invasion of Panama then started renaming all examples of Operation Just Cause from articles that contain the term. Is this the news Wiki policy? --zero faults 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

When a colloquial name exists it should be used in preference to the military propaganda name. For example: "Gulf War" instead of "Operation Desert Storm", "Iraq War" instead of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "World War II" or "Second World War" instead of "The Emergency", etc. I think this user is being overzealous though: obviously the propaganda names are notable and need to be discussed, but they shouldn't be the primary name we use to refer to events. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has attempted to remove the term from every article, sometimes causing it to be reffered to as both in the same article. Breaking the uniform of the article itself. For instance some state the places the person served by operation, then state in the article now, the non operation term. It seems to me its also sloppy editing as enough thought was not put into its effects. Considering all were made today in the span of 2 hours or so. Are operation names allows in the body of articles? I understand possibly redirecting titles, but there is no policy regarding article bodies I would assume. --zero faults 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over names, but I would be reluctant to call an operational name a "propaganda name." Operational names may be chosen for propaganda purposes, but I think it is more NPOV to refer to an operational name. Moreover, there have been arguably more than 1 U.S. invasion of Panama, so how do we distinguish between them? --CSTAR 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I had not even thought of that, its one article now. I did not see a disambiguation page, perhaps there was not an article on one? I worry about the obliteration of the term throughout wikipedia, but not had thought about the point you brought up. --zero faults 17:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Cyde. Operation names are unambiguous, official (at least for one side), and verifiable. Popular names for conflicts often don't get decided until years/decades later, when the historians start publishing. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No one would even think of naming World War II with an "official" Nazi term. Why then use propaganda terms like "Iraqi Freedom" or "Just Cause", the latter of which will not even allow most readers to guess which conflict is written about? Añoranza 00:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza has had a history of POV edits and demeanor, this is no different. By the logic he is using, the term "United States" would be a propaganda term because we are not currently united. Haizum 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding this logic more dillusional by the second. If the military gives an operation a name, that is its name, the propaganda value is irrelevant. Why is it OK to change the facts when it benefits the anti-American agenda? Haizum 01:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Its even being taken to the extreme as cited below Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A.C3.B1oranza_again the user is creating problems with articles she is removing the wording from to the point where they are creating inconsistencies and redundant mentioning. When this issue is brought to their attention they say other people should fix it. There is even proof the user is not even read the articles before editing. Now there reason have even changed from propaganda terms do not belong on wikipedia, to I was doing it to prevent redirects. If we removed all terms that are deamed propaganda then we would have to remove Cold War, Holocaust (burnt offering to the Gods), etc. It is what it is called, they are operation names. --zero faults 01:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop the hyperbole and strawman arguments PLEASE? Note how the articles on the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iraq War are located at sensible names and not at Operation Iraqi Freedom. The operation names as chosen by the U.S. government are specficially chosen for propaganda reasons. Additionally, we are writing a worldwide encyclopedia, and very few people from other countries are going to know U.S. military names for certain invasions, but all of them are going to know "Iraq War". It's just common sense. This isn't to defend Anoranza, who is apparently making detrimental edits. --Cyde↔Weys 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When an article warrents it, we should use the military name. When the article warrents it, we should use 2003 invasion of Iraq. It's as simple as that. --mboverload@ 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm saying the article only warrants it when you're talking specifically about the propaganda name (e.g. why they chose "Operation Iraqi Freedom" over "Operation Iraqi Liberation"). When you're just talking about it in a normal historical context, as in "when the United States invaded Iraq", just say ... "when the United States invaded Iraq" or whatever. Very few people outside the U.S. know the propaganda names and they're less appropriate anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer to use the military name. After all, we call it operation overlord, not invasion of normandy...*actually checks before posting this*....wow, we actually don't call it Operation Overlord, we redirect it to Battle of Normandy. History is on your side in this debate, Cyde. I have changed my mind. --mboverload@ 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone outside of the US doesn't know the factual and official name for an operation, too bad. Plenty of people don't mind going back to Operation Anaconda and beating the drum about the US not being able to catch/kill UBL, so do you still want to change the name to "Operation Botched Attempt to Find UBL," if not, what other name would you give it? Please. Haizum 04:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What an incredibly insipid view to have of a worldwide encyclopedia. Did you know that the majority of English speakers in the world do not reside in the United States? Saying "if you don't know the official United States name of the operation, too fucking bad" is patently absurd and is in direct contradiction with our mission. Misplaced Pages is not US-centric. --Cyde↔Weys 13:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the United States, but it has everything to do with the facts. I will say that it would make sense to use a general name and a specific operational name, eg, The First Gulf War / Operation Desert Storm. I believe the article is already written that way...*checks*...yes, it is. For smaller operations like Operation Anaconda I honestly don't see what other name it could be given. Haizum 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the edits themselves are legitimate, I believe edit summaries such as 'No propaganda terms, please' cast unwarranted aspersions on previous editors' motives. I would suggest that such edits be explained more diplomatically in future. Perodicticus 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational names are often used when there is no generally accepted name otherwise, or if the operational name itself is the commonly used term to describe the battle that occured. Other times one side or another names the battle a name, such as First Battle of Bull Run. As with this, the US name not accepted by the Confederates, and they had their own name for it, First Battle of Manassas, which redirects to the previous page. Names are rarely universal in war. Calling every operation in any country an invasion isnt correct, for instance was Operation Desert Fox an invasion of Iraq? When referring to the event, most do not call it "Bombardment of Iraq" but instead Operation Desert Fox. When most people refer to Operation Rolling Thunder, they call it this rather than "Bombardment of North Vietnam." It does not violate NPOV to call them these code names or government chosen battle names if these battle names or operation names have entered the vocabulary of the public. When most people think of the Iraq War, they call it this, not Operation Iraqi Freedom (which was only the US operation that took place in the invasion). Thus Iraq War is aptly named, not because it is totally neutral, for instance the insurgents might call it the American War like Vietnam called their war, or perhaps they have a different name entirely. But to us english speaking public, Iraq War is the standard. If most people called World War Two "The Crisis" then that would be what we call it, but as they do not we call it what is the most common name, World War Two.

So to reiterate, we name wars, operations, and battles not because they were chosen neutrally, by a third party, or by the involved parties, but instead because they have entered society and become the accepted name for the respective event. Anoranzo has consistently ignored this and consistently edited likewise, and it has been detrimental to the articles, giving false impressions both of the conflicts the articles are about, and of Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality. Rangeley 21:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User inserting ads in articles on congresspeople

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but User:RebeccaM Contributions is systematically inserting links to on the pages of many members of congress. The page she is linking to lists the candidates in the congressman's current election race. This information is usually contained in the body of the article so the links are pretty non-significant. I'm guessing this is linkspan. Would someone mind taking a look? GabrielF 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the targets of those links they appear to not contain adverts but are listings of the other candidates in a given race in which they are involved. As such I'd be inclined to accept them as useful links. --Vamp:Willow 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Maria10029 was doing the exact same behavior recently and continued until he/she got up to the spam4 warning. This may be something to keep an eye on. --Takeel 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza again

The user is once again up to removing all mentioning of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Misplaced Pages stating "an encyclopedia should not use propaganda terms". Its not just the removal of Operation names reagrding the US only. The user is also creating articles where sometimes they use operation names and sometimes they do not, further more they are not taking into account that wars are split into multiple operations and some soldiers and officials only serve during certain parts, therefore removing all mention of the operations with the larger war is not as specific as referencing it by operation name. The worst part is they are creating situations where the userbox states the person served in OIF but OIF isnt mentioned in the article anymore like in the case ofJeffrey_Chessani. Lastly the edits are sloppy, they are removing the term then telling other editors to clean up the rest of the article with edits summaries like this "revert as propaganda terms are inappropriate. If you find more, please remove them, too" , its not other editors job to clean up articles that other editors are knowingly creating problems in. Its even more proof as the last edit shows another operation name right before the one she is constantly attempting to remove, impossible to miss if this user was reading the articles before editing them and not blanket editing with no concern for structure and consistency.

Redundancy Issues - Consistency Issues - Jeffrey_Chessani and OICW having all operation names except for OIF, including the sentence before

Can someone please stop this user, they are editing every page with the term. --zero faults 23:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pluralis majestatis for me coming from a user who supports sockpuppets? Who removes complaints from his talk page, personally attacks me, ignores NPOV and even reverts corrected typos? Añoranza 00:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an issue here, please stop trying to divert the topic. Thank you. --zero faults 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your issue is you are unhappy with me. I am unhappy with you. Avoiding redirects is nothing wrong. Añoranza 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That was not your cited reason oddly enough. Your own words speak against you. The article has been moved back as well, I think its time you revert all the articles back to avoid redirects since its your primary concern. --zero faults 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint here was about Operation Iraqi Freedom, which redirects to Iraq war. Añoranza 00:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your summaries have already been shown, you are making yourself look bad by trying to hide your edits via another reason. To avoid redirects you could have formatted the links with the | symbol, however you already know that cause you used it today. --zero faults 00:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof this user is now lying as to their intent, after stating above its because of redirects, they have now edited an article with the summary of propaganda as show above numerous times. Once again also showing they are attempting to remove all mention of the term from Misplaced Pages. They have even edited articles on Michael Jordan and a cartoon strip. --zero faults 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You were complaining here about a case where removing the propaganda term even avoided a redirect. I also remove propaganda terms in a case where the article title has not yet been rendered neutral. So what? Añoranza 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We will let an admin decide on your wholesale removal of every mention you can find of Operation Iraqi Freedom, including in Michael Jordans article and a comic strip. I am done arguing with you and your double talk. Your summaries speak for themselves, especially in an article where you used both reasons like Norman_Schwarzkopf,_Jr. --zero faults 01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof user is not even reading articles - David_Kay article still states "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in section "Subsequent Interviews" proving the user is not even reading the articles before editing and is creating inconsistencies. --zero faults 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you two calm down a bit, please. This is a bit much. Some admin is likely to block both of you. Thanks. --John Nagle 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza has been blocked for violating the three-revert rule. JDoorjam Talk 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam blocked me for "violation of 3RR" because he apparently does not know how to count up to high numbers. Blocking someone you were in a conflict with yourself is unacceptable, in this case it was even without any warning, and instead of apologizing he threatens me. Añoranza 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd block Añoranza again, for incivility, but there might be a bit of a conflict of interest there. I invite anyone else to review. JDoorjam Talk 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You block me because you cannot count up to three, in spite of being involved in the conflict yourself, then your threaten me instead of apologizing, and now you complain about incivility? I'd call that barefaced. Añoranza 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks now. --mboverload@ 03:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to do it if he keeps up like above. --InShaneee 03:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Anoraza one week. Intolerable troll. Official reason: CIV, NPA, revert warring, NPOV vio, WP:NOT censored vio. NSLE_(T+C) at 03:23 UTC (2006-06-09)

I'm NOT questioning your decision (thanks), but what does "WP:NOT censored vio" mean? --mboverload@ 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's cryptic but it means that Misplaced Pages is not censored and the user is trying to censor others, so they are violating that principle. --Woohookitty 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I really think a One Week block of Anoranza for contesting a block is uncalled for. Particularly given Zero's history of inciting conflict and other questionable behavior like altering other people's comments. But Zero was very successful in angering Anoranza, I'll give him that. Theres also a RFC Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults up about this and I think Anoranza should be allowed to complete it. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read what happened there comments weren't altered, Nescio was attempting to alter them I was attempting to preserve them in the way they were when I replied to them. This is just proof of the witchunt that my RfC is going to turn into. Where people are not even posting about the current dispute. --zero faults 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He can complete it when he finished his newly-reset one week block for editing with IPs to circumvent his block here. NSLE_(T+C) at 08:46 UTC (2006-06-09)

User:Zer0faults and User talk:NSLE have teamed up to censor comments and push propaganda. I have been blocked by User talk:NSLE to prevent me from making comments here. Añoranza 09:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Baseless accusations won't get you anywhere. If you refuse to stop evading your block, an indefinite block may be appropriate. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:30 UTC (2006-06-09)

After confiming it with Kelly Martin, this is definetely not Anoraza. I restored the original block (saving a whole 5 hours!) Sasquatch t|c 23:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

ShootJar

ShootJar (talk · contribs) has been adding the line "This so called encyclopedia is largely biased and unreliable. For a resource you can trust, please visit Encyclopedia Britannica" to various (seemingly random) articles. Possibly because his proposal for admin rights and page protection has met with a lukewarm response? It's a strange one. I've given test4 but I'd like a fresh pair of eyes to help decide if other measures are in order, thoughts? Deizio talk 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He's vandalized about 20 articles in less than a half hour, although he appears to have stopped for the time being. I've added a very stern warning. If it keeps going, skip straight to a fairly long block. --Avillia 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've given a 48-hour cool-off, that was just too much. RadioKirk talk to me 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe tack on abother 40 minutes...just to be sure =D --mboverload@ 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one think User:ShootJar/Proposal and User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal are definitely worth taking a look at. Don't dismiss this user's ideas simply because of past blocks. I do agree that some of the energy is misguided though. Haizum 05:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. He's annoying, and he's violating WP:POINT, but he may not be wrong. --John Nagle 06:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the user's proposals are not entirely without merit; however, if a user is on a WP:POINT crusade, (s)he has to be stopped to limit the damage. RadioKirk talk to me 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We're a quick community. I was just looking at that proposal linked from Sean Black's talk page, checked the contributions and was headed over here. The user hasn't enabled email, so anybody know what's going on? Teke 05:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Macai is not a sock of User:Thewolfstar

Re "Metrocat sockpuppet" above: User:Macai is not a sock. He's Thewolfstar's 18-year-old son, living at home, sharing a LAN network with her. I have spoken with Macai and believe we should assume good faith here. For one thing, I saw Thewolfstar referring to him several times before she was in any trouble or could have had any reason to lie about it. Also Macai has never edited abusively. In fact, now he doesn't edit at all, being hit by his mother's blocks — compare mine and Demi's conversation with him on his talkpage. Is it possible to do anything about this? At a minimum, it would be nice to raise some awareness about this young editor, so he doesn't keep getting labelled a vandal sock. I realize it's difficult to let him edit as long as he shares a unique IP with a community-banned family member. Incidentally, Essjay has endorsed my description of Macai's situation as likely, in this conversation on the CheckUser page: Bishonen | talk 10:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

• We are transitioning RFCU over to individual subpages for each request. Thewolfstar's page is Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thewolfstar. Right now it only has the most recent request but previous archived requests will eventually get copied onto the same page as we convert the archived requests from the old to the new system. Thatcher131 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I archived the prior case to the same page. Thatcher131 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The new system will help greatly with this; by keeping an easy to check index of checks, and keeping as many as possible together on one page, we will make it easier to note these kinds of things, so they don't turn up again and have the same problem happen. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Zigzogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Zigz0gger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Big.P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Biggie.P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) From an email request for an unblock. Could someone look into this request.

"Please check out my user page and look into this. Please also unblock me and post that I have been maliciously framed. I have NEVER used obsenities or vandalized any page. Someone, most likely the person who goes by the usernames Big.P and Biggie.P, created and username called "Zigz0gger" and made the same arguments that I did, but using abusive and obsene language." see:

Also has request on talk page. Regards, FloNight 11:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Biggie.P hasn't edited since late last year, and it seems likely that Big.P is the same user (account created a couple of days after the first one stopped editing). There may be more going on here than meets the eye - user:Zigzogger was temp blocked by BrokenSegue for "harassment, abuse, and reposting of an AfD'd article", and then permanently blocked later in the day. I have to say I can't see any evidence of the first two from that account, but user:Zigz0gger (created the same day as Zigzogger's blocking, but prior to the temp block) was undoubtedly abusive and harassing. I'm going to request a checkuser on these accounts. --ajn (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that at the time the two accounts were blocked (May 21) there was no discussion on AN/I and no Checkuser request made. Apparently the blocking admin assumed sockpuppetry without confirming it. Thatcher131 12:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, not necessarily relevant to this case, but to make sure it's said: Obvious sockpuppets may be blocked without checkuser. Checkuser is just a tool to confirm what is already known, and if it doesn't appear to need confirmation, there is no need to checkuser. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but if Zigz0gger does a bad thing, IMO the chance that Zigz0gger is impersonating Zigzogger is at least as good, if not marginally better than, Zigz0gger being a sockpuppet of Zigzogger. That doesn't seem to have been (publicly) considered in this case. Thatcher131 07:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Kitteneatkitten's return to Misplaced Pages now might be relevant. Kitteneatkitten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Similar ideology and activity on Classical liberalism. --FloNight 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Added to the RFCU case. --ajn (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the checkuser case is done. Checkuser said, "Big.P is Zigz0gger." Kevin_b_er 23:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And Zigzogger is Kitteneatkitten. We need to see if Zigzogger and Kitteneatkitten were used in an abusive way. Otherwise the sockpuppets are not relevant. FloNight 00:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What I don't like is the fact that zigzogger was indefinately blocked due to impersonating sockpuppet. But use of a sockpuppet like zigzogger did to 'evade' a ban now with Kitteneatkitten means that ban/block counters should be reset. Opinion and suggestion: So zigzogger gets a 48+ hr ban (maybe more, since the sock puppet violated 3RR). And then, maybe some more for incivility by zigzogger because he/she kept spouting off on their talk page throwing accusations(which weren't known to be definitively correct at the time) at Big.P after being indef blocked. Kevin_b_er 00:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs more discussion. First, User:Kitteneatkitten is an older and more active account than User:Zigzogger. I consider User:Zigzoggerthe sock. Second, you may have miss stated the case. User:Kitteneatkitten, did not edit any article since May 19. Blocks are not suppose to be punitive. I don't really consider this edit done today invading a block. Also, perhaps Kitteneatkitten/zigzogger deserves an apology for being falsely indef blocked. FloNight 01:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't really here beyond to try to get the indef block recinded after I saw the checkuser. I made a case above that it could be resolved by going and removing the indef block, then doing that reset the block counter(which was at 48 hrs before being extended to indef) which is in some policy I can't find at the moment. If someone was really irate about it, longer than 48, but not indef. That was a suggestion. The fact that kitteneatkitten is older than zigzogger makes things complicated, but... I'm not an administrator. I've notified RasputinAXP, however, as he made extensive modifications to the blocking structure of this incident. Sorry if I've caused any confusion for you flo, I just felt sympathy due to zigz0gger and simple of matter of getting nailed with indef due to impersonation by sock is a darn evil thing to have happen to a someone. Don't wheel war because of what I've said though, and strike out bits of it if need be. -- Kevin_b_er 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I already left an apology on Zigzogger's talk. I saw the messages Big P left on their user page. I feel terrible that Big P tried to cause me to have bad feeling toward Zig. As far as I'm concerned there should be no further block. I thought you were trying to cause a block to continue for 48 more hours. I think the user should be able to choose between Kitteneatkitten or Zigzogger. I left a message on the talk page asking Zig about this. Don't worry, I'm not a warrior. : - ) FloNight 04:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not again Zig reverting to Kitteneatkitten and having User:Zigzogger locked out as a sock. I felt very bad for Zig, as Kevin said above it was a Very Bad Thing that Big.P did, and I've blocked him for a month, and that's only because other than this incident and a bout of incivility he's been something of a contributing member of the community. I still feel he needs a longer time-out, but in the end the month may be enough. I'd like to avoid having to bring this to RFC or Arbcom, because they're overworked enough as it is. man, you people make my wikibreak tough  RasputinAXP  c 12:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Shweeny666 indefinitely blocked, please review

Shweeny666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continually vandalised Misplaced Pages, e.g. right back to his first edit . He has been blocked twice: once indefinitely by Curps, reduced to 48 hours, once by me for 48 hours, and this is his third block. He makes good-faith contributions as well, but as far as I can see they are all minor, some to the point of emptiness, and some may be to hide the previous vandalism to deceive people who view only the last diff.

This user just doesn't get that Misplaced Pages is not a playground and there is no pressing reason to keep him here. I believe he should be considered indefinitely banned per exhausted community patience. Three other users have already voiced this belief on his talk page. --Sam Blanning 14:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good block. Now, remove this section, it's crowding the noticeboard. — Jun. 9, '06 <freak|talk>

A problem found googling zine page

Hello, i saw this comment on the Talk:Zine page:

When I googled zines, I got a link to this wikipedia page, but this is what the description said:

Zine - Misplaced Pages, the 💕Zines are fucking gay only fucking fags do zines. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Zine". Views. Article · Discussion · Edit this page · History ... en.wikipedia.org/Zine - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Is this vanadlism that was removed? How long before it stops showing up on google? Rocketqueen 15:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

i checked and its true, there is still the abusive message coming up in the page summary in google ... i dont know how to go about fixing it. hope someone does! if this isnt the right place to post, please advise where i should go. cheers, Mujinga 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do but wait for Google's next crawl. RadioKirk talk to me 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW my general impression is that the crawl revisits every week or two. Generally, the cached versions you find of pages tend to be within the last ten days. This was picked up on the 7th, so it should be gone by mid-month. May be interesting to keep an eye on it and see when it changes. Fan1967 16:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for prompt advice, yeah i will try to keep an eye on it. Mujinga 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this page on Google's site, Google can be contacted to expedite the clearance of undesirable cached pages. It might be worth investigating this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad luck they cached that version. However, it will disappear, but how about waybackmachine where they might store a vandalised version for ever. Has this been addressed anywhere? Tyrenius 01:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? Wayback stores a whole mess of old versions of each page, as does another website known as "Misplaced Pages". --Carnildo 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It matters less in the case here than it does in certain other cases found on this page. When Misplaced Pages 'decides' that something shouldn't be included in its corpus, the best of all possible worlds would have 'external' representations of that corpus faithfully reproduce the original (flaws and all). The Internet Archive is another matter altogether considering its status as an 'admissible in court' historical reference. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock/Meatpuppet issue at AfD

At Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Brisbane_Grammar_School_(2nd_nomination) User:19748 and his merrymen are sock or meatpuppeting for the deletion of the article. It's humerous to say the least, but my concern is that some of them have stolen the user pages of other editors to pose as their own (a way of trying to make themselves look like they're experienced users). What's the proper way to handle this? Blanking the user page? Among them is User:Tattoo678 who ripped off User:Autopilots's page and User:Pulsar_vectram who copied User:Bisco's page. Metros232 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd block the page and put a sockpuppet notice up, if you're completely sure it's a sockpuppet. Copying a userpage is kosher under Misplaced Pages rules, technically, but then so is blanking it. -- SCZenz 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you copy a user's userpage without noting where you got it from, doesn't that break the GFDL? --Sam Blanning 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true. A link alone would satisfy the GFDL, but they don't seem to have wanted to include such a link. --Avillia 19:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

They're probably not aware of the requirement. They didn't seem to be trying to hide meatpuppeting—quite the reverse. Tyrenius 01:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but they're not exactly taking the pages to be their own. Like, for example, Tattoo678's page where he counts himself as an inclusionist (yet is trying desperately to have a page deleted) and says their join date was in October of 2004. Metros232 01:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/Libelous links from User:167.191.250.81

I'm a fairly new user who noticed a libelous link added to the Talk:Victor Ashe page yesterday. I reverted the edit, documented this stuff and put comments on the user's talk page. I also put the tag on requesting assistance. I notice User:167.191.250.81 has since deleted most of my comments as well as an earlier, unrelated warning from Nlu.

This user has already been tagged by Nlu as a possible sockpuppet of User:70.231.240.13

I'm hardly the Wiki-sheriff, just a bystander that saw something going on. I am unsure of how to be handling this -- can some grown-up help with this or at least look into it? Thanks!--A. B. 18:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on A.B.'s talk page w/r/to the excision from the history of the offending edit, viz., to the effect that such excision isn't necessary, although there's no harm done if someone wants to remove it; oversight won't be required, as there's only one edit to be removed. 167.191.250.81 appears to be making fine edits to many articles but exclusively disruptive edits to articles involving George W. Bush; no block appears necessary right now, inasmuch as the IP hasn't vandalized in a good while (except to remove warnings from his talk page, which warnings have been replaced). Joe 19:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier/Apartheid wall

After When it became clear that the article Apartheid wall was to be merged and redirected to Israeli West Bank barrier as per the results of the AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall, User:Homeontherange recreated it under a different name, Israeli West Bank barrier/Apartheid wall.Timothy Usher 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you've got the chonology wrong. I created it at 23:13, 3 June 2006 as a precursor to actually doing the merge. The Apartheid wall article was redirected at 03:38 4 June 2006 so you've got it reversed when you claim I created the sub after the redirect. If you check the history for Israeli West Bank barrier you'll see that I began the actual merge. The sub was supposed to have been deleted after the merge was completed. It serves no purpose now and should be deleted. Homey 23:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It must be speedy deleted as a duplicate of an existing article. Pecher 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Homey 00:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole problem is getting out of hand, and the disucssion about the many articles is at to many places. I seriously think there should be an intervention from uninvolved admins and the discussion about this range of topics, moves, and content should be centralised at a single page.-- Kim van der Linde 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion should be focused on two aspects which are realted:

1. sources used by Homey when he created the articles WP:RS
2. Homey' behaviour in these set of articles i.e. violations of WP:Point, WP:Not

Zeq 20:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the problem is not only User:Homeontherange. -- Kim van der Linde 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've placed it in Homey's userspace; he can do what he likes with his personal version there. Jayjg 21:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you check the history of the article you'll see it was created near the end of the AFD on Apartheid wall - an AFD that had a consensus of mergeto Israeli West Bank barrier. I created the subpage as a percursor to the merge in case the reviewing admin deleted or redirected the article without implementing the merge himself. So for heavens sake, relax. Homey 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Posted on User:Timothy Usher: You should have just asked me.

It wasn't recreated. On June 3, the day before the Apartheid wall article AFD ended and in anticipation of the finding of a consensus to merge I copied the article to a subpage of Israeli West Bank barrier so I could undertake the merge once the AFD was complete. I anticipated that the reviwing admin might blank and redirect the page without merging it. S/he did so on June 4 and once that happened I copied the contents of the subpage and pasted it into the main article thus executing the merge. Jayjg then made some adjustments. I had intended to delete the page but forgot. If you had brought it to *my* attention I would have deleted it. Instead you tried to make a federal case out of it.

I really, really am tired of your fishing expeditions Zeq. Timothy, why did you wrongly assert that I created the subpage *after* the AFD ended when, in fact, I created it the day before? I'd appreciate it if you corrected your incorrect statement on WP:ANI. Homey 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As Homeontherange has requested an apology for the word "After" in my post above, I've striken it out. For the record, he did not create it after the formal end of the AfD, but when it became clear that the AfD would result in the articles' merger with Israeli West Bank barrier. I apologize for whatever distress he might have suffered due to this inaccuracy.Timothy Usher 01:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Plausible deniability (talk · contribs) Edit War in Democracy Now

Check out the Democracy Now article, there is an edit war going on in that article. The User:Plausible deniability has been not logging in and reverting in order to avoid being caught for edit warring. At one point, I warned him in his talk page about the 3RR and he did a fourth revert using his IP to try an avoid the rule. I didn't want to call him out on it because a block so early after registration sets off the "vandal/pov pusher" alarm and I didn't want to bite the newcomer. This however has gotten to far, he is continuing to log off to avoid being called on edit warring. ...I also suspect this might be his as well. --Jersey Devil 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Maria10029

Hi, administrators. I'm trying really hard to assume good faith, but something about the edits being made by Maria10029 doesn't seem right to me. Should I try harder to assume good faith in this case, or is something not-good really happening? --Takeel 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, IMHO, it doesn't seem too bad......she's spamming to a .org site, which is not-for-profit, and it appears to be an information directory..-- The ikiroid  22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maria10029 got warned up to spam4 on her talk page, and then suddenly stopped posting links. Is there any way to get Maria10029's spammy links mass-reverted? --Takeel 22:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left the user a note. RadioKirk talk to me 23:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting a 15 year old and another for sexually explict chat on and off Misplaced Pages - URGENT

I have come across a possibly disturbing thing concerning several of our users. User:JamieAdams (who claims to be 15) has been encouraging others to come on Yahoo to talk with him.
Warning: Explict
Chat between JamieAdams and User:Pn355
JamieAdams talking with User:McDudley
Where Dudley says he is 15

Please advise --mboverload@ 22:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My advice: delete these posts and indefinitely block the involved users.Timothy Usher 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked JamieAdams and Pn355 indefinitely on the basis of the conversation. I didn't see anything wrong with what the other two editors said, looked like they just wanted to chat and it might have been quite innocent on their part. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Good call.

James F. (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaaannnd I deleted most of the history of Pn355's talk page, and left a comment saying not to talk about his sex life on Misplaced Pages. JDoorjam Talk 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both users indefintely and deleted the talk page that wasn't deleted. If this was not the right course, feel free to adjust the block time.--Kungfu Adam 22:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, there are more than two involved. Well I blocked two of them--Kungfu Adam 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I subst'd {{indefblock}} on and protected the user and usertalk pages of all the involved (now indef blocked) users. El_C 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the previous revisions of User:JamieAdams, which contained (among other things) his email. Canderson7 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we please take a further step and remove those edits completely from the database? There is no reason why they need to remain I think. --HappyCamper 23:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be best. My issues with this (beyond the abuse of the Misplaced Pages servers) is that some or all of the participants might not be the teenagers they claim to be, and that some of the acts described are illegal (an adult having sex with a minor). Canderson7 23:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It would not be a misuse of Misplaced Pages's resources. I think some sort of "oversight" privileges were added recently? This place is an encyclopedia, and having that material still accessible (even only to administrators) is distracting, to say this euphemistically. These sorts of things do not happen on a regular basis, so it is not to say we are setting a precedent by cleaning up nicely. --HappyCamper 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry for the misunderstanding; I meant that the chat was an abuse of the servers, not your proposed solution. I do think however that we should be concerned with more than cleaning this up. Canderson7 23:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are only a few hundred people on the face of the earth that can read what used to be there. I think it's a non-issue. --mboverload@ 23:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a bloody nudist networking site.... arrrrgggh.... --Lord Deskana 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(THREE edit conflicts later) HappyCamper -- Eh. Deleted is deleted enough; we should be abstemious in completely removing things. Let's not get too trigger-happy obliterating things, even in cases like this. If nothing else, it'd be good for admins to be able to see what was deleted if JamieAdams requests unblocking. JDoorjam Talk 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that I am not User:JamieAdams, I am merely transferring his statements to this page in his defense, as he cannot due to an immediate and indefinite block. Adams wishes to make the following comments:

——"i am sorry for chatting because i knew i should not have done it but i got carried away and he would not fix his msn. i said i did not want to chat on wikipedia. also i did revert some vandalism today which was good. i do not know what else to say".—142.176.76.21 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if non-administrators are allowed to chip in; I just stumbled across this thread. If any of these parties are located in the U.S. (where Misplaced Pages is based), the Foundation may have a legal responsibility to report (but not necessarily investigate) this affair. Presumably the Misplaced Pages has legal counsel -- it may want to run this by that person. Also, in my own personal opinion, the kid needs help and the others, if adults, need watching by the authorities in their respective jurisdictions as potential predators. Inititiating that process should be something the U.S. authorities are (hopefully) equipped set in motion with their peers elsewhere once they receive a report.

I suggest you get the professionals involved, starting with the Foundation's lawyer and/or the US FBI.--A. B. 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that the FBI has jurisdiction- the IP is Canadian.--Kungfu Adam 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Ooops, no that is someone acting on the user's behalf.--Kungfu Adam 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to sound American-centric or to propose the FBI as the "world police". Regardless of where the user is, I suggested the Foundation officially contact the FBI since that is where the Foundation is. Even if the FBI doesn't have the lead on this investigation (for instance if the parties are all in other countries), they will still be asked by the other authorities to work with the Foundation on server logs, etc. on the other countries' behalf. Also, the FBI will know better who to contact for this sort of matter in other countries than Misplaced Pages would just calling the switchboard number for the police in Hong Kong (or New Zealand or wherever). These Internet sex-abuse investigations routinely involve a lot of international police cooperation. Having said all that, Canderson7's note for Jimbo is the next step in the off-wiki action.--A. B. 00:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are off-wiki issues involved here, and I've left a note on Jimbo's talk page notifying him of this thread. Canderson7 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call.--A. B. 00:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

BradPatrick (Foundation's attorney) would probably be the better choice. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This thread is very active. For my own peace of mind, I'm going to contact one of those people with the oversight flag, and let them decide what would be appropriate to do. The issue isn't whether we have reduced the accessibility of those posts to a small fraction of the population. The issue is that we need to take responsibility for this as far as our technical abilities as volunteers on this project allow. This will become more important as this site becomes more publically visible. This is just one example where there needs to be some sense of resolved accountability. Once I've left a post on say, one of the 17 people with that flag, I'll be happy. --HappyCamper 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I also blocked User:JamieAdams_representative--Kungfu Adam 23:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...looks like other stuff is going on too: User:AdamFletcher, User:Sweetiepetie, and User:BrianHall are indefinitely blocked now. --HappyCamper 23:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa --mboverload@ 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AdamFletcher and User:BrianHall certainly fit the profile, but User:Sweetiepetie doesn't seem to. How conclusive was the evidence? Canderson7 00:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's solid. Same person. (I didn't run the check that caused the block, but I've checked.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely do not understand the inclinations others have to get the authorities involved (assuming arguendo, of course, that there's no legal requirement that someone so act, of the absence of which requirement I'm certain); where individuals disrupt Misplaced Pages, we block them. Where they use Misplaced Pages for unencyclopedic purposes, as a webhost or a chatting service, for example, we block them. But once they are no longer involved in Misplaced Pages, we absolutely ought not to consider the extra-Wiki consequences of their on-Wiki dealings; just as we only contact schools or IPs in order that they should know about severe disruption coming from users to whom they provide Internet access, so too ought we only to contact law enforcement, for example, where we require intervention to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia (the relevant instances would be rather rare). We, for what it's worth, are an encyclopedia and are, or ought to be, concerned primarily about the content of the work of those who contribute. If we had a valuable contributor who had occasion to note, in passing, on a user talk page that he/she had recently murdered someone or was planning to murder someone (where such discourse neither is intended to disrupt nor actually disrupts and where collaboration is not significantly impaired), I can't imagine that we'd ever suggest that anything be done; we don't care, or oughtn't to care, about what people do off-Wiki. Now, where they use Misplaced Pages to facilitate unencyclopedic activities (whether child sex or fantasy baseball), we ought to direct users to WP:NOT and, if necessary, implement blocks, but only to prevent disruption of the project. I'm certain that Brad Patrick will conclude that we've no legal obligation to report, and we ought to stop our inquiry there. Joe 03:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For myself, as a human being I sure hope someone would take notice if an editor seriously discussed murdering someone. I mean, come on, that's taking writing an encyclopedia a bit too seriously if it's more important than a human life. I agree that we shouldn't go about as a little vigilante squad, but counsel should check what the legal obligation is to report it, and do so. Mak (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"I'm certain that Brad Patrick will conclude that we've no legal obligation to report, and we ought to stop our inquiry there." That's his job; let him do it. He gets paid to protect the Foundation from liability; there is question here of whether this situation places the Foundation in a position of liability, and it's Brad's job to decide what to do to protect the Foundation. The solution to a question is not to assume you know the answer and hope it doesn't come back to bite the Foundation; the solution is to ask, which is exactly what we've done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Someone might also want to take a look at removing these talk page entry by User:Pn355 on User:Ouijalover's page (which he deleted, but obviously remain in history). —Leflyman 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:El_C is on it right now. Should be done in few minutes. --HappyCamper 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Everything went by the book; users promptly blocked, pages protected, records externally purged, appropriate Wikimedia people notified. Aside: I took a glance at Special:Log/newusers, but only saw an appeal to the CIA director for a job. El_C 00:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! This is what the Misplaced Pages community is all about. --HappyCamper 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, can you spell BJAODN? Seriously, though I wouldn't be surprised if this is somebody's calculated way of trolling us into another moral panic. I agree though, delete the text, block the users, maybe even block the IP addresses if they are static, but I think the supposed moral benefit of reporting this crap to the authorities would be outweighed by (a) shortage of evidence, and (b) an avenue for further negative publicitity, media feeding frenzy, Jimbo on CNN again. Do we want that? — Jun. 10, '06 <freak|talk>

I agree with freakofnurture. I think this is a half-dozen kinds of over with. Believe it or not, this is not the first time inappropriate content has been posted on the internet. We've done our part; if the authorities come a-knockin', which they won't, wikilegal will take it from there. Let's get back to matters of importance, like wheel-warring over userboxes. JDoorjam Talk 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that easy. I'm not entirely sure whether this is up to date or not, but we may have a legal obligation to report the incident. Either way, I think this is up to Brad Patrick and the juriwiki to decide now. Titoxd 00:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want this to seem like an ad hominem attack, but just so you know, Freakofnurture, who you're all agreeing with, seems to himself be an admitted pedophile. I just thought this was important and relevant to the discussion. Justsoyouknow 03:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job, folks, good job. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A member of another forum wants to VANDALIZE

I don't know how to report this, but a member of a forum I participate in has gone public asking about how to go about vandalizing wikipedia. The member posted the message in a private forum at DSL Reports Website, the the "stars Watercooler" and goes by the name "anubus". I thought I would give you guys a warning. Sorry to bother you. I asked the admins of the forum to lock his thread. They did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Signmeuptoo (talk • contribs) .

I had an old signup for the DSL website, and logging in and tracking this down, the thread now reports as "This entire topic was removed, either temporarily, or permanently." by a moderator. - David Oberst 23:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Anubus was created on 20 March; no further activity. RadioKirk talk to me 00:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Creed of the Noncommissioned Officer

The AfD for this article resulted in a 'transfer' decision, however Turnstep decided to let the article stay as the author promised to expand it within a short period of time. Turnstep said he would delete the article upon request if no expansion had occurred after several weeks. The article is now at both Wikisource and Wikibooks but Turnstep appears to be inactive/on a wiki break and I am wondering if another admin would be kind enough to delete the article for me. Thanks. --Hetar 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 00:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

Regarding page: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

User 999 is making constant harrassing edits biased in fovor of HOGD Inc and trying to manipulate the article.

More importantly, re article: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O)

User 999 is revising the content making it non factual. It should be noted that a compromise was reached in developing the description of modern Golden Dawn groups by Misplaced Pages mediator T. Morton in which each group would maintain its own page in order to resolve political bias in description of groups.

User 999 is repeatedly and maliciously violating this rule and trying to give our order, the Rosicrucian Order of A+O a description which is inaccurate and politically motivated.

He is also reporting users for non-existing violations as part of his harassment campaign.

It would appear the 3RR reports are real.Geni 02:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:24.207.210.139

IP has multiple vandalism notices on his page, from different editors. The most recent vandalism (23:48, 9 June 2006 24.207.210.139) is at Over_the_Hedge_(film)#Voice_cast:

Monica Lewinsky - Gladys Sharp

Please see user talk page above to see if cumultatively this IP might need to be blocked. I've placed a notice on that page notifying the user(s) of this action. Thanks -- Tenebrae 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, left a note re WP:CITE. RadioKirk talk to me 00:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reposting of deleted Material

Elop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is blantantly ignoring rules of an AfD decision to delete Esplande Mall. He keeps reloading the material, here is the article log. Yanksox 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

difficulty with rascist administartor

Cyde (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs) keeps threatening me about my religion, he's being unchristian i think, please consider blocking him--Colonbowgupwagon 03:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of hard for him to make comments about you when this is your first post. Yanksox 03:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde thinks that annoying people by acting like a rascist is too easy. He prefers a challenge =D --mboverload@ 03:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you know enough wikimarkup to does a user2, that means you're probably back for blood. No thanks. --mboverload@ 03:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It was actually a {{vandal}}, and he actually substed it too, which many real editors don't do. --Rory096 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very hard to be racist against your religion, unless you're Hebrew.--Toffile 03:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're handing out blocks now for being "unchristian" I should be blocked indefinitely because I'm unchristian every hour of every day. (Even Christmas!) --Cyde↔Weys 03:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet you manage to cover it from every possible POV.--Toffile 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Rascist? If that's the opposite of irascible, I'll take it. JDoorjam Talk 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

AN:I troll? Anyone? --InShaneee 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

It is with sadness, considering that he is an administrator who should know better than to knowingly and willingly violate WP:POINT and WP:VAND repeatedly by altering other users' otherwise compliant sigs ( , just to enumerate the most recent examples) and removing legitimate warnings from his talk page while characterizing them as tripe (), that I announce I will be blocking User:Tony Sidaway upon his next violation. No one involved in the project is above policy and everyone involved must be held accountable for his/her actions, regardless of "stature". My job as a janitor demands I make this sad notification. RadioKirk 03:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is phrased very strangely. Have you read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism or Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy recently? It is pretty clear that you don't understand WP:POINT. Jkelly 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, I believe I do. Thanks :) RadioKirk 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You genuinely believe that Tony Sidaway does not want signatures altered? Jkelly 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion... RadioKirk 06:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you understand Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, and you believe that I'm doing that, it follows that you think I believe that signatures should not be altered and am attempting to cause disruption by doing so in order to demonstrate that signatures should not be altered. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because the sine qua non is missing: I believe signatures should not be altered unless an expectation of such to those users is made clear prior to altering them. RadioKirk 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read and understood my statement, because you have not addressed the point. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already an RFC on this issue where TS would seem to have a great deal of support: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3. Why don't you participate there? I think any block would be incredibly misguided and would serve no purpose. Your job as a janitor is also not to inflame the situation, sadly or otherwise (although you seem more gleeful than sad)--JJay 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd seriously like to know how you got that impression... RadioKirk talk to me 03:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See this edit. Ardric47 03:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Response already made to user's talk page, BTW. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a better place for this? How many previous threads have been brought here to no avail? --Cyde↔Weys 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This continues to be absurd. The RfC went nowhere because the vast majority of commentors were solidly behind this refactoring. P.s. Cyde is one of those upon whom Tony is said to have unjustly trampled.Timothy Usher 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony trampled me? When? --Cyde 03:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Never before have I had a hankering for a userbox. "This user is not an elephant". --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether you believe refactoring of your sig on this page constitutes "trampling". RadioKirk talk to me 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel trampled on. It's a wiki, I expect stuff to be edited. He's not even changing the content of any of the messages, just rearranging the format of the sig. I could care less. My signature is absolutely frivolous – I change it more than once a month. As long as the link goes back to my userpage identifying me it's all golden. --Cyde↔Weys 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's an admirable stance. Given that, by nature, personalization on Wiki is kept to a minimum, however, it's absolutely understandable that users would find it a violation when that "personality"—especially when it complies with policy—is altered, without prior notice, query or comment. While it may not violate the letter of WP:VAND, I remain convinced that it violates the spirit thereof. RadioKirk talk to me 06:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So long as content has been preserved, and everything remained working as well as it did before (arguably, better), than 'violating the spirit of of WP:VAND' sounds like it's stretching the point. Especially if the changes are consistent in being nonpersonal in nature. You may be confusing it with WP:POINT here. El_C 06:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew what I meant, but thanks. The letter of Changing people's comments is, "(e)diting signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning"—I maintain that the spirit thereof should extend to "substantially change their appearance". Call this subjective interpretation, but that's my view (and WP:POINT was a given ). Anyway, I'm off for the night. RadioKirk talk to me 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, but I also knew what I meant when I mentioned that you may be confusing the two policies. ;) The sig isn't part of the comment; and it is the sig originally assigned by Misplaced Pages (utility-wise). El_C 07:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Signatures are not comments and vice-versa. A comment tells you the opinion of the person writing it. A signature tells you who wrote the comment. That's all there is to it. Whether or not you have a point, purposely conflating two things isn't helping. A comment is just as useful as long as we can tell who wrote it. A de-formatised signature might be slightly less helpful (as typified by when links to user talk pages are removed), but often it usually we are better off with de-formatised sigs. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, signatures are comments; "this is how I want to be seen" is every bit a part of the editor (though it should be a very tiny part) as the words (s)he types. We ought not be showing editors how to customize their sigs—or, for that matter, including the option in preferences in the first place—if we want to stop the practice. Even then, the policy must be changed. Noncompliant sig? Kill it! However, simply forcing one's will onto someone else's compliant signature with no prior comment or query demonstrates a willingness to change whatever, whenever, by no more reasoning than preference—an arrogance that no one on Misplaced Pages should have, lest it betray self-importance over project importance. RadioKirk talk to me 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll soon reach a point where every AN/I archive will have a "Tony Sidaway" thread ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following changes to the AN/I header: User:JDoorjam/Proposed_ANI_template. Please let me know what you think. JDoorjam Talk 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

blocked

sigh Blocked 1 hour per this. RadioKirk 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you provoked the block immediately after placing your first message. Without attempting dialogue. How foolish. --JJay 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you say so. The user's disruption provoked me to end the disruption, nothing more. RadioKirk 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why Tony should stop removing things from his talk, JJay. He's been asked and warned lots of times. There needs to be some seperation here: Most people did say that sigs were too long, and that shortening them was no big deal. But Tony's block (having followed the conversation) is actually for disruption. It's possible (and often happens!) to be blocked for doing something that's not "wrong" in a disruptive manner. British english, common era, etc... --Aaron Brenneman 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic point, if the RfC didn't have a concensus going in the opposite direction. When the majority of editors feel the refactoring is no big deal and the RfC was frivolous, blocking and warning over it is completely absurd. Shell 04:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree— in fact, continuously pointing out the "majority" when the "minority" had valid points that will be utterly discarded if "majority rules" is adopted somehow is to consider the "minority" nonexistent. Wrong move, IMO. RadioKirk 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you understand concensus? If the vandals want our blocking policy changed, but the concensus of editors is that it should remain, do we change it because someone makes a valid point? How about the cartoon controversy - have we moved/removed those because someone made a valid point? I'm not certain if you're doing all this tongue-in-cheek or if you really have some incredibly bizarre interpretations of policy. Shell 04:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If "consensus" means "don't accept anything the minority says, disregard it in its entirety as if it never existed" then, no, apparently not—and that would be a tragedy, indeed... RadioKirk 06:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, "consensus" means we request comments on something, and once the comments are in, we make a decision based on them. This is like saying we're disregarding the opinions of some editors who didn't like the Muhammad cartoons being above the fold of the Jyllands-Posten controversy article simply because we didn't implement a solution they liked. (Note: I am one of those who argued for putting the cartoons below the fold.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought it meant—or, certainly, should mean. However, someone needs to explain this to Tony, for whom "consensus" seems to mean, "the majority is with me, the rest of you can bugger off!" RadioKirk 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So what do you suggest he do? In this case, the status quo is clearly unacceptable to a majority, and a majority of longtime editors at that. (Disclaimer: A number of those on the "other side" are longtime editors as well.) "No consensus" doesn't mean the status quo should hold, as the userbox situation currently unfolding indicates. Johnleemk | Talk 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already made that suggestion; either leave other editors' sigs alone if they comply, ask those editors with borderlne sigs to fix them, or gain a consensus to change the policy. Despite the fact that this editor considers me a "silly sausage" playing "silly buggers" by spreading tripe, I don't want this to go to arbitration—and, I blocked a disruptive editor, no more—because I wwould rather see the editor show some initiative, recognize that some of his actions have hurt the community, and back away from them. RadioKirk 18:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the community or the wiki are hurt by the diligent actions of public spirited individuals who remove clutter from discussions. I don't believe for one moment that you honestly believe that you could command a consensus on such a preposterous suggestion. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, if enough people feel slighted, whether or not they should feel slighted, then you are being disruptive. You cannot dismiss the concerns of those who feel slighted as "rubbish" or "frivolous" without appearing to display contempt and disdain for those individuals. Contempt and disdain create an atmosphere that contributors do not like. This is why civility is so important. We want it to be pleasantly civil here. In fact, we insist. Your apparent disdain for others is unpleasant and uncivil. Your public spirit and initiative are commendable, but you're naïve to think you can dismiss any complaints you judge to be frivolous, without incurring negative effects on the community around you. Too much heat, Tony. -GTBacchus 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we can all work on our civility. I have acknowledged this and, although I find absolutely no merit in what I view as territorial claims to real estate on Misplaced Pages discussion pages, I acknowledge that there do actually exist a small number people who take them seriously. However I think you're conflating civility and agreement. One can show respect for a minority position without being unduly influenced by it. We do not, for instance, permit personal attacks, although in straw polls a sizeable minority of editors oppose the No personal attacks policy. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I've given the impression that I think you should agree with those who oppose your refactoring. I certainly don't agree with advocates of signature creep. I just wouldn't be dismissive of them, no matter how much I disagree. It's more work, to actually treat each person's concerns as valid and worth responding to, but it's worth it. -GTBacchus 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

unblocked

• Unblocked. The block was unwarranted. --Improv 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree, or I wouldn't have imposed it. Also, that you undid a one-hour block is unsettling. Nevertheless, that's your call and I will not argue. RadioKirk 04:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't work out what Radiokirk was complaining about. That someone should dare to refactor a talk page discussion? It just seems so silly. Obvously it was a bit naughty of him to abuse his blocking powers in a case in which he was involved. But he's a new admin and these things happen. --Tony Sidaway 05:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice Tony's refactoring of my sig immediately above—on AN/I, not on a "talk page" which, you'll note, I've specifically avoided (except to restore legitimate warnings). If this is an attempt at deflection, Tony, it exposes you far, far better than anything I could have said. Your underestimation of my abilities is touching, really... RadioKirk 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring on pages like this, which many people will need to edit, is an especially useful service. We all benefit. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then place a notice at the top of the page warning user in advance that this may happen. You otherwise are forcing your will upon others without comment or query. RadioKirk 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've been bold and added a notice at the top of the page, given the legitimacy of the issue on a page that commonly gets huge. Reformat to your heart's content. RadioKirk 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Such notices are superfluous on a wiki. That's what wikis are for. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a gross oversimplification. Were that altogether true, changing people's comments would not be considered rude. It is, and with good reason—and, I've already enumerated why I believe signatures are comments of sorts. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We gotta shorten the max no. of characters, this is ridiculous. It takes me way too long than it should to edit pages like WP:PP and so on (the other day, it was esp. striking for me). Tese long sigs are quite a time waster for everyone. El_C 06:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to head off any further "dumb questions" (using the words of those inquiring, not in an insulting manner), I truly believe that, after watching this user deface others' sigs over and over and over and over and over again, that the disruption was intentional (WP:AGF goes out the window in the face of such demonstrable contempt for fellow users) and that he may, in fact, have been trying to get himself blocked. Whether I walked right into that effort remains to be seen. I know full well the potential consequences of a decision I believe I was forced to make. RadioKirk 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I really don't think Tony was trying to get blocked. That doesn't help him at all. --Cyde↔Weys 04:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• You were not forced to do anything. We're all responsible for exercising good judgement, both regarding rules and regarding the good of the encyclopedia. The rules are just approximations of the ends. I disagree with your judgement on this matter, and hence reverted. --Improv 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreed; vandals "force" us to act every day and, one would hope, the resulting act is made in the good judgment as, I believe, was this one. RadioKirk 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on your talk page just prior to blocking is disturbing to say the least. Shell 04:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree again. The user merely reminded me of something I was already in the process of doing. RadioKirk 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you really saying that you intended to circumvent discussion here by intentionally posting seconds before issuing an ill-conceived block you'd already decided on? Shell 04:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• leave note at ANI saying you're doing so like two second before and reminding everyone that the de neuvo interpretation of blocking policy is that attempts must be made to talk it out with the blocking admin before unblocking should occur
• I've intended all along to do exactly that.

sigh No, that's not what I said or meant. I saw the edit that prompted the block after the comment, and that edit was the removal of a legitimate warning, again. "I've intended all along to do exactly that" referred to not imposing a block before posting a notice thereof; the result came sooner than expected.

Meantime, for those who intend to shoot the messenger, let me remind you once again that I acted in accordance with what I expect of policy and its implementation. If a new user did what Tony did, an indef-block would have been heartily endorsed, and you know it. Simply put, it's time to stop that activity that led to this whole issue on the first place: if a user's sig complies with policy—including, but not limited to, avoiding excessive code and exposition, leave it alone. To change it is impolite at best and a violation at worst. RadioKirk 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to common belief, WP does not treat everyone equally. Old and experienced editors' input count for more than something someone who just arrived yesterday says. A more appropriate comparison would be to people equal to Tony's age/standing on Misplaced Pages, and I daresay these people would not have been blocked. Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know it doesn't; I'm saying it should. Tony has "power", and he knows it, giving the outward appearance of someone for whom the project takes a back seat to the imposition of his will, anywhere, any time, any page (see above where he forcibly changed my compliant sig here, on the bloody noticeboard!), with the ability to spout (spin?) policy to back himself up. If he actually believes as he appears, he is nothing short of a cancer, growing from within to choke off the beneficial "organs". If he doesn't, he needs to reevaluate what he's doing here and why—and now. RadioKirk 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then (as I suggested below), bring it to the attention of the arbitration committee. As far as I'm concerned, Tony's actions, while certainly debatable, are not unacceptable, especially for longtime editors. I do not favour the idea of treating editors in an egalitarian manner for the same reason that an encyclopaedia publisher tolerates some mistakes from a longtime editor, but may fire a new employee who makes the same mistakes. We're not here to be fair; we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Having said that, I think that only a decision from the arbcom can finally end this (and even then, things will flare now and then). Piecemeal actions like blocking Tony or randomly altering editors' sigs will only continue to escalate the situation. Johnleemk | Talk 17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever restored compliant sigs that Tony has "altered". As for the rest, see my reply to you above. :) RadioKirk 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So... you are saying that longtime editors can get away with incivility and other behaviour that would get a more recent user blocked? And you think this is a good thing? For months now I've been pointing out what seemed to me an increasing gap between the standards of behaviour admins, particularly certain admins, are held to vs those ordinary users are expected to comply with. Now you seem to suggest that this is intentional. Who knew? Horrifically bad idea in my opinion. There is always a danger of bad behaviour by people in authority. Make it acceptable and it becomes a certainty. Forget about the fact that it is inherently unjust, and thus breeds resentment, it also inevitably leads to increasingly disruptive behaviour and ongoing conflict. You say 'we are here to write an encyclopedia'... consider that allowing the 'senior editors' to bully and harass the actual writers any time they feel like it isn't a good way to go about it. You can be certain that the management at Brittanica doesn't go around to peoples' cubes and toss their family photos and personal effects in the trash with a cry of "unencylopedic!"... nor would they keep their jobs if they did. The longer we tolerate this kind of nonsense the worse it will be for Misplaced Pages. --CBDunkerson 18:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because: 1. Tony has a history of being right; 2. Tony has a history of contributing to the encyclopaedia; 3. We know Tony is acting in good faith. When a newbie does something that Tony does, it's an indicator of something systemically wrong with that newbie, because you need to have a track record before you can go around criticising this and that, and simply being outrageously bold. It's pretty much the same with any real organisation or company; people who can do the work, have a history of being right, and clearly aren't acting in bad faithwill be cut more slack. They are subject to the same policies, but not necessarily the same social conventions. The admin vs ordinary user dichotomy is imaginary, simply because most experienced users are also admins, and vice-versa. (Also, I've noticed some "ordinary users" getting off with alleged incivility similar to Tony's.) I'm quite sure that a number of non-admins (e.g. Kim Bruning) who have been around for a while would be cut a similar amount of slack if they did what Tony did. Hell, if Tony quit, I'm sure he'd be treated pretty much the same.

The analogy you draw is inaccurate. For one, the picture frame and paper the family photo was printed on is made by the company, and the picture was taken using a company camera. For another, those personal effects are in the editor's cubicle by virtue of having been placed in a common space designated for work use. (This is a very crude analogy, but more accurate than yours.) The cubicles then become so cluttered with these personal effects that prospective employees apply simply to be given such leeway instead of doing any actual work. Can you see why the management (again, crude analogy, but the best one I can think of) would be annoyed and want to crack down? It's not the total obliteration of individuality that people like Tony want. They just want to ensure that people understand that the encyclopaedia comes first, and not colourful signatures on memos which let everyone else on staff know how much of an individual you are. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what exactly was Tony trying to do? When someone says, "Hey, if you keep doing that I'll block you" and you keep doing it? - Aaron Brenneman 04:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the someone. WP:POINT is a double-edge sword. It appears to have been an improper warning & block: the two users are in dispute and should not apply blocks on each other for the time being (in general, & especially involving that dispute). El_C 02:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree, and vehemently. As I had been reverting defacement of others' sigs, Tony then defaced mine—probably knowing full well that this action therefore "involved" me. Vandals do it every day, and we block them for vandalism or disruption with nary a whimper—and, correctly so. Inarguably, this was a case of a longtime admin knowing the policy and using it in his favor, knowing full well that he would see arguments in response like the one you just walked right into, with every respect. The block was earned, and it was proper. RadioKirk 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. And you chose to involve yourself further in the dispute, you could have ignored his changes completely until the warning/block, but you didn't. That was your prerogative. El_C 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And, that is yours. :) RadioKirk 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue this block beyond this: you seem to have a somewhat novel intepertation of what counts as a vandal/vandalism/defacement/etc., which is fine, so long as you don't act on it. El_C 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll note in closing that we all are called upon to stop disruption, and I did what my "job" as a janitor demanded of me, "novel" interpretation or no. At any rate, I do appreciate the input—the real tragedy is, only some of us will gain some insight. ;) RadioKirk 02:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I appreciate you taking the time to listen and respond to my thoughts on this. Regards, El_C 03:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the block here was ill-conceived and does not enjoy community support. I accept that it was carried out in good faith; however that leads me to seriously question RadioKirk's judgement. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, we're even. As noted, I seriously question yours. RadioKirk 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My blocks tend to stick, though. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If the percentage of blocks sticking is a contest, then questioning your judgment has just become an understatement. RadioKirk 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well no, I'm not talking about a contest; I'm simply referring to your inappropriate block as an example of your poor judgement. --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" is subjective and, in my view, incorrect. That I've now had all of one block overturned seems to me to be a point of much glee to you and, if you're counting, then you're looking at this whole thing as a game. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

deleting talk page commentary is against policy

There is a section of Tony's talk page which (among others) I and Mongo had comments on, which Tony removed and did not "refactor", simply took it away. It was not personal attacks, and specifically included references to the discussion on Wikien-L in which a number of people have complained about Tony's current behavior. I was seeking to remind him that there is widespread opposition to Tony being contentious enough that people complain so loudly. Regardless of the silly signature refactoring issue, there is a clear policy and admin activity question posed by Tony's activities which continue to garner extremely upset refactorees. Regardless of whether those are silly signatures, the discussion regarding whether Tony's activities, in causing this much strife, are bad for WP on the whole is a legitimate discussion. Tony deleting that section off his talk page is not refactoring/summarization, and is not deleting vandalism. This is not appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I should note for the record: Mongo was supporting Tony, not complaining about him, in the now-deleted section. Though that's in the histories... Georgewilliamherbert 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting unwanted sections from your talk page is not vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Those sections aren't unwanted. They're part of the legitimate feedback which other editors are sending you regarding your recent misbehavior. Your deletion of them, and flippant response to the two longer-term admins who complained about the deletion there, is not engaging in good faith discussions or consensus building.

You cannot go around deleting people's legitimate and reasonable feedback that we feel that you're being abusive in the way you're pursuing this refactoring campaign.

I still also have yet to see you constructively engage with any of the refactorees in a discussion as to what signature you would consider acceptable and not refactor. Several have asked for you to do that.

This is profoundly disturbing behavior you've been displaying over the last 24 hrs or so.

Georgewilliamherbert 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have seen people letting off newbies and established users with removing comments from their talk pages. I have done so myself (letting people off, that is; I've never deleted any good faith comments from my talk). As long as there is nothing specifically important there (e.g. vandal warnings on an IP's talk), there's nothing really wrong with removing comments. Johnleemk | Talk 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "letting off". If you find crap on your talk page, delete it.

On refactoring of signatures, I think George is completely misunderatanding why signatures are refactored in the first place. As far as I'm aware that is no signature that cannot be refactored. My own relatively small signature, for instance, produced by Mediawiki's interface, can be refactored by deleting everything between the pipe character and the first right bracket (as I've done here). The complainers' problem is that they falsely believe themselves to have grounds for complaint. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Pfft... yet another case of policy spin. WP:SIG#Customizing your signature does not say "even if your sig complies with these guidelines, it may be changed without your consent at any time." The correct reaction would be, "then why bother?" The only answer is, stop the spin or change the policy. RadioKirk 01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This reflects a fundamental divide here; when in doubt, some of us don't do anything policy says we can't. When in doubt, the rest do whatever isn't banned by policy. Now, who is in the right tends to depend on whether there is an actual hole in policy, or if someone just found a legalistic loophole to slip through. Seems we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because I think there is a legitimate hole in policy here. Johnleemk | Talk 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of this edit box, are some words that I accept each time I click the "Save page" button or press "Alt-S":

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

This applies in spades to trivia such as clutter on talk pages. Kirk, it's our words on a discussion that matter, not whatever random bit of html or wikicode we might shove after them. That's what discussion means.

If you don't think that what I have been doing is amply and fully backed up by Misplaced Pages policy, then you don't know that much about how policy is made on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument applies in response. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Two seconds

Re: Shell_Kinney's "disturbing" comments, since when do we post block notifications here asking permission for blocks? The accepted standard is to block and then notify. By doing both at once, it stops (or should have stopped) a lot of back-and-forth and wheel-warring by making the reasons for the block clear. Disturbing? Please. - Aaron Brenneman 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As the current vernacular goes, "meh"... if somehow the expectation from some folks is that I needed (or wanted) the scrutiny, they're entitled—wrong, but entitled. I'll live. ;) RadioKirk 05:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Would both of you mind reducing the number of characters in your signatures? It makes editing pages you've signed difficult. El_C 05:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chars in my sig: 235. Recommended max: 300. RadioKirk 05:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no? El_C 06:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with El C on this one, it would be nice. (also see Misplaced Pages:Signature#Length). When your comment above is about 1/4 the length of your sig, it can be a little distracting... I won't say anything else but it would be rather curteous. Sasquatch t|c 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, simply put, the answer is to find consensus to change policy. Since, however, you actually asked me, rather than to take it upon yourself to change it unremittingly and unapologetically, I'll see what I can do. RadioKirk 06:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There, 165. RadioKirk 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an improvement. Thanks. El_C 06:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Caught an unnecessary reduncancy following the previous edit. 156. :) RadioKirk 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As a mentioned on Tony's page, "235" chars used merely to say "if" strikes me as problematic. It's not one person, of course, but it's clear these unrealistic sig char lengths are having an adverse effect on productivity. El_C 06:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the sigs really that problematic, or is it the users who change them without bothering to ask? I should probably note that I've never had difficulty navigating through sigs; the addition will always follow "(UTC)" ;) RadioKirk 06:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. I would find no super-char sigs on various backloged pages a great improvement. I am having difficulties navigating through those pages, and it is wasting my time because it should take me a few seconds to remove a protection notice from WP:PP. It's a totally needless, non-WP:ENC challenge for me. Too much time spent time (wasted) navigating super-char sigs. El_C 06:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I don't have the same difficulty, but I accept that others do. RadioKirk 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually edit WP:PP? Have you ever noted any of the pages you un/protection there? There it's mostly VoA's sig. I asked him to consider shortening it a few times there. El_C 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just took a gander; at 1024x768, it's easy enough to go to the first line that doesn't start with color= (grin). Seriously, all I look for is (UTC) and the next line is the next comment; sure, at 270 characters VoA's sig is a bit of a monster, but it didn't strike me as especially difficult. RadioKirk 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, should I take it as a no? (you don't note any of the pages you un/protect on WP:PP?) I'm a non-native English speaker, so maybe I'm not your average admin. The fact is that these super-char sigs complicates things for no good reason. But this really isn't the venue for such a discussion, so I'll leave it at that. El_C 02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I want to clarify that I didn't mean for that first sentence to come across as overly critical, or acerbic in any way. And in case there's no followup, I'll explain that from my standpoint, if you haven't been using WP:PP to note un/protects, it's no big deal (I simply ctrl.F'd the history three-500s and didn't see your name, is why I asked), but please start using it more regularly from now on. This is unrelated to any of this, and in the scope of this, just a minor point I wanted to bring to your attention. Regards, El_C 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not edit that page, at this point, but I'll keep it on my list—meantime, I did run through the edit window to see if anything seemed unusually challenging or difficult, and it wasn't—at least, not for me. As I've mentioned before, though, I can see how this could present a challenge; but, again, this points to a need to deal with policy as a policy, not as a personal preference. Thanks again for the input. :) RadioKirk 03:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just a signature for gods sake. It's not like he's changing people's comments, just their signatures. I can't see what the big deal is? --Lord Deskana 11:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the big deal is that there's more html markup in the above dicussion than sensible commentary. I've a mind to refactor it into something readable. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes pages harder to edit and has no obvious benefits to the project. The more superflous crap/markup we have the greater the barrier to editing. It's also just plain vanity to be honest. Secretlondon 22:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an irrelevance. Tony is an admin, duly elected. That means that he can do what he likes to those below him. Unlike the President of the United States, Tony cannot be unelected. Wallie 13:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. He's an admin, but WP:NOT a democracy. He can't be unelected, but he can be "impeached" by the arbitration committee. Admins can't do whatever they like. Having said that, Tony is correct based on the overall principle behind his actions. If anyone has a specific issue with what Tony has been doing, please bring it to the attention of the arbitration committee instead of griping about "abusive admins" who can't be desysoped. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That really takes the biscuit. Best laugh I've had for years. The edicts are handed down from the Arbitration Committee are from Tony Sidaway are they not? Fair trial? (nope) Wallie 17:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That is really an unjust accusation. I am not an admin, but I have personally never seen Tony misuse his clerk privilege (if you can call that one). He makes it a point to recuse himself from every RfAr he gets involved in. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ease up. :) I have nothing against Tony... although I think he reverted one of my "pieces of genius" once - probably me on my pet project, Paris Hilton. The last comment is just my silly sense of humour. Wallie 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that? That's a total mischaracterisation of clerks' role in arbitration (unless Tony has some extracurricular activities I'm unaware of). When clerks write anything in the workshop, they do it in their capacity as normal editors. The arbitrators act independently in deciding what to include in their final decision, and at no step in the process of deliberation are clerks involved. We don't even have read access to the arbitrators' mailing list. Johnleemk | Talk 17:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think I've got the picture now. Thanks. Wallie 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Arbitration Committee announcements (of which I make quite a lot) they always contain a link to the Arbitration Committee's final decision in the case, and from that you can follow the paper trail to see which arbitrators took part and how they voted. Clerks play no art in this and, as a matter of fact, don't even redact or summarise the evidence often. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Wallie 21:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided that in future I'll try to make it clear in clerk announcements that I'm a clerk, and that I take absolutely no part in making the decisions. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

mboverload's position

Responsibility. I could go paint my car bright pink with rubber spikes comming out the back, but I'm not a jackass so I don't. People should know when their signatures are just too damn long. But it's more than that, it's the complexity, how you can tell the writing apart from the signature.

] ]

Small, simple, and elegant. You are never confused about where the text stops and the signature begins. Major props to people who use this design.

]]

Add in a talk link and change the color of something so you can find your posts. Done, yay. Longer than I would like, but it's still somewhat simple and not hard on the eyes when you look at it when you're editing.

<tt>]</tt><tt>]</tt>

Note I couldn't use <pre> or it would brake the page When we get into having span classes in our signatures...come on. "OMG IS THIS AN INFOBOX?" Is what I think when I come across signatures like this.

Maybe Tony is being a hippie. It's like complaining that people are comming and mowing your lawn for free during the night, or a supermodel is taking advantage of you sexually. You COULD get them arrested, but why? ...Wow those examples suck. --mboverload@ 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

<font="(whatever)"> is degraded code, it's really that simple—still, I've changed to use it in the first incidence (the one that's color only) because it saves eight characters (my sig is now 148). RadioKirk talk to me 04:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

<tt>] ]</tt>

It's 14% shorter. (Shame on you, RadioKirk, for using absolute font sizes!) æ² ✆ 2006-06-12t18:03z

Archive reversion

I reverted Cyde on moving the above sections to Tony's talk page, simply because there was a block issued, thus it sho}ld be noted for the record. Which of course dosen't impact drawing whatever correct lessons for the future from .. the above. El_C 03:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It would still be in the page history. I don't understand the point of keeping this discussion here when it's quite clear the administrator's noticeboard isn't supposed to be used for these purposes. --Cyde↔Weys 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The announcement that Tony was blocked clearly falls under the purpose of this page; you weren't selective enough with your move. El_C 16:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see it as important enough to be listed here. A one hour block, reverted within minutes? That's not a big deal. Tony Sidaway is always attracting controversy (for whatever reason) - and an ill-conceived block by someone he was in a dispute with, while wrong, isn't big news. --Cyde↔Weys 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the threat of blocking and the circumstances under which it was made are very much subjects for WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RobinCarmody recreating deleted article

RobinCarmody has recreated Michael Keith Smith despite the fact that the article was deleted by an AFD this week Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Keith Smith. RobinCarmody is aware of the AFD as he participated in it. Love & Hope 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and sealed with fire =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Outing people

Moved to User talk:Jimbo Wales

Anon signing as Thewolfstar

A few days ago, 212.227.99.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted a message on User talk:SlimVirgin, signed Bishonen. From the tone of the message, I saw it definitely wasn't Bishonen. I looked at the block log, and saw pevious blocks suggesting it was banned user Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I blocked for two weeks, and left a message for Bishonen, asking her to review the block, as she might know more than I about the background. She changed it to six months, on the assumption that it was a static IP.

I saw a message today on User talk:Col. Hauler. It was from 208.65.61.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and was signed Maggie Thewolfstar. She asked Col Hauler to look at a certain website. (Incidentally, Col Hauler has recently been trolling in support of banned users.) She posted a similar message on User:Rex071404, User talk:216.153.214.94, User talk:CorbinSimpson, and User talk:Prodego. I asked Bishonen about it, and she suggested I ask here, as she was going out. She said even if it's not TWS, someone who signs as TWS should be blocked for trolling, but the question was whether it's a static IP or not, and whether there will be collateral damage.

Having looked closer at the website the anon linked to, I saw that it contained a direct link to personal information about an admin who left as a result of harassment. I deleted those edits from the history, and am now submitting the block here for review. AnnH ♫ 12:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• As I recall, Thewolfstar is in upstate NY. 212.x is in Germany and 208.x is in Montreal. Very odd. Certainly should be blocked for impersonation but I have no idea how long. Thatcher131 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen her using a German IP that turned out to be a collocation center (similar to using an open proxy). Presumably the German and Montrealais IPs mentioned here are similar. FreplySpang 14:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What's the potential for collateral damage (i.e. how long should they be blocked)? Thatcher131 14:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • In the previous case, I blocked indefinitely as an open proxy, on the advice of someone more tech-y than me. Before doing that here, I'd like someone who understands this stuff better than I do to review the DNS info of the IPs. I've looked, and I believe they are both hosting centers, but it would be useful to have that confirmed. FreplySpang 14:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Registered user connected through open proxy?

I just came across this quite curious edit by a FussMuster (talk · contribs · logs) I'm assuming the user is connected through an open proxy, but I'm not sure how to go about dealing with this. Should the account be blocked indefinitely / until it can get sorted out? Should I request a CheckUser to find out what IP he's connected through? Would appreciate some input. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that as well, quite weird. I'm not sure about blocking the user account, I'm not sure what policy is on this. I don't think CheckUser can be used like that either. --Lord Deskana 08:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A genuine newbie starts by finding a Misplaced Pages article (perhaps through Google), reading it, clicking on the edit box, and making some change, only later finding discussion pages, and much later still finding Project pages like WP:RFPP. This account was clearly created for one purpose — which was not editing an encyclopaedia. Also the addition of \\\ all over the page was surely vandalism. I see no reason not to block indefinitely as a vandalizing puppet. Not sure why anyone thinks it's open proxy. It could be, of course, but without check user we have no way of knowing the IP, so is there any particular reason to think it's open proxy? AnnH ♫ 09:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Because of the \\\, actually. If it's what I think it is (haven't checked) (and it is), then that part is not deliberate vandalism (ironically enough); it's a bug that only occurs when someone edits through an open proxy. The \\\ business before every apostrophe is a dead giveaway. --Ashenai 09:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I'm thinking this is a puppet of Thewolfstar (talk · contribs), and I think there's enough evidence to support indef blocking on those grounds (users first edits are to user and user talk and then begins requesting unprotection of that user's talk page). The reason I believed it to be an open proxy was the insertion of "\\\" all over the place, which is not typically intentional vandalism, but something that goes screwy when editing through an op. It would also make sense if this is Thewolfstar's puppet trying to get by IP blocks by using an open proxy. But anyway, even after blocking the account (which I'm going to go do right now), it still seems that a CheckUser (if allowed for this reason) may be advantageous so that the proxy cannot be abused again. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've joined this section to the one above which I started yesterday, because I see a link. I saw something signed Bishonen a few days ago, and knew it wasn't. Bishonen said it was Thewolfstar. Then I saw some edits from an anon signed Thewolfstar, which posted a link to personal information about an admin who was the victim of very serious harassment. I blocked the account for a week, posted here about it, and deleted the edits. One of them was to User talk:Col. Hauler, which was on my watchlist. I just saw another edit to that page, from 72.232.212.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I have now deleted it, but it had the heading "Col Hauler", and said:

Can you open an arbcom to get this user unblocked? Thanks a lot.

It was unsigned, but was followed by a link to the same website as the one that yesterday's message linked to.

Yesterday's message, with the same link and the same heading, had:

Hey wassup, Dude. Gotta talk bad.

Maggie thewolfstar

That has also been removed from the history.

Today's IP (72.232.212.134) also posted to User talk:Tbeatty. The message (now removed from the history) had the same link (which, by the way, is to a personal message from that banned user). The heading was "Merecat", and the (unsigned) message was:

Merecat or Tbeatty or anone would be cool. Thanks.

The other edit today was to User talk:CorbinSimpson, which the other anon (signed Maggie Thewolfstar) posted the link to yesterday. Today's edit simply posted the link at the bottom of the page with no text, but — the edit altered the previous message by changing part of the signature from <font color="green">e</font> to <font color=\\\\\\\"green\\\\\\\">e</font>

I've deleted it from the history, but it can still be seen in the deleted edits.

I blocked the IP (72.232.212.134) for a week, but if it's an open proxy, perhaps someone should change it to indefinite. I didn't know until just now that the \\\ indicated an open proxy, and would prefer someone who understands these things to deal with it. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 09:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've listed User:72.232.212.134 at WP:OP. I would check it myself, but it's a lot of work and Tawker supposedly has a nifty gizmo for checking 'em that only members of WP:OP can use, so let them deal with it. Thanks for the merging these convos--I'd say there's definitely a strong connection here, and I'm definitely going to keep my eyes open for any Wolfstar edits. I still would like to know if using a CheckUser in this kind of situation would be considered appropriate or not. Maybe I'll just go post a WP:RCU and see what Essjay says... AmiDaniel (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

70.84.187.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also appears to be a backslashing proxy posting Maggies request for help to Rex and Cool Cat's talk page. Oddly enough, it's from Merecat's old ISP in Dallas. Thatcher131 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed those two edits from the history, as they linked to personal information about someone. I blocked the IP for two weeks, but will check at WP:OP to see if it should be blocked indefinitely. AnnH ♫ 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon User on RFC

Am I allowed to remove anon comments form my RFC?

This user is the same one who keep insisting I am Rex/Merecat. He always traces back to Kornet (Korea Net) and has been following me around and refuses to register an account.

• Whois Lookup for user:59.17.2220.220 .
• Whois Lookup for User:221.146.211.193 .
• Whois lookup for User:211.242.159.207 .
• Who is Lookup forUser:221.159.131.100 .

These are obvious all sockpuppets of someone involved with RFCU. If you look at their edits they are based against me and all from Korea Net. As you can see by their contrib lists all of thier edits are primarily focused on me

• 221.159.131.100 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.242.159.207 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 221.146.211.193 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.17.220.220 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

These accounts are obvious sockpuppets and I would like to know if I can remove them from my RFC, or if am admin can. I would like to also add that the user certifying my RFC had shown no proof of dispute resolution, nor of their participation in the dispute being discussed, both against the rules of certifying an RFC. One of them has also began calling me sockpuppet, the RFC is turning into a witch hunt.

The certifying user has even resorted to going around and telling people I am a sockpuppet of Rex and attempting to get them to comment on my RFC

--zero faults 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've been havbing a similar problem--Tex 15:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

While I have also noticed a pattern of Koren IP's making complaints about Zer0faults, I doubt if TexYokal (talk · contribs), established today, is a similar victim. Thatcher131 18:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I do too, considering they just joined recently ... --zero faults 18:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It should noted that merecat was originally from Texas, the user I am accused of being, this may be someone attempting to mock him by calling him "retarded" etc. Perhaps a bad joke, but I guess only the user in question can say that. --zero faults 18:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked the person who handled the RFCU to make a clarification if possible. The RfC filed against me, which I still doubt to its legitimacy, is being flooded with Korean anon IP comments and the same user, one I have had no experience with before, accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Its already been proven I was not. --zero faults 18:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• 218.149.163.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is another Korean IP with the same agenda. Thatcher131 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to point out the obvious, but Rex, long before he was nearly this infamous, initially decided to wikistalk himself with a whole host of forced proxies, in fact he pretty much went around targeting only accounts that he had created, since this was back in the infancy of checkuser, I don't think he realized until it was too late that the accounts he created could actually be traced back to their IPs, at time. Once discovered he promised to play nice, and it never really came up for a while. For the record he's been known to play both sides to a political debate, and operated a number of strawmen for a while, even kept debating himself for a while, never did find out what that was all about.. either way, don't make the mistake of assuming this is political, it's just that political articles are easier to troll I'd assume--205.188.116.65 11:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking & vandalism

The user Never Cry Wolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently wikistalking my recent edits and reverting them without reason over a small image dispute he had with me regarding the fact that his summaries were unencyclopedic. He has resorted to engaging in a rampage against me on wikipedia. --Strothra 16:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked, no positive contribs effectively, pretty much here to disrupt. NSLE _(T+C) at 16:38 UTC (2006-06-10)

You've restored my faith in Misplaced Pages. --Strothra 17:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This user seems to be more than a vandal. Sorry, but I think this needs more discussion. Indef block of an established user without any attempt to rehab? No graduated blocks to get the users attention? Is this in the long term best interest of Misplaced Pages site? FloNight 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Established users" do not wikistalk others. NSLE _(T+C) at 17:17 UTC (2006-06-10)

On taking a second look, I've reduced block length to 36 hours, for edit warring and perhaps incivility (see his talk page). NSLE _(T+C) at 17:18 UTC (2006-06-10)

I wouldn't consider him an established user eventhough his edit count is fairly good for being here for a short time. After looking at his edit history, I agree that rehab would be more appropriate but I think there should be a probationary period with this user where his edits are watched. I don't know if that's possible or not though. But why 36hrs as opposed to 48? He seems to have quite a few moments in his activities on talk pages where he becomes hot if he doesn't get his way. I'm surprised no issues of WP:Civil have come up before with him. That's just my two cents though. Either way, thanks for helping so promptly. --Strothra 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep a close eye on the situation. -FloNight 17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, due to the recent events that have taken place, I will request that someone else either a) unblock the user, or b) re-instate the block on their own account. Don't think it's fair for him to stay locked when I've been deadminned. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:55 UTC (2006-06-11)

NSLE, you were in good standing when you made the block. We discussed it here per policy. I think it is fine to keep it in your name. I'm kinda worried about undoing and redoing because I don't want to make it a precedent that prior good admin acts can be questioned after a desyop. If you feel strongly about it, we can change it. We will need to make it clear it was done per your request and not at all necessary per policy. --FloNight 08:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with FloNight, and in any case, the block will expire tomorrow. AnnH ♫ 09:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful and unfair block must be stopped - URGENT !

As was stated before, I was unfairly blocked - some weeks ago - under the user name Art Dominique. Due to this ill-fated block, I was unable to enter any Misplaced Pages's site. I was not even able to place a complaint on this administrators' site, before I created another user account under the name of Wiki Digi. I made sure to explain on this administrators' page why the new user account had to be created. So, this was not a case of sockpuppetry, not in an ordinary sence anyway.

Since then, the only reason for me to sign in as Wiki Digi has been the above problem, which was already dealt with here. I have continued using the user name Art Dominique on the Kven talk page, even when signing in as Wiki Digi, not to get other users confused or mixed up with the situation.

I have no problem using either one only - or both - of the these user accounts in question. Go ahead and tell me, which one you prefer for me to use, user Leifern. You are the one who requested for me to blocked, due to this matter. The user Bishonen kindly took his time a couple of days ago to show anyone interested, that I indeed had explained on this administrators' site the reason for acquiring the new user account. However, someone else misunderstood her, and placed me in block. Thus, please, go ahead and release me now, a.s.a.p. !

Much damage has already been created on the Misplaced Pages's Kven text, since I was unfairly blocked a couple of days ago. The users who have made these changes, have provably either admitted of foul play before, or have admitted of not having proper knowledge about the topic (except for the user Travelbird, that I know of). Sources for the new changes made in question have not been provided by them, despite of the consensus reached earlier, based on the appropriate request by user Mikka: nothing should be changed in the Misplaced Pages's Kven text, without detailed sources offered first. Sadly, this ruling has not been followed.

Wiki Digi - a.k.a. Art Dominique 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.139.188.26 (talk • contribs) .

• Note to whoever cares: User:Wiki Digi has not been created, thus no block has been applied. --Lord Deskana 18:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See Digi_Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Blocked as a sock by Theresa Knott. --Tony Sidaway 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on TexYokal (talk · contribs)

This account was just opened today. One of his first public actions was to comment about suffering similar harrassment by Korean IP's as alleged above by Zer0faults, which is obviously false. TexYokal's edits include a number of very minor comments, bizarre almost-vandalism, and some questionable redirects . I think something else is going on here, but I'm not sure exactly what. Someone with more experience of trolls might want to take a look. Thatcher131 18:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Claims to be mentally retarded but is obviously an experienced wikipedian. Thatcher131 18:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • At the risk of sounding paranoid I find this comment on his talk page rather unusual:

..... person from texas. (emphasis mine)

Nomen Nescio 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Popup Porn

I have no idea how this is happening but I am pretty sure it should not be. I thought the image had been deleted.

Take a look at with popups enabled. Hover over the article dates for a while, a certain image that was meant to have been deleted appears.

None of the articles seem to have the image! Any ideas??? have to run but will be back later. --Gorgonzilla 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Try clearing your browser cache. Also, why is this on the administrators noticeboard? Why not WT:POPUPS? --Lord Deskana 18:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a browser cache thing, because it pops up, so to speak, in my popups too. I believe the issue is that the image, "Image:autofellatio 2.jpg", is linked to, though not displayed. (I didn't link to it here to avoid AN/I having the same issue.) I put quotes around the two links to it on the page (you'll notice it doesn't pop up when you hover over my edit), but it will remain in the other links in the history. You might consider putting a "catch" image at the top of the page so that it's not simply some random first image linked to that displays in popups. JDoorjam Talk 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Popups, for whatever reason, displays images on the bad images list that are only linked rather than displayed. Don't worry about it ... unless you really can't handle seeing an autofellatio image. --Cyde↔Weys 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bug rather than a feature. I thought that someone appeared to be manipulating the content in peculiar ways. To have that image popup on an unrelated article does give the impression of a lack of professionalism. --Gorgonzilla 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears JDoorjam changed the link to a bold, so it no longer appears. KillerChihuahua 01:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the images were linked to using the inline syntax (]) rather than the image link syntax (]). Since the image is on the "bad images" list, the two syntaxes have the same effect in articles, but popups.js doesn't know about the list -- so it sees that as being the lead image for the article, and displays it appropriately. --Carnildo 05:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Spambot

Please have a look at the deleted history of Talk:Guestbook/ - this page seems to be a target of a spambot (possibly operating through an open proxy). Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 18:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked all the users who have posted spam to the page today; all but one for a week. - Mike Rosoft 18:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard is not a discussion forum

Moved to the talk page, for obvious reasons. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nasty personal attack

I've been hit with an uncommonly foul personal attack. I believe I have solid evidence of who made the attack. I put a notice on WP:PAIN, but all that came of that was a routine warning to the IP address from which the attack came, which frankly does not seem to me to accomplish anything.

Here is what I wrote on WP:PAIN:

An incredibly nasty edit, in Romanian on my user talk page, and one probably intended to be equally nasty on my user page. The majority of the other edits from this same IP address are style tweaks to the page of User:NorbertArthur, who has been known to make remarks in Romanian on talk pages and has at least sometimes written abusive things about me in the past, though nothing in a league with this string of obscenity. I am strongly inclined to consider the possibility that this person editing from an IP may be Norbert Arthur, but I doubt matters would be helped by my personally asking him. I'm asking for someone else to please look into this, because, as I say, I don't think matters would be helped by my doing so myself. - Jmabel | Talk 08:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this came a day after the page User:NorbertArthur was unprotected. - Jmabel | Talk 08:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed - Norbert has indeed edited from that IP. Raul654 19:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul Cyr warned the IP, but I don't feel that addresses the matter. When I wrote the above remarks on WP:PAIN, I was not yet totally convinced that the edit was by NorbertArthur, so I was hesitant to do anything more than generally ask for an investigation. But I've found further evidence. In this edit, a rather similar IP address specifically identifies himself as NorbertArthur, and in this edit the IP I was looking at in the first place adds a photo to an article, where the photo was uploaded by NorbertArthur.

This seems to me like a pretty strong case. Is there some way I can get a user-check to make this rock solid? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on Raul654's check, I'm blocking the IP. Sasquatch t|c 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think based on this checkuser evidence, User:NorbertArthur and User:ArthurNorbert should both be blocked, for at least one month. I have also blocked User:70.49.77.199 for one month. Ronline ✉ 02:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:NorbertArthur and User:ArthurNorbert for one month, and left a message on his talk page. Ronline ✉ 02:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like by doing so you reduced a block from infinite to 1 month. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reblocking for indefinite. He only needs one account. Sasquatch t|c 08:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I hadn't realised that he had been blocked beforehand. So at the moment: his ArthurNorbert account is blocked indefinitely, NorbertArthur is blocked for one month, one of his IPs is blocked for six months, and the other IP is blocked for one month. Just stating that so people know (the block logs are a bit clunky, IMO). Ronline ✉ 09:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Spammer

User:Aditd is adding commercial pharmacy spam links to multiple pages, and reinserted again to Soma here. 2 editors (myself included) added warnings to tal page. (mea culpa: in trying to revert multiple pages, I should have perhaps taken more care over Manele). David Ruben 19:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. --pgk 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User re-uploaded a removed image

The user Nick Dillinger re-uploaded the image Image:Carmen electra scary movieOrig.jpg right after it being deleted in a normal ifd process (see here: Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_May_29#Carmen electra scary movieOrig.jpg). There's an edit war already going on at Carmen Electra regarding the use of this image on the article. --Abu Badali 22:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This could have been tagged as {{db-repost}}. I've speedied it. Jkelly 22:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JKelly! I will use {{db-repost}} next time. --Abu Badali 23:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The decision made to delete the image the original time was incorrect, so I believe the image should still be included in Misplaced Pages. The mediation cabal page is located here --Nick Dillinger 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite IP blocking

(moved from Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) by User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

I requested an {{unblock}} of IP 169.244.143.115 based on the fact that despite the large amounts of vandalism, it is still a shared IP for public terminals, and blocking an IP that's shared (which is different from an open proxy) is supposed to be limited to one month. I had a conversation with Shell Kinney when my unblock request was denied, but without resolution. I still think it should be unblocked, or at least have its block shortened to the standard one-month-or-less length. Did I interpret policy right? And does any administrator want to unblock it? Phoenix-forgotten 04:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indef blocked because it is an open proxy. -- Kim van der Linde 10:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it actually isn't. Natal wasn't serious when he claimed that. It's a shared IP, which is different from an open proxy. Blocking this IP is effectively blocking an entire state's public libraries. Phoenix-forgotten 04:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It still seems more trouble than its worth. It only takes one rotten egg to spoil an share IP... Sasquatch t|c 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reporeted the unblock request to the admins who do the open proxies. Can take some days. -- Kim van der Linde 05:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't an open proxy the max block time is a month, as per WP:BLOCK#Expiry times and application. Prodego 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The only person who claimed that this was an open proxy was Natal, and he said that he was only indefinitely blocking this IP address as part of an experiment with a feature, as he had just unblocked it from Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs)'s 52-week block. I'm sure he wasn't serious about his claim that it was an open proxy; he was just putting something in the 'Reason for blocking' box. Is it really necessary to take several days to confirm that this isn't an open proxy? Phoenix-forgotten 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, wrong addressment. ;-) Anyhow, it was blocked as a "compromised IP" before - the templates are now merged so it isn't more of an "open proxy" thing than the fact it's a severely compromised IP. Unblock it if you want: I have no objections. I only put indefinite because other administrators were objecting to my short time period for unblocking and I saw no reason to keep up the charade of blocking for one year as because as soon as that year expired it would all begin anyway. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hall Monitor's original justification. I wanted to treat it like an AOL IP: ie. block frequently for short periods, but I seemed to be the only one, so I relented. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

possible dishonest copyright violator

161.2.56.148X (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs) (that's a registered user, not an IP address) has recently uploaded several images that appear to be copyright violations. The reason I am bringing it up on AN/I instead of WP:CP is because the user may be attempting to evade detection by misusing copyright tags.

Based on the user's talk page, they (he/she) apparently started by not specifying any copyright information when uploading copyrighted images. After they discovered such images get deleted, they started claiming to be the creator of the work and releasing the images to the public domain. While it is possible the user really is the photographer, I believe this is unlikely because (a) the images appear to be professional photographs taken from difficult-to-access angles, (b) one image (Image:GTS Millenium.jpg has modified borders (shadowing, etc.) that is identical to the version of an image on another website (); (c) that website indicates everything on it is copyrighted. I did list that particular image on WP:CP.

It possible the user is doing this in good faith, thinking the PD-self-made tag is just necessary Misplaced Pages bureaucracy to use an image. Good faith or not, if the user is misusing copyright tags, it is potentially damaging to the project. I placed a comment on the user's talk page, but I also wanted to bring it to the attention of administrators. Thank you. --Ginkgo100 03:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

They have now descovered fair use tags.Geni 03:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just delete everything he has uploaded as unsafe. These look like clear copyvios to me. It is also worrying that he does not discuaa things with anyoe. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem is much as I would like to be able to do that I've never got around to try to put together a policy to allow me to do so. I'm entirely sure it would be a good idea in any case. In thoery at least this should go through WP:PUI.Geni 10:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to atribute this to cluelesnes than bad faith. A lot of people actualy do believe that if they download an image then that copy of the image is theyrs to do with as they wish and other such misconseptions, and consider out attempts to clean it up as misguided paranoia at best and bullying at worst, wich tend to make them uncooperative. Give him a "hand written" warning explaining in detail what he is doing wrong (link to apropriate policy pages etc), and then apply the cluebat in apropriate measures if he continue ignoring us. I find this often works a lot better than getting dozens of "form letters" from OrphanBot about wrong copyright info on image XXX.

No point in clogging up WP:PUI with obvious cases though (it's for possebly unfree images), just strike out (or fix, if it's a logo put the logo tag on it etc) blatantly wrong tags and put {{no license}} on the image (or {{wrong license}} if there is a bit of doubht). Preferably along with a bit of info about why you consider the current tag to be wrong/fake. --Sherool (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Having now actualy seen the photos in question (quess I should start checking these things before commenting :P) I agree that WP:PUI seems apropriate in this case, he might have taken those images himself, a guick google search did not turn up those exact images at least, but some of his past image tagging makes it a little harder to trust his tagging, so asking him to clearify wether or not he actualy took those photographs himself seems in order. --Sherool (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have speedied Image:GTS Millenium.jpg as a copyvio of this image. RadioKirk talk to me 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy

PoolGuy continued his vandalizing pattern by placing 3 clearly unjustified NPA tags on my talkpage. (supported by another user)] Can someone please take a look at this and carry out the necessary sanctions? --Bonafide.hustla 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read this, and go away. The NPA tags seem justified to me, given some of the things you have complained about in the past. --ajn (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read ]. I was reinstated personally by Bishonen. Please get your fact straight before making decisions based on personal vendetta. And please provide diff. link. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 07:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't honestly expect administrators to read through your talk page thoroughly just because you post. I noticed you never stated you were allowed to post again by Bishonsen in your first post. Use common sense. --Lord Deskana 13:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't even on his talk page, it was on Bishonen's (he has now added a link to the relevant diff, below the ban notice). In any case, calling someone "a dick" and telling them to "get a life" are personal attacks, and the NPA tags were justifiable. Where this idea of a "personal vendetta" comes from I don't know. If I was a sensitive soul, I'd stick yet another NPA tag on Bonafide.hustla's talk page. --ajn (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm sorry. But I think we're going off-topic here.--Bonafide.hustla 20:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC) The term dick was first brought up by User:Jzg in the arbitration case against PoolGuy. Don't be a dick is also a unofficial wikipedia guideline. In addition, PoolGuy has been disruptive on wikipedia.--Bonafide.hustla 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting people's time! I should have linked to the withdrawal of my "softban" in both places where I'd originally posted it (=on ANI and on BH's talkpage), rather than merely advise BH to do so. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

For more background on this situation, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/PoolGuy/Evidence. I think the statement that there's a vendetta here is justified. Because of that, I am going to re-remove the tags that PoolGuy (talk · contribs) re-added, but another administrator is free to reinstate them if it appears justified. I am not going to block PoolGuy as Bonafide.hustler requested that I do, because I don't think I should do that prior to the RfAr closing, but I'd invite another admin to look at the situation as well. --Nlu (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Siberian language

A wikipedia editor, most likely the nominator for undeletion, has created several sockpuppets (User:Steel archer, User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov) to vote and comment upon the deletion review for a non-existent language at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Siberian language.Timothy Usher 11:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Block "user:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny"

I re-created that to prevent impersonation.--GangstaEB 13:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody got it. Shell 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly nearing WP:LEGAL at Talk:Gorgeous George (TV personality)

Things over at Talk:Gorgeous George (TV personality) are getting awfully close to WP:LEGAL. Would an administrator mind keeping an eye on things there? --Takeel 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is appalling. I'm not up to a controversy today, but this page should be speedied out of human decency - its a page on an at best minorly notable Internet celebrity who is notable purely because the folks at Something Awful harassed and mocked him. He doesn't want to be notable, and we should be humane enough to recognize that our need to have a page on every stupid Internet meme to come our way does not outweigh basic human kindness. Phil Sandifer 16:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not humane, but I'd note that Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics and WP:NOT EVIL have been rejected by the community, who ostensibly believe that we ought to edit dispassionately and disinterestedly vis-à-vis the external consequences of our editing, whilst WP:V and WP:NN continue to command the support of the community. To my mind, basic human kindness is a wholly unencyclopedic motivation and does not militate against our having an article about a subject whose notability is avolitional and who expresses a desire that we not have an article. To be sure, this situation rather well parallels that of Brian Peppers, and so it's eminently possible that, upon the subject's again contacting the Foundation, the page will be OFFICEd. In the meanwhile, though, IMHO, we ought not to care what the subject thinks of our article apropos, principally, of his radio program (except, of course, if he reasonably takes issue with the NPOV of the article; no such objection is essayed here). As the debates over Wikiethics and WP:LIVING have borne out, there is no consensus for the view that we ought, like journalists, to comport our editing with a harm limitation principle, viz., that we ought to take particular care in editing articles of which the subjects are living persons, in order that our editing shouldn't have untoward results. I readily concede that the Daniel Brandt situation isn't a perfect analogue, inasmuch as his notability entails (arguably) directly from his actions, whilst George's entails only indirectly, but the sundry AfDs surrounding Brandt should make clear that we don't delete articles simply because the subject requests deletion. Now, I'm not at all confident that George is notable, and I'm inclined to think I'd support deletion at AfD, but a deletion decision should be taken only in view of encyclopedic concerns. Joe 17:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Jimbo and WP:LIVING have made it clear that we are to take ethical concerns into account. That the community has stamped its feet about this seems immaterial. Phil Sandifer 17:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, he may well be insufficiently notable to have an article; that is what the AfD debate is about. However, he does get on TV (locally) by his own choice, which makes it somewhat hypocritical of him to demand that he not be publicly mentioned. *Dan T.* 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone who has a TV show is, for US libel purposes, a "public figure", and "actual malice" is required for libel. And certainly the opinion that someone's TV show is lousy is not libellous. So don't worry too much. I suggest letting the AfD run to its conclusion on notability. Whether the subject of the article likes the article is irrelevant. --John Nagle 17:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John. FWIW, WP:LIVING is only a guideline and not policy. In any event, bonus dormitat Jimbous, and I'm sure that if WP:OFFICE were to be used to remove an article about a subject whom the community writ large considered truly notable, Jimbo would consider reversing himself. Joe 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the article has been deleted as a non-notable biography per its AfD. JDoorjam Talk 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:KymeSnake sock of banned user?

Can someone please have a look at KymeSnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He was tagged by Essjay as a sockpuppet of banned User:Iasson back in May and was supposed to be blocked, but the block apparently never happened. He's now active but claims to be a sockpuppet of some other user, User:Faethon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Faethon and Iasson were established to be the same user some time ago, if memory serves. Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The template says that he's been blocked indefinatly, but his block log's empty... --InShaneee 20:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sir Robert Castellano

This user has been creating dozens if not hundreds of pages associated with his life. Based on what I have already recommended for Speedy Deletion it appears that he is associated with a fake micronation called Satirocity and is likely of middle-school age. He has added his school, principal, friends, street he lives on, etc etc. Most of his pages should be speedy deleted as well. Kershner 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He is also adding one-line pages for every R.L. Stine Goosebumps book... Kershner 17:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also made many minor edits of dubious value. He's added a phony nation to List of micronations. He put George Washington in the Federalist party. (That's argueable historically, so it's not strictly vandalism.) He vandalized George W Bush. Someone needs to go through all his edits. --John Nagle 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to do that now, he's added his friend the 'micronationalist' who is an Elementary School Student to several articles. I'm reverting and recommending Speedy Deletion as appropriate, but there's more than I can handle here. Kershner 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by user Kool Guy 12

Kool Guy 12 (talk · contribs) seem to be a vandalism-only account. No constructive edits have been made with this account. /Magore 18:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AIV --lightdarkness 19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reported on WP:AIV.--Andeh 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Splash blocked "Kool Guy 12" with an expiry time of infinite (vandal only).--Andeh 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Clever curmudgeon and User:Iodyne

These users seem to have something against me.

Iodyne...

1. Thinks fair use policy is some sort of joke ;
2. Attacked me by placing a picture of me on his friend's page with a demeaning caption
3. Places fair use images on his friends page after my explanation they're not allowed
4. Just added a picture of me to Clever Curmudgeon's talk page with the caption "The dark side of the force is the path to many abilities which some consider to be... unnatural". User does not take me seriously at all.

Clever curmudgeon...

1. Reverts my removal of a fair use image off his userpage despite a good explanation why it's not allowed
2. Has now said he's got popups so he can revert anyone who reverts him . This likely refers to me on reverting fair use images off his userpage and people who revert his additions of pornographic material into articles. See his upload log.
3. He repeatedly accuses people of vandalism for undoing his addtions of pornographic materials into articles.
4. Got narky with me saying he can do whatever he wants on his userpage (regarding fair use images)

Both users...

1. Chat to each other on talk pages as if Misplaced Pages is some sort of communications medium for them to have fun in. See User talk:Iodyne and User talk:Clever curmudgeon.
2. Are not vandal only accounts. They have made minor contributions to a number of articles. (I would have blocked them already if they hadn't contributed to the encyclopedia)

I would like other administrators to weigh in on what to do here as I see a problem brewing. I may add more evidence as this progresses. --Lord Deskana 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll block at the next personal attack. This is very bad behavior and you have given warnings. --Tony Sidaway 20:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. CC might be able to be salvaged with a good, stern talking to, but Iodyne should most definatly be blocked at the next sign of incivility. --InShaneee 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Iodyne left a nice little demeaning note on my talkpage. I just told him he was totally wrong and to leave me alone. If he doesn't and continues, I'll block him indef. --Lord Deskana 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a block of that length at this stage in the game might be a bit premature. --InShaneee 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that's what you meant. No need now anyway, Tony Sidaway blocked for 3 hours and I'm just hoping that'll solve the problem. --Lord Deskana 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• 20:47, 11 June 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Iodyne with an expiry time of 3 hours (A short, sharp lesson in civility)

I hope he'll learn quickly from this. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Lord Deskana 20:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the other guy who seemed to be a willing participant. Another three hours thing, nothing heavy. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Clever curmudgeon has just moved on and started talking about a new article he's made, Iodyne has done the same thought I liked his "shhhh theyre watching our talk pages" that he left on Clever curmudgeon's talk page. I'll leave them alone. Thanks Tony Sidaway/InShaneee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deskana (talk • contribs) 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux

I believe Frater FiatLux has created another account (as Esoteric770, and edited the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page twice, and I reverted him 3 times already. But to escape it, I believe he made yet another account (WikiWarrior69), so he can not be held accountable in making another revert, knowing that I reached my limit. The reason I believe this is because he has already done something simular to this. He has already been blocked for 24hr's on the 3RR board, and I'm not sure what to do at this point. Thank you. Zos 20:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked them both as socks and reverted. Seems pretty clear cut to me. --Lord Deskana 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Zos 22:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

A full scale editing war has broken out on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Golden_Dawn_tradition#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_.28Inc..29

They’re reverting the article incessantly, and arguing over whose order is at top of the links section, furthermore, there is also an editing war being perpetuated rampantly about a non- traditional Golden Dawn order being included in the links section. The article is being edited and reverted now, every couple of minutes.

Help! Can someone please lock this article to stop this vandalism, so that the other editors and myself can work this out. Please lock this article to stop these new, unscrupulous users frivolously editing the links in this article. Please lock the article immediately, so that myself and the established editors on the Golden Dawn article can stop this rampant editing war.

User 999, Zos, JMAX555 and senergeticmaggot are making false claims that I am using a so-called sock puppet, I vehemently disapprove of this, and I can state categorically that I am not using a sock-puppet. I am willing to send my IP address into a Misplaced Pages admin so that they can verify that these other new users, that are frequently editing the page are not operative via my IP address.

User 999 is creating schism and false intrigues against me they should he should rightfully receive a warning or a 24 hour block ,so that myself and other established editors of the Golden Dawn article can put a stop to this edit war. Please lock this page immediately to stop further abuse and editing wars.

A moderator has already blocked new users to the article; however, this is not the problem. It is not new users that are causing the disruptions, it is established users: 999, Zos, synergetic maggot and JMAX555. The article needs to be immediately fully protected as the aforementioned users are on one side of a current trademark litigation case and I am on the other. Their trying to get me blocked to that they can vandalise the article to their own biased political agenda. The aforementioned users have in fact had me innocently blocked a few days ago and then vandalised the article to You need to intervene more seriously and put a permanent block on the article, as these problems won’t go away until you take action against the aforementioned users.

These aforementioned users have instigated a full-scale edit war and the problem isn’t due to vandalism by new users. Take a look at the Rosicrucian Order of A+O page that was locked due to these aforementioned users creating an edit war, and now this has spilled over on the main Golden Dawn article.

These users are conspirators and are attempting to get me blocked so that they can go unchecked in an edit war to change the article in a defamatory tone, in an attempt to promote their political agenda over the other orders entries.

Here’s the link to show the aforementioned users last editing war that has now spilled over onto the main Golden Dawn article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_%28Rosicrucian_Order_of_A%2BO%29

Frater FiatLux 21:04, 11 June

User Mr. Lefty has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Mr. Lefty has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 20:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked and reverted teh page moves. Seems to be a misguided attempt at humour. --Lord Deskana 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is Mr. Lefty from his IP saying that your unblock didn't seem to work. Anyone want to try again? 24.10.142.25 23:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This one's still being blocked can someone else have a try. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, everything's okay now. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin protecting, then editing article

Admin KimvdLinde first protected Israeli apartheid (epithet) against further editing, then moved it to Israeli apartheid asserting "consensus." This move must be reversed forthwith and the action evaluated for admin abuse. Thank you. --Leifern 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I welcome the report here, as I would like to have a wider input on this topic. The extensive edit war stretching various pages related to the term apartheid has resulted in a series of AfD's, a protecting of three pages (Israeli apartheid, Apartheid (disambiguation) and Apartheid outside of South Africa) and much soapboxing. The word Apartheid itself is just a redirect to History of South Africa in the apartheid era. After I protected Israeli apartheid (epithet) as a result of edit and move warring, I have gotten involved as an informal mediator as there was a request for changes to that page at WP:RFPP (diff. After everybody had given their input, it was clear that there is a consensus to change the first sentence (all but one editor), and that there was a solid majority to change the page away from Israeli apartheid (epithet) to either Israeli apartheid or Israeli apartheid (phrase). A small majority was in favour of moving it to Israeli apartheid, and this is in line with existing policies and guidelines such as WP:DAB and WP:NPOV. If I in the role of informal mediator have done things wrong, I am perfectly fine to undo them without hesitation and to pass the mediation task to those that think I was wrong and I will wish them luck in resolving this conflict in a better way. -- Kim van der Linde 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the page move as a problem. There's a big dispute over the content of the Israeli apartheid article, one serious enough that the page is currently locked. But both WP:DAB and WP:NPOV indicate that a name change from Israeli apartheid (epithet) was appropriate. Suggest that all parties concentrate on more verifiability for statements in the article. --John Nagle 00:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The page move was done under the veil of following consensus. In reality there was a majority of users against the move. One could argue that the move follows WP:DAB and WP:NPOV but it certainly is not definitive. The fact that it was done under false pretenses is enough to make it innappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I urge the people to make their own count of the heads here: Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Page_move: 4 wanted to keep it where it is, 2 wanted it to (phrase), 2 would accept (phrase) as an compromise but preferred no qualifier, 3 wanted to no qualifier, one wanted to move to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Furthermore, 4 additional editors expresed that the title should be without qualifiers at Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Original_research. Furthermore, I asked the question at the vilage pump (policy) to get input and 3 addional editors expressed the same opinion again. That makes 15 editors for Israeli apartheid backed up by policies and guidelines, and 4 who wanted to keep it as is. -- Kim van der Linde 00:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First, my count at the first of those pages indicated 7 or 8 against the unqualified title "Israeli apartheid" and 5 in favor. Second, with all respect, I believe the fact that the "poll" or "vote" or whatever, was taken in three different places, invalidates the result. Those who expressed their opinion in one place did not necessarily know there were discussions going on elsewhere and did not have the benefit of those discussions. Third, you set up a "vote" in a particular location and if someone wanted to comment, they probably should have commented there. So I don't see a valid majority here. And I'd also point out that this underlines, in perhaps a somewhat comical fashion, the pitfalls of the fragmentation of discussions that has taken place. I see that you tried to "centralize" the discussion in a particular place, but there is no guarantee that everyone who is interested in the subject will go to that location. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the whole effort is pointless. I am beginning to think that every article that has anything to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict should have a label that says something like "Misplaced Pages has determined that the group editing process is unable to produce a consensus article on this subject." At least, that is my determination, but it seems pretty clear. 6SJ7 01:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the latter, as there is so much political soapboxing going on, that going back to the basic policies and guidelines would be the first step in normalizing this stuff. -- Kim van der Linde 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We might start with WP:RS and WP:NOR - the heart of this deeply unencyclopedic article is little more than a link farm to activist sites, cobbled together to advance an argument contra WP:NOR. That it survived AfD does not make it compliant with policy.Timothy Usher 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See my proposal here Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Title.2C_merge_and_mediation, which I based on policies and guidelines. -- Kim van der Linde 01:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather, you based it on your interpretation of the guidelines. It clearly isn't as unambiguous as you present it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That entire afd was extremely suspect, nearly all of the "keep" votes were submitted by editors who have no history of editing either that article or even the wider subject area, also somewhat strangly, almost none of the editors have touched the article since. This coupled with the fact that the article's most vocal supporter has a history of spamming people through E-mail makes me really wonder about the whole process.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim is acting as a mediator and has been recognised by both sides as such, at least until now. It has been accepted practice on wikipedia for those acting as mediators to make adjustments to article based on consensus or wikipedia policy. Homey 06:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How to move forward?

Let me ask a question. What do we want:

1. Keep pages protected forever and have a never ending discussion without consensus?
2. Unprotect the pages and have a edit/revert/move war forever?
3. Apply first policies and guidelines, then add contributions of many editors?

I probably missed some options, feel free to add. I am really curious what people think is the way forward.... -- Kim van der Linde 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also find the recent flareup disturbing. I don't have the answer, but m:Polls are evil, especially ending in no consensus. In this case, there was no consensus to retitle into Israeli_apartheid. The sensitivity of the subject should be considered as well.

There was no reason for Israel section to be separated into another article, especially offensively titled Israeli apartheid (surely to be included into Apartheid (disambiguation)). At this point, Israeli apartheid is being treated as if it's an encyclopedic topic, and Apartheid outside of South Africa#External links contains 17 links, all exclusively target Israel. Note that the topic is covered in Zionism and racism, Anti-Zionism, Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, Post-Zionism, New anti-Semitism, Jewish state#Criticism Hafrada, etc. - not counting Israeli-occupied territories and more. Certain editors lose any sense of civility and proportion when it comes to Israel. ←Humus sapiens 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to not have an answer yourself and critise others. I build a proposal at the talk page, maybe you would like to comment on that. -- Kim van der Linde 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You either didn't read beyond the first line or missed the point completely. ←Humus sapiens 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I take the first part back. If you read my proposal at the Israeli apartheid or in more detail here User:KimvdLinde/Apartheid, it is clear that we have roughly the same idea, coming from different angles. However, when mediating, I can propose, and than have to wait for people to comment, and I am curious what people think of it..... -- Kim van der Linde 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I am bewildered that you moved this page. In a contentious discussion covering many pages, it seems to me that the central and most contentious issues are whether this page should exist and, and if yes then how to name it. If people cannot agree on a title when the article is unprotected, changing it while the article is protected seems very inappropriate. Now that people have told you that there is no consensus, I cannot understand why you haven't yet moved it back.

To offer a response to your question about how to move forward, I was hoping for something along the lines of:

4. Keep pages protected until disputes have been resolved. Work towards resolving disputes by understanding the needs of each side and finding solutions that meet both Misplaced Pages policies and the needs of each side. Consensus will require that everyone involved in the discussion works in good faith towards consensus; this might require editors to leave the discussion. Su-laine.yeo 06:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus will require that everyone involved in the discussion works in good faith towards consensus; this might require editors to leave the discussion., that would be nice, but inpractical. Who is going to determine who should leave the discussion? And what if editors are not willing to find a consensus? -- Kim van der Linde 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"In this case, there was no consensus to retitle into Israeli_apartheid."

Humus, there is a broad consensus against Israeli apartheid (epithet) which is what you unilaterally changed the title to without consensus just prior to protection. If you are a believer in consensus then you must concede that your unilateral name change was wrong and should have been reversed. Homey 06:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie: "there is a broad consensus against Israeli apartheid (epithet)". Learn the difference between majority and consensus. WP is not a democracy and not everything is done unanimously. Also, there is no reason to crosspost. ←Humus sapiens 10:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"This is a lie". Please watch your language. According to the straw vote there was a 2:1 consensus against "epithet". Homey 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am finding it annoying that there is almost an exact duplicate of this discussion happening simultaneously at Talk:Israeli apartheid. Homey, moving an unprotected page and moving a protected one require very different levels of consensus. It's explained quite clearly here: . "Administrators must be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject." (emphasis added) Unless there is something incredibly offensive on the page, such as copyright violation, the consensus requirement seems to be clear. Su-laine.yeo 07:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Moose559

This user has repeated inserted nonsense into Corcoran, California, and created several nonsensical pages, which have been deleted. In addition, his/her user page contains death threats (but appears to be created by someone else). How should this be dealt with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.4.132 (talk • contribs) . 01:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He's being watched - thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus 01:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The "death threat" text is gone now, too. I don't think it was a credible threat, but it still wasn't appropriate. -GTBacchus 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy: Case of multiple 3RR/Sockpuppet/PA abuse

A recent Request for check user has determined that it is likely that DreamGuy and Victrix are the same person, and shows evidence that each identity has been used by the other to deliberately subvert the 3RR on multiple occasions. DreamGuy has a long prior history of being blocked for abusing the 3RR. --Centauri 02:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a curious observer of the situation who has experienced DreamGuy’s behaviour before, I feel that he has stepped up a gear in order to try and provoke another edit war/conflict intentionally. A quick look at his edit summaries will suggest this. However, this time he has been found out for used socks and he has used them to break the 3RR.

A few examples of this are when Dreamguy was in an edit war with Beelzebub and had made three reverts (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Victrix appeared and reverted reverted the article to Dreamguy's preferred version.

The same applies with Spring Heeled Jack, after Victrix got into an edit war and reverted for the third time revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), DreamGuy came and reverted reverted the article, to Victrix' version.

If you look at their contributions, both use the same aggressive edit summaries, both edit the same style of articles and both are guilty of being extremely uncivil, with edit summaries from DreamGuy such as “what kind of fucked up nonencyclopedic claptrap is that?”, similar edit summaries apply with Victrix. DreamGuy has been in trouble for being uncil and breaking 3RR before, however he has often escaped unpunished. Englishrose 09:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears DreamGuy hasn't used the DreamGuy account since May 31, meaning it's likely this behavior has stopped (unless another user has stepped in). Seeing that, I'm inclined to ask DreamGuy/Victrix to pick an account, and indef block the other one. Usually users are permitted to use sockpuppets, but DreamGuy/Victrix was using them maliciously, and I see no reason why both should remain unblocked. Ral315 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I think you're getting ahead of yourself, Ral315. The scale of likelihood that the CheckUser admins use goes Confirmed-Likely-Possible-Inconclusive-Unrelated. In other words, "likely" is not "confirmed". I also can't find any Victrix instances of the type of language in edit summaries that Englishrose claims is typical of both accounts. Where are the examples of that? Bishonen | talk 18:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Note that checkuser is an aid to determining sockpuppetry but it can be fooled and can also be wrong. Quoting Essjay, "Checkuser, as David Gerard says, is not magic wiki pixie dust, and is never the be-all-end-all of evidence; it's the similarity in edit pattern and interests that confirms sockpuppetry, checkuser just helps confirm or refute what is already known." Thatcher131 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I rather more agree with Ral315. Quite a while back I had my run-in with DreamGuy so I can't claim to be totally un-biased on the issue. However, I think the style of contributions from Victrix is very similar to what I saw from DreamGuy, that combined with the 'likely' checkuser result is very suspicious. I'm talking about edit summaries like this one, and in general the long summaries like this and this as pointed about before (many examples). See also the non-checkuser evidence present on the checkuser case page. Therefore I would fully support a block on one of these accounts. Petros471 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I too am not unbiased, as I was the recipient of multiple personal attacks and accusations of being a sockpuppet by DreamGuy several months ago, but I would point out that at right about the same time on May 31st, both Victrix and DreamGuy ceased posting for several days , and the first action done upon Victrix' return, was the removal of the "odd tag placed there by some unknown vandal." I agree with Petros471 that there is a clear similarity in edit summaries between the two accounts, especially the style of removing warnings from their respective talk pages, in combination with an abusive edit summary which accuses the original poster of harassment. Most Misplaced Pages editors, in my experience, when faced with vandalism simply use a variation of "rv" or "rvv", without the harassment/vandalism commentary. --Elonka 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The evidence does certainly suggest that they are the same person. While many users can be sharp and rather bitchy sometimes (*hold up hand here*) the scale of edit warring and personal attacks by DG is deeply unpleasant to users. A glance at his edits suggests that the clear majority are concerned with edit warring, with abuse attached. I've had my own experience of dealing with him: he posted a merge tag on some articles a long time ago, trying to merge any mention of a topic anywhere else into "his" article. Though not a single person has supported the merge, any removal of the ancient tag leads to chronic abuse. I thought I was the only one receiving it and ignored it, but he really goes overboard in his edit warring. It is bad enough putting up with one DreamGuy edit warring and abusing users. But two of them? Yuch. FearÉIREANN\ 20:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TheWolfstar ---> User:The Ungovernable Force_User:The_Ungovernable_Force-2006-06-12T03:58:00.000Z">

User:The Ungovernable Force has a death threat against President Bush on his user page. It's an image Image:Anim hitler bush skull and bones.gif with the text underneath saying "Death to Tyrants". The animated .gif has Hitler turning into Bush. The use of Bush's face along with "Death to Tyrants" is indeed a death threat by secret service standard. This should be removed right away. Also, the user who uploaded the image is the banned user User:thewolfstar, who has been a big sockuppet problem. Why User:The Ungovernable Force is the only user with User:thewolfstar's image on his user page should be looked into.216.22.26.46 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)_User:The_Ungovernable_Force"> _User:The_Ungovernable_Force">

We're not the Secret Service. If you have something you want them to know about, please contact them directly. --Cyde↔Weys 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)_User:The_Ungovernable_Force"> _User:The_Ungovernable_Force">

• UGF has never been the subject of a checkuser request. Two requests on Thewolfstar have not turned up his name. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thewolfstar. Thatcher131 04:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since our servers are stored in the US, and threatening the president's life is illegal here, I've removed the image from The Ungovernable Force's talk page and left him a note explaining why. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, 216.22.26.46. -GTBacchus 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Threatening anyone's life is illegal. The president doesn't get special protection in these circumstances. --Cyde↔Weys 04:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a threat in my opinion, it is merely wishing for the death of someone, which is different. I would never kill him myself nor ask anyone else too, but I wouldn't cry for a moment if someone did. I suggest he eat more pretzels. Anyway, as to the sockpuppet claim, that's ridiculous. Thewolfstar left me a message one day, I went to their page, saw the image and liked it. Anyway, this anon is a suspected sockpuppet themself (of User:Rex071404 and User:Merecat)and seems to have something against me . On their talk page they say it's a shared IP, so maybe after seeing my message another user of the IP went to my page and made this complaint, but I doubt it. Anyway, I've changed the caption, but this is ridiculous. The Ungovernable Force 05:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I can't imagine what point you think you're making. The Ungovernable Force, semantics games are very fun, I agree, but whether or not you feel "Death to tyrants" accompanying a picture of the current president should be considered a threat, the fact remains that it is. -GTBacchus 05:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First, to Cyde, threats against the president are treated differently from those against other individuals (to-wit, they are prosecuted under a statute that applies only to threats against the president and are prosecuted in federal court). Second, I'm not at all certain that the image and concomitant text constitute a threat; indeed, I agree with UGF's analysis. It ought to be said that the Secret Service frequently (and, IMHO, overzealously), investigate comments of this nature, even as they readily concede that much of the speech they investigate is protected or otherwise not criminal (they investigate primarily in order to discern whether an actual threat underlies hyperbolic speech). Third, it's unlikely that the Foundation's hosting a user page to which the putative threat is appended is legally impermissible; in any event, I can't foresee any civil or criminal action that could be essayed (although, of course, there are issues of public perceptions of WP to consider). Beyond all that, though, and even as I'm inclined to agree with TGF's sentiment (though for very different reasons), it is plain that the image, etc., as against many divisive userboxes, does not create an atmosphere in which users may collaborate, if only because many editors (though not I) will have difficulty working with an editor who expresses that he/she would be pleased were an individual to die. It is not the divisive content of the message (i.e., the political aspect) that impairs the communing of editors here, I think, but, instead, the character of the image and text. Joe 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fetish vandal

A vandal using anonymous AOL and Telewest accounts has vandalized the Pinafore page about a dozen times. Can the page be blocked from further anonymous edits for awhile until the vandal loses interest? Thanks! The Editrix 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. ←Humus sapiens 09:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivility / personal attacks

A number of recent comments on Talk:Circumcision are very incivil. I'm reporting the following for incivility and personal attacks.

"I would say at least one user agreed with this move. No consensus not to truncate and revitalize the article with less biased phrasing. User:Jakew is actually mostly responsible for the "female genital cutting" title, as he has been dominating this article with his biased homosexual male adult circumsized views for nearly a year now. I'd also like to add that he is probably behind the proposed merge with Circumcision advocacy, and I might also theorize that Jakew is the one who is attempting to increase the real estate offered on Misplaced Pages for close up shots of male genitalia, most likely to appease his own homosexual ego. Also, Kesreyn, in my own defense I've merged nothing. Johnny Dangerously 06:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)"

Also, from User:Dabljuh, who - with an RfC on his behaviour and at least one block - really ought to have learned by now:

"Due to the sensitivity of the topic, adding or removing anything to any of these articles may cause a shitstorm of ridiculous proportions. Essentially, circumcised folks generally don't want to hear they're actually mutilated, jewish/muslim folks don't want to hear that their stupid practice should be outlawed, and the genital integrity dudes don't want to hear about "uncircumcised" when they call that "normal", "intact" or "not genitally mutilated", and want to make very clear in the article that Circumcision blows huge amounts of donkey cock. Welcome to WikiHELL! Dabljuh 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks in advance for your attention. Jakew 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the part about the donkey cocks but the rest of Dabljuh's comment seems reasonable to me. What do you object? Vulgar language?

Fantasizing about others' "homosexual egos" says more about the one who does it than about anyone else. Socafan 11:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In brief, it completely misrepresents the editors involved, their positions, and implies that there is nothing more than a bunch of biased, thoughtless people editing the page with no more at heart than their own agenda.

But please concentrate on the first. While I agree that it says more about the source than others, it is blatantly rude and poisonous to a collaborative environment. Jakew 14:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuals HAVE egos. He is obviously biasing the article to appease his homosexual ego. Johnny Dangerously 14:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has an ego. Will someone please block this person for being incivil in response to a complaint of incivility? Jakew 15:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jakew, you are an openly gay man. If so, you should not object to someone referring to you as a homosexual, nor object to someone specifying that your ego is one that is biased by homosexuality. Johnny Dangerously 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have evidence that I'm doing so (particularly with respect to the images, which I have never had anything to do with) then present it. Otherwise, retract your allegation. Jakew 19:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that that's a fargin lie! Fa! Johnny Dangerously 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and take this back to the respective talk pages. Thank you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith incivility? That's a new one. Jakew 19:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dabljuh has a history of making personal attacks and has been blocked twice for it already, I am therefore blocking him for 72 hours for this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks, legal threats and vandalism of administrator's user page

An anonymous editor who claims to be the writer William H. Kennedy has consistently added an irrelevant piece of subtrivia to the University of Kent page, namely the statement that somebody on trial for downloading indecent images of children once visited the campus. This has been removed several times by different editors, on the grounds that many people have visited the campus and the visit of one person, who has not to anyone's knowledge done anything illegal while he was there, is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. He has resorted to extremely unpleasant attacks and threats of legal action against these editors on the article's talk page. He has now vandalised my user page, clearly implying that I myself am a paedophile for daring to remove his edits. I am loath to block him myself, despite his obvious vandalism, since I think that would just add to his spurious claims of victimisation. I would therefore be grateful if someone else would be kind enough to take a look at his actions. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 11:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am another editor who has been involved in reverting his edits. They started with him putting forward scandals to the University of Kent page and me reverting it because of A) lack or sources and B) the fact they weren't really relevant to the article. The editor, who claims to be William H. Kennedy, very quickly resorted to personal attacks and legal threats on the talk page against myself, User:Nuge, User:Necrothesp and other users claiming we are biased, don't want to know the truth, are pro-paedohile and most recently bringing Necrothesp's part time job into the equation with regards to taking threats outside of Misplaced Pages. None of the editors involved have (in my opinion) done anything wrong, we've simply reverted edits that were either irrelevant, not connected to the article in anything other than a spurious way or just downright libellous. Ben W Bell talk 11:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems a clear case of WP:SOAP. Presuming its spokesman is sufficiently notable (and, less than 300 Google hits leaves that in serious doubt), this information might survive on Diocese of Oxford (also in doubt) if using this link rather than this clearly biased link that fails WP:RS. In any event, it clearly does not belong on University of Kent. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing/Revert War on Golden Dawn article

There's a full scale edit and revert war broken out on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn

This edit war has spilled over from the Rosicrucian order of A+O, onto the main article now and has been reverted back on forth now incessantly. An administrator had already banned new users from editing the article, as there were a suspicion of myself using sock puppets, which I vehemently disapprove of. I have never used sock puppets and I am will to send my IP address to any Misplaced Pages Admin, so that they can see that the new users that edited the article were not operative from my IP address.

It is user JMAX, 999, Zos, and synergeticmaggot, that are reverting the article back to their own biased political agenda, and it is these users that are working as a team to avoid the three revert ruling

An administrator blocked new users from editing the article last night, however, its not new users that is the problem, its the aforementioned established users that are perpetuating this edit/revert war by trying to promote their own political agenda.

More footnotes and citations were added last night to the article but JMAX reverted the article back 4 times to his version that promotes his biased political agenda, in current trademark litigation.

This page needs to be fully blocked, immediately, so that we can sort this out, otherwise this edit war is only going to get worse, and the reverting will continue. The only way the edit/revert war will cease over this, is if the page is fully locked and then users JMAX555, 999, Zos and synergetic maggot that edit and revert the article back in sequences to avoid the three revert ruling can stop. This is the only way a compromise will happen.

All the aforementioned users are conspirators in this edit/revert war and have a strategy to keep reverting and editing the main article as, they tried to do with the Rosicrucian Order of A+O page that had to be fully locked a couple of days ago. So the problem isn’t new users editing the page, its established users editing and reverting the page back to their own biased political agenda. These aforementioned users are also working, as a team to keep reverting these articles back and are exploiting the fact that some users are new to wikipedia, like myself.

I have made a request over at the page protection page, however the edit/revert war was just beginning to start; now it’s in full swing. Please protect this page with immediate effect so that we can stop this edit and revert war, and sort this out properly. Otherwise today this edit/revert war will continue to escalate and get ugly.

Frater FiatLux 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here’s the appeal I made about this page, however, at the time the edit/revert war had just begun, but now it’s in full swing and there have been many more revisions since then.

Full Immediate protection needed:

A full scale editing war has broken out on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Golden_Dawn_tradition#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_.28Inc..29

They’re reverting the article incessantly, and arguing over whose order is at top of the links section, furthermore, there is also an editing war being perpetuated rampantly about a non- traditional Golden Dawn order being included in the links section. The article is being edited and reverted now, every couple of minutes.

Help! Can someone please lock this article to stop this vandalism, so that the other editors and myself can work this out. Please lock this article to stop these new, unscrupulous users frivolously editing the links in this article. Please lock the article immediately, so that myself and the established editors on the Golden Dawn article can stop this rampant editing war.

User 999, Zos, JMAX555 and senergeticmaggot are making false claims that I am using a so-called sock puppet, I vehemently disapprove of this, and I can state categorically that I am not using a sock-puppet. I am willing to send my IP address into a Misplaced Pages admin so that they can verify that these other new users, that are frequently editing the page are not operative via my IP address.

User 999 is creating schism and false intrigues against me they should he should rightfully receive a warning or a 24 hour block ,so that myself and other established editors of the Golden Dawn article can put a stop to this edit war. Please lock this page immediately to stop further abuse and editing wars.

A moderator has already blocked new users to the article; however, this is not the problem. It is not new users that are causing the disruptions, it is established users: 999, Zos, synergetic maggot and JMAX555. The article needs to be immediately fully protected as the aforementioned users are on one side of a current trademark litigation case and I am on the other. Their trying to get me blocked to that they can vandalise the article to their own biased political agenda. The aforementioned users have in fact had me innocently blocked a few days ago and then vandalised the article to You need to intervene more seriously and put a permanent block on the article, as these problems won’t go away until you take action against the aforementioned users.

These aforementioned users have instigated a full-scale edit war and the problem isn’t due to vandalism by new users. Take a look at the Rosicrucian Order of A+O page that was locked due to these aforementioned users creating an edit war, and now this has spilled over on the main Golden Dawn article.

These users are conspirators and are attempting to get me blocked so that they can go unchecked in an edit war to change the article in a defamatory tone, in an attempt to promote their political agenda over the other orders entries.

Here’s the link to show the aforementioned users last editing war that has now spilled over onto the main Golden Dawn article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_%28Rosicrucian_Order_of_A%2BO%29

Frater FiatLux 21:04, 11 June

Comment: This user has repeatedly accused numerous other individuals who disagree with him of "pushing a political agenda"- rather bad faith in my opinion. Furthermore, at the same instance that he tried unsucessfuly to report a different user of a 3RR, he actually violated the rule himself. Strangely enough, within the last ten minutes I've mysteriously been attacked by an "anon" IP 205.188.116.200 on my userpage, which makes me strongly suspicious that it is this individual acting out of spite. -- Daniel Davis 13:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: My IP address is:84.71.75.180 your suspcicions are unfounded, as it wasn't me. There is an edit war going on at the Golden Dawn article please lock this page fully so that it can stop and we can start to discuss this. Frater FiatLux 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

user: Rich Farmbrough

On the 5th and 6th of June user: Rich Farmbrough started so many articles like this for every book of the Bible - all are just redlinks... I have nminated for AfD the Esther one and the Job one but do I have to list each separate one for AfD or can an admin advise about removing the lot on block? It seems that this user has been creating endless empty artciles for several days can they be stopped - they appear to be simply filling up WP and making their edit count large!!! Robertsteadman 12:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Would speedy delete be appropriate? Robertsteadman 12:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Says he will usefy - but this is just clogging up space..... and apart from all the books of the bible he's started loads of other redlinked articles!!!! Robertsteadman 12:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline against red links, the worst case scenario is that they are redirected to the appropriate page, which can only be useful. Martin 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles are nothing BUT redlinks - no other info at all!!!! Robertsteadman 13:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You have answered this already, he said he would userfy them, I was referring to the red links put into existing articles, which can be redirected. Martin 13:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In think we're both discussing slightly different things!!!! - if an arfticle article is nothing but redlinks what is the point? Robertsteadman 13:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In arreas where we have systemic bias, big sets of redlinks can sometimes help suggest a direction for expansion to motivated editors who lack context on the subject. That doesn't seem to be the case here, but it's still true; not all red links are bad. -Hit bull, win steak 14:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I quite like redlinks - this just seems like manic redlink creation and page creation for the sake of it.... Robertsteadman 14:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I can't see the point of "articles" like this. CSD A1 might seem to apply but I would recommend just doing an AfD for them. --Lord Deskana 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

205.188 vandalism

An ip-jumping aol vandal has been hitting several pages this morning. I've been blocking on sight for ~3hrs, but if someone has the ability to check for open proxy-ness (I know the toolserver tools aren't up at the moment) you might go down my block log and check them out. Otherwise, just keep reverting and doing short blocks I guess. Syrthiss 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did an IP trace. It's just like you said- it's an open proxy coming from an AOL user. You may block it at your own discretion. -- Daniel Davis 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well wait... Did you do a whois and find it was an aol ip, or did you actually find it to be an open proxy ala WP:OP? Syrthiss 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a trace using UrgentClick's Tracer, and the address itself popped right up as cache-dtc-ad06.proxy.aol.com -an open proxy utilized by AOL. -- Daniel Davis 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Craiky333

Could someone with admin powers please look at this user and see whether an indefinite block was really appropriate? I noticed him when he showed up on the changes log of an article on my watchlist, and while his edit wasn't particularly helpful, I don't think it's really classifiable as vandalism, either. I then looked at his contribution log, and it didn't have the kind of blatant vandalism I would've expected for a blocked vandal account. Only two of the edits (the ones to soccer bios) are really vandal-type edits, and he didn't get a warning for either one, just an indefinite block from User:Mike Rosoft. Are there some kind of hideous deleted changes on his log to explain the block? -Hit bull, win steak 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked Mike? --Sam Blanning 13:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. I wanted to find out whether there were scads of deleted edits in the guy's history first, to know as much as possible about the situation before I engaged with Mike (if necessary). If there are a bunch of deleted attack pages or somethin' like that on the guy's log, there should probably be a note to that effect somewhere (in the interest of transparency). -Hit bull, win steak 14:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, without knowing what deleted articles were named, there's no way for us to see a user's connection to a deleted article from their contributions. If we knew the names, we could pop in to the articles and look at their history...but as you say, deleted articles don't show up in the contributions. Syrthiss 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask Mike first. Make it informational, not confrontational. Admins are obligated to give clear answers about their actions, and it's politer to ask for those answers directly than to run around gathering information (and announcing to a hundred other people that you're doing it). -- SCZenz 14:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Always contact the other administrator first to avoid creating a potential wheel war. --Lord Deskana 14:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll take care of it that way. Thanks for the feedback. -Hit bull, win steak 14:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assist

RE, Pages: 1.Golden Dawn Tradition 2.Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O) 3.Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn 4. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

The background of the ongoing conflict on these pages is an ongoing legal dispute between esoteric orders 2 and 4 above over trademarks. Members of 4 are trying to control everything on Misplaced Pages over the Golden Dawn and they have mobilized the membership of their orders to act in unison in guerilla edit warfare promoting their extremely POV biased versions.

MORE IMPORTANTLY ON PAGE 4 (The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc) ABOVE THEY CONTINUOUSLY PUBLISH A LINK TO A FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN FOR A SO CALLED "GOLDEN DAWN LEGAL FUND" TO RAISE MONEY FOR THEIR LEGAL EFFORTS AGAINST 2. Here is the link they keep publishing discuised as a citation:

This ia highly inappropriate as I have pointed out on the discussion page. I am doing everything that I can to stop this disguised advertisiing without breaking the 3 revert rule, but desperately need administrator assistance!

The primary soldiers of HOGD, Inc above responsible for this are User 999 and User JMax555.

--Zanoni666 14:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You demonstrate an exceptional knowledge of Misplaced Pages for a new editor, my friend. Your first edit was a revert. Smells of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. The article is protected, try discussing it rather than running to administrators to take out people who don't agree with you. --Lord Deskana 14:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this edit --Ehheh 14:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Frater FiatLux is blocked for 3RR and someone that seems to agree with this user is requesting "administrator assistance" - ironically enough, someone who can't get past the semiprotection I placed on the article. --Lord Deskana 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because I am new here does not mean that I am a sock puppet, Deskana. I am not a sock puppet. Thank you for your comment about my exceptional knowledge. I am a quick study, but not a sock puppet. I am, howevvew, a member of the opposing order in the legal twist and am fed up with 999 and JMax555's bullying tactics. Are you a member of Inc, yourself? If not why do you call everyone from the opposing side a 'sock puppet' and yet allow Inc. members to run ramshot over Misplaced Pages and take sides constantly with them? Are administratrators not supposed to be fair and objective? There is a real problem here, Deskana. Two sides in a legal conflict affecting 5 pages!

Why are you ignoring Inc's. shameless advertising for fundraisisng that they are using unfair tactics to keep published? Please try and be a bit more fair and objective, Deskana. Why not use your influence encourage all sides to compromise instead? (In addition to telling them that the ad is inappropriate, of course) --Zanoni666 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not read the article, that's the point. I comment on what I see. Someone that's new comes along, demonstrates exceptional knowledge of Misplaced Pages, knowledge comparable to someone else who edits that article, and agrees with a user who was blocked for reverting too much. I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject. I don't want to act on this. Other administrators are welcome to. --Lord Deskana 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the ad?--Zanoni666 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Please DO read the article, or at least look at the link that I referenced above. You could say the same thing about Eheih, JMax555, 999, and SynergisticMagtgot, tho all argue the opposiing argument and are working inconcert to avoid 3R...all licensees or members of. Inc.--Zanoni666 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What we have here, Sith Lord, is a legal conflict between two esoteric orders, almost like a religious conflict. Both sides are trying to present their side of the story. Instead of collaborating to find consensus, the Inc. side are bringing in their whole order to bully their truth through. The other side is waking up and coming to do something about it, but we are much newer there than they are.

If this is to be resolved there must be some kind of arbitration. We could use their tactics as well and probably will if we cant get them to seriously attempt to gain consensus instead of just reverting anything other than their point of view and pointing fingers at Fiat Lux. He is not alone and many others will be here shortly to balance the equasion.

This is not a solution, however. One page has already been locked down completely. Please assist in making both sides find consensus on Misplaced Pages instead of senslessly conflicting across five distinct pages. --Zanoni666 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of this material is encyclopedic anyway. I'm still thinking about just recommending the whole lot for deletion. Tom Harrison 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not quite true, Tom. The Hermetic Order or the Golden Dawn is historically important. To a lesser degree, of course, it is encyclopedic in the same manner as is Freemasonry. You did the right thing in telling both sides to reach consenses on the page for the Hermetic Order of the Godlen Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O). The problem is that there are 6-7 separate pages that are involved, and when you locked down one, the conflict just spread to others. When we appealed for halp again, Deskana did not really grasp the nature of the problem, but only noticed that the members of one side are new here and mistook the problem for one of vandalism, whereas the true problem is the same previous conflict that just moved from one page to the next when you locked the first one down.

Are ther not some arbitaration procedures or some such that could help to solve this. It is certainly not a solution for both orders to bring more and more members here to try and push their agenda, which the Inc. side, with at least 6 members are already doing at this juncture, and the other side will invvitably do as well if we do not find a better option. I truly think that we can still work this out, with a llittle help from admin, of course, so that things get better instead of worse.--Zanoni666 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of the prior blocked user User:Frater FiatLux. I recommend a CheckUser to verify. -- Daniel Davis 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's probably not needed. Start at this diff and step through the next few edits. Tom Harrison 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting on a decision regarding user 999 and friends use of gate/gang reverting to keep an inappropriate fundraising ad included on the page. And no I am not Fiat Lux. Check the IPs. He in in the UK. I am in California. I suspect that 999 and Zos however are socks for JMax555--Zanoni666 18

40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. Are there two or three warring factions? Do the factions have names? Maybe we need some page moves and a disambiguation page at Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. --John Nagle 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two factions. Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O) is being sued by The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. The former contest everything that the latter say about themselves on their website, and keep removing cited information from Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and replacing it with biased original research intended to support their side of the court case. As for membership, I am not a member of any of the Golden Dawn organizations and have no particular bias except that I disapprove of the way members of A+O have been handling themselves on WP. User:Frater FiatLux is definitely a member of A+O - he is probably running sockpuppets User:HermeticScholar, User:Zanoni666 and possibly others; User:Kephera975 is I think a member of A+O. User:JMax555 is NOT a member of either, but is a member of another branch. I don't know User:SynergeticMaggot's affiliations. Hope this helps. -999 (Talk) 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical 999 misrepresentations. He knows full well that JMax555 is a member of the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, which is licensed by HOGD, Inc. The head of his order is on the board of HOGD, Inc. Also, I believe that 999, Zos, Eheih, and SynergeticMaggot are all members of one or the other orders lisensed by HOGD, Inc and are concealing the bias of their affilliation as is JMax555. Tell the truth guys! Your noses are growing--Zanoni666 22

43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, there should not be a disambig. Technically, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn refers to an historic organization which no longer exists. There are half-a -dozen or so revival organization and they are all listed under the heading Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders in the main article. The intent was that nothing about the modern orders would be in the main articles, and that the subarticles would simply use each order's web page and other supporting documentation to describe themselves. Except that the A+O wants to replace HOGD, Inc.'s description taken from their own website with one that would be harmful, possibly to be used in the court case. -999 (Talk) 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been accused a number of times for being a member of golden dawn faction (which is irrelevant anyway, but I'm not), or supporting biased information. Anyone who wishes to check my history, can. My reverts we due to the fact that I was ganged up on, in a manner of speaking, trying to keep cited material of another users on the article. Thank you. Zos 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then it looks like there is only one faction, that of A+O, primarily Frater FiatLux and his socks. The other "side" consists simply of unaffiliated and unrelated WP editors attempting to deal with what appears to be an attack effort by A+O is order to bias readers toward their organization. Specifically, no one involved is a member of HOGD, Inc. whose article is being attacked. -999 (Talk) 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a mess! Thank you for trying to sort it out. There is no "fund raising ad" in the article. The HOGD Inc. has a legal fundraising page on their own website, but it is certainly not in the WP article. We've tried moving all the factions to their own pages, but the HOGD/A+O faction keeps editing the main article and putting in a lot of self-promoting information about themselves, culled directly from their own website, which has no verifiable sources outside of their own website; it amounts to original research done by their own faction. And User 999 and User Zos are NOT my "sock puppets", and as I've said several times in Talk. They've been around Misplaced Pages longer than I have! - JMax555 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your nose is growing too, Pinocchio, just like you have no relationship to HOGD, Inc. as 999 claims above and you do not come clean by clarifying that you are a leader of an order lisenced by them and have a definite bias, right? No, there is no ad in the article...there is a LINK to a fundraising ad that has no business being there. It is a shame that you are so deceptive Joseph Max or maybe we could finally get somewhere. Until you are more forthright and honest, however, haw can that possibly be? --Zanoni666 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you guys keep up reverting to pro-HOGD, Inc and remain unwilling to cooperate, the only good solution would be to delete ALL of the individual order pages and just keep the page on the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. I can't believe how dishonest you are behaving, Max! --Zanoni666 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User ER MD refuses to cooperate

We\'ve got a user at the American conservatism article who has been repeatedly blanking out a section. He\'s been blocked under the 3RR rule once, but this situation is a little different, he has announced that he will continue to blank the section in question ad nauseum until and unless a few administrators come tell him that this one section must be there. See the talk page for details. I\'ve tried talking to him, explaining the 3RR, posting to his talk page, inviting him to join the discussion, all to no avail, he adamantly declined to address the substance of the edits. I\'m not sure what to do about it at this point, I\'m hoping a wiser mind might take a look at the situation. Bjsiders 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he should be blocked once more for 3RR, I count 6 or 7 reverts today... <_< -- Grafikm 16:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR for 3RR reports. By the way, User:Bjsiders is editing from a badly configured open proxy... --Lord Deskana 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's out of my hands, unfortunately. Bjsiders 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added blanked content back to the article because it seemed well sourced and appropriate. I added one fact templ. All editors of the article need to engage in better consensus editing. FloNight talk 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tibbs

Mr. Tibbs is spamming talk pages, trying to turn an RfC regarding User:Zer0faults into an adversarial proccess:

It's quite clear by this that Tibbs has a weird "Rexian" fixation and seeks to hound other editors on that basis. 208.101.25.202 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you want us to do about it? 66.90.73.25 16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Us? IPs aren't administrators. Anyway, I don't see any problem with notifying interested users about an RfC. --Lord Deskana 16:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The amount of anons respomding (in favour or against) in the ongoing Zero chronicles, is disturbing. Although we might disagree with what editors do I think we should refrain from turning into little children. Nomen Nescio 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

List of British companies

Came across something I'm not sure what to do with (if anything). The new article List of British companies seems to be redundant given the similar category that already exists: . Is it ok to have such a list, or should it be speedied or something? Just not sure of the policy here. thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see it was deleted, so that's that. --mtz206 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seal it against recreation?-- Kim van der Linde 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Query about possible issue with another editor

Administrators -

The message pasted below concerns me. I did not request a password change, but recognize the IP address as belonging to a member of a small group that repeatedly harasses my employer, DePaul University, through e-mail.

This group has built quite a controversy section for DePaul on our Misplaced Pages entry. I have recently begun editing the site to present DePaul's perspective on their charges.

I am concerned that a member of this group is now trying to hijack my Misplaced Pages account to either make false edits to DePaul's site or to cause trouble under my name on other sites, which would lead to me being banned. Are there any Misplaced Pages policies that cover this situation?

Kris Kgallagh 7 June 2006

Original Message----- From: wiki@wikimedia.org Sent: Wed 6/7/2006 4:21 PM To: Gallagher, Kris Subject: Password reminder from Misplaced Pages

Someone (probably you, from IP address 69.116.141.82) requested that we send you a new Misplaced Pages login password for en.wikipedia.org. The password for user "Kgallagh" is now "". You should log in and change your password now.

If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

end of message--------

• Ignore it. Anyone can click on "I forgot my password" and it sends an e-mail to the address of record. It may even happen many times a day. It's a minor form of harassment. "They" don't have either your new or old password. Best thing to do is ignore them all and continue to use your old password. Thatcher131 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• • They really should put a limit on the thing so "you" can only request your password 3-5 times a day.... Any dev's wanna take a crack at that? Kris 22:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot

I've got a bot running on my own personal wiki that gives warnings, blocks users with the following edit summaries:

• (username)
• (impostor/too similar to existing user...)
• (spam-only user)

Would this be useful on Misplaced Pages??? It's different to User:Tawkerbot2.

Note: It blocks pagemove vandals too! Sunholm(talk) 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Bots are almost never given sysop permission here. Thatcher131 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Curpsbot does that anyway. --Rory096 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation

Could someone please have a look at Transcendental Meditation? An anon ip repeately removed large parts of the article without giving a proper reason for his action on the discussion page. He was at least reverted by three different persons (including me) and the situation becomes increasingly annoying. Thanks in advance -- mkrohn 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The Feather of Maat: 01. Retrieved June 3, 2006.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards