Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:56, 7 November 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

User:StevenCrum

StevenCrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) uses his user page to publish his original research on the falsehood of the relativity theory and related subjects. Furthermore, he also posted his claims of falsehood on the talk pages of these articles. To top it off, he submitted special relativity for a GA review on the grounds that the math in that article was wrong, whereas it can be easily shown that his own theory is false. I've reminded him not to use his user page to campaign against relativity and related subjects per WP:UP, but that was dismissed by him. Errabee 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone to watch. He seems content to restrict his activities to talk pages for the time being, and despite some belligerance, doesn't seem to be causing too much trouble. I would encourage the GA people to speedily close the review of special relativity, as he opened it on invalid grounds. Actually, I see that it has already been archived – good! –Joke 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth he put special relativity on GA review twice. The second time almost imediatly after the first was closed. I warned him about WP:POINT on his talk page. --Salix alba (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, he now claims to have the cure for cancer. Errabee 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He just posted an extremely long winded response which basically concludes with saying that we're all vandals intruding on his private space, and that he's going to ignore anything we say from now on. WP:MFD perhaps? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it. It seems this user will not listen to reason. Errabee 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Homeontherange Again

This posting, "Yes, but his deliberate attempts to stir up conflict on the talk page are far from benign, in fact like Homeontherange's previous edits, they reak of malice" is an unacceptable personal attack. While he certainly is a critic of Israeli policies and practices, saying that his edits "reek of malice" is malicious itself. Please reconsider the tone of your response. By the way, you are certainly correct regarding his identity, but he is currently in negotiations with Jimbo, SlimVirgin, and myself regarding the terms of his participation. He is not under any ban, other than his own voluntary restrictions at the present time. Fred Bauder 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think that my comment qualifies as a personal attack any more than you referring to it as malicious is. Notice that I said his actions reeked of malice, not his person.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. You cannot continue to attack him without suffering serious consequences. Fred Bauder 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a difference, and please do not threaten me, it is quite uncalled for. There is really nothing in the WP:NPA which states that I did anything that inappropriate. As I said before, if you could say that I made a personal attack then it would be much easier to say that you made one against me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Fred Bauder

As far as a lot of people are concerned Homey is under a community ban unless Jimbo says otherwise, and I find it difficult to disagree with them. Jayjg 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• (As far as the facts are concerned, Homey is not under a hard ban and never has been.) CJCurrie 02:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That was before he showed up with his disruptive Farnsworth sock, and his more recent disruptive edits. The facts are different now. Jayjg 03:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as one of the cosigners of an RfAr against Homey, I'm concerned that it just sort of vanished without a trace after Homey appeared to have quit WP. This is just asking for system-gaming. Perhaps the RfAr needs to be reopened to deal with mutliple, disruptive socks. Would that settle the matter? IronDuke 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is agreed that he should use one account and not be disruptive. Fred Bauder 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask, agreed by whom? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to get a handle on the situation. I don't want to make Homey's life any more difficult, but I also don't want multiple accounts contributing to the same article, which is the status quo, AFAIK. If there's been a behind-the-scenes decision and I'm being a bull in a china shop here, do please let me know via email. IronDuke 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I blocked all Homey's accounts one time (in July I think) and said I considered him under a community ban, I think I made my feeling known. This was when he was sockpuppeting complaints about other users on AN/I, making comments on CU page using socks, and breaking 3RR with socks, among other things. I do not care if he edits with one account as long as he follows Misplaced Pages policy. I do not need or want to know the name of the account. He needs to be told to do this with a warning that not doing it will result in a permament ban for all accounts he ever makes until he goes through an arbcom case that reverses it. FloNight 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Flo. I'm starting to feel, though, that whatever account he chooses will be obvious, since he continues to edit within the same set of articles. And it becomes like a game of musical chairs; which account will Homey finally settle on? And how will we know? I totally respect his desire to becomes anonymous again, but I think his desire to keep after the articles he was previously editing make this a hard goal to attain. Also, given his apparent, multiple violations of WP:SOCK, perhaps a formal community ban is in order now, assuming it hasn't already been done. Homey seems to react with... indifference... to the desires of the community. IronDuke 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would endorse such a ban. I suggesgt possibly moving this discussion to ANI or AN for community ratification. JoshuaZ 05:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that (i) the "sockpuppets" were not sockpuppets; they were alternate accounts, and were acknowledged as such at the time *by* HotR, (ii) no one, to my knowledge, has accused HotR of using sockpuppets to break the 3RR, (iii) the "AN/I" case against him was based on flimsy evidence, and there's no guarantee it would have passed, (iv) this entire situation has the appearance of a witch hunt. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

CJ, the sockpuppets were not acknowledged as alternate accounts at the time, but only after a period of shenanigans and denials, then admissions, then claims that his computer had been hacked into, and so on. SlimVirgin 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the HotR used the Barbamama handle to indicate that these were alternate accounts created in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. This was *during* the supposed sockpuppetry. CJCurrie 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in trying to rewrite history. He used around 20 known sockpuppets and only admitted them when caught, and even then sometimes not. He was explicitly asked when he was User:Farnsworth J, for example, which other accounts he had edited with, and he mentioned only User:Farnsworth J. with a period. No mention of Homeontherange. SlimVirgin 23:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time believing Homey's proposal is even being seriously entertained considering all the goodwill and time of the community he's wasted not once, but many times. Homey was disruptive in a truly major way; not only did he disrupt a range of articles with biased editing, 3RR violations and sockpuppets, but he disrupted his own RFAR with sockpuppeting and bizarre claims and maneuvers to discredit those who stood up to his shenanigans. Surely the project is not so desperate for editors that we're forced to take back those who repeatedly abused the community's trust to the degree that they were ejected? I mean, really, he was just here disrupting the same articles as before as an anon last week, on the 26th: I do not support granting Homey any role in the community. FeloniousMonk 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that FeloniousMonk blocked HotR *twice* through questionable interpretations of the 3RR, when this entire situation was starting. I will repeat, this resembles a witch hunt. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

FM blocked Homey for entirely normal interpretations of 3RR; you then turned up at the 3RR policy to try to have it changed, but your proposals were not accepted. SlimVirgin 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR policy underwent major changes from 2004 to 2006, based on a consensus on the policy talk page. Admins who did not follow discussions on that page were largely unaware of these changes, and more than a few were surprised to discover the policy was being applied so severely under the new rules. Each time that FM blocked HotR, it was for edits that were not prohibited under the 2004 policy (look it up if you don't believe me). In imposing his second block, FM described HotR as a "repeat offender" and imposed a 48 hour ban. Homey's crime? He corrected Zeq's spelling and grammar errors more than three times. FM did not give a warning before imposing this block, and was unresponsive when I suggested that it was needlessly harsh. I'll leave it for other readers to decide if his actions were fair. Btw, my specific proposal was not accepted, but the general enforcement of 3RR blocks has been more reasonable since the discussion took place. CJCurrie 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I really want us to move away from who-said-what, but on the other hand, I don't want this rewrite of history to continue. Homeontherange was very well aware of the 3RR rule and what it said before being blocked for it, because he was warned many, many, many times. Please stop making excuses and contribute to finding a resolution. SlimVirgin 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you are mistaken. I was actively involved in this matter, and I can assure you that HotR did not believe his corrections of Zeq's grammatically-challenged posts constituted 3RR violations (you might remember that he described the 3RR as having a "Zeq-sized hole, in that case", after being told of the rationale). In hindsight, the situation almost has the appearance of an ambush. CJCurrie 05:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The sockpuppetry in itself has been extremely disruptive. I'm going to have to agree with JoshuaZ here, we should move this to WP:AN/I and propose a ban for exhausting the community's patience. Khoikhoi 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, I endorse the idea of discussing a community ban at ANI as well. - crz crztalk 05:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Which is to say, I support the ban proposal itself as well. - crz crztalk 06:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, Homey needs to be banned from articles he has previously disrupted and edit with one account only. The articles are already controversial and challenging enough for reasonable editors to try to hammer out without adding Homey's wearying, disruptive behavior to the equation. --MPerel 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with MPerel. And it's not enough to say that Homey "should edit with one account only." It needs to be clear what the consequences will be if he fails to stick to this radically ordinary concept. For the Israel-related articles in which he's been the most disruptive, I'd like him to be banned from Talk pages as well as from the actual article, and I'm not saying this lightly. I have never seen Homey indicate remorse for the frustration, wasted time, and pain that he his style of discussion has led to. Kla'quot 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The situation on Allegations of Israeli apartheid was confrontational and it takes more than one person to make such a situation -- for example, earlier today Jayjg in the absence of Homeontherange was making very provocative statements towards another editor on its talk page, see , but luckily no one responded in kind and the situation was diffused. I notice also that there is a lack of an acknowledgment of Homeontherange's valuable contributions outside of that one article. MPerel's suggestion seems extremely reasonable since it takes into account what are Misplaced Pages's best interests. --Deodar 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user Kendrick7 was making very provocative, and arguably deliberately dishonest edits, for which he subsequently apologized, and this section is about Homey. Jayjg 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that editor X is provocative, the answer is not to balance the equation by adding provocative editor Y. Thatcher131 18:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg did nothing inappropriate in that situation, it was important to call the other editor on his inappropriate behavior, I fail to see how that constitutes "provactive behavior".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's likely because they were few and far between and in no way mitigate or out weigh the trouble he's caused the community. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous comment is a smear, plain and simple. HotR was one of Misplaced Pages's leading contributors from 2003 to 2006. I can't help but think much of the current controversy has more to do with content disagreements than with concern for procedure. CJCurrie 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop denying the facts of what has happened and the degree of disruption that has been caused. You've been one of his defenders throughout, and indeed I believe it was you who first involved him in fighting at New anti-Semitism. Continuing to pretend there's no problem, or that the problem lies with others, doesn't move us toward a resolution. SlimVirgin 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would add a couple things. Homey appeared to be wikistalking Slim with some of his socks, going to pages he would otherwise have no interest in to challenge her edits in a pointless and provocative way.(This came to my attention when I got bogged down in an utterly pointless discussion about the meaning of the phrase poisoning the well with what later turned out to be a Homey sock.) I haven't made a study of it, but I will take it as read that Homey previously made good contributions. However, my understanding of policy and general WP culture is that editors are not given multiple free passes due to past contributions. (Maybe they should be, but they're not.) FWIW, I would put forth the proposal that Homey be allowed a specific account to edit with that he need only disclose to a few people, but that his use of that account be restricted to pages he has not edited before, pages that tend not to be controversial, and to avoid all editors with whom he has come in conflict. I think that's fair to everyone. IronDuke 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No one, Slim, is "pretending there's no problem". Everyone, including HotR, has acknowledged that HotR made some errors of judgement in the course of these discussions. Fred has argued that there should be some form of sanction, and he may be correct. For the present, I strongly object to (i) the efforts to portray him as a compulsive wrecker, (ii) the dismissal of his past contributions, and (iii) the witch-hunt mentality that seems to be pervading this complaint. Most of the contributors to this discussion have a history of content disputes with HotR, or represent an antithetical POV -- I'm not certain that *any* neutral editors have agreed with the suggestion that he be placed under a community ban. CJCurrie 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're defining anyone who supports a community ban as a non-neutral editor. Rather than going back and forth about what did and didn't happen, we should move toward finding a resolution. Can you say what you would regard as a reasonable compromise? SlimVirgin 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily for me, or you, to determine such a compromise. Fred Bauder has indicated that private discussions have taken place; I don't see that there's any need to pre-empt them.

I'll pose this question directly to Mr. Bauder: do you think this is the proper place to work out a settlement? CJCurrie 06:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I should state, for the record, that I am strongly opposed to imposing a community ban. CJCurrie 23:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the issue just as some "errors of judgement" is an incredible understatement. Almost everyone that Homey interacted with besides you and perhaps a few other users left the encounter with a bad taste in their mouth. Homontherange has a tendency to get personal, kick people when their down, misuse whatever privledges he is given, not let go of past disputes, and so on and so on. To put it simply, Homeontherange was not a good editor, he contributed little besides strife and disharmony. I really do not think that wikipedia should give him another opportunity to abuse our trust.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He is not banned, nor is he under any editing restrictions other than those he has imposed on himself. I do not support a ban. I believe he is negotiating with Jimbo, SlimVirgin, and myself in good faith regarding what terms he should be editing under. It is clear that he should be using only one account and not disrupting articles. What I notice in this discussion is an emphasis on past behavior. If he edits, what are appropriate terms? Fred Bauder 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From my above post: I do not care if he edits with one account as long as he follows Misplaced Pages policy. I do not need or want to know the name of the account. He needs to be told to do this with a warning that not doing it will result in a permament ban for all accounts he ever makes until he goes through an arbcom case that reverses it. FloNight 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a start. Any other suggestions for community sanctions? FloNight 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131's suggestions

1. Homey selects a new account and agrees to edit only from that account.
2. The account need only be known by a subset of arbitrators and/or admins with whom Homey feels comfortable (gatekeepers).
3. The account will be placed on standard probation.
4. If Homey is detected (by editing characteristics) the person suspecting him will keep it to him/herself and not broadcast it, unless it is alleged that the account is editing disruptively.
5. If it is alleged that the account is editing disruptively, the allegations will be referred to a mutually agreeable uninvolved admin for review. If the admin finds that the account is disruptive, and after consulting with the gatekeeper to confirm that the account is Homey, the admin can enforce probation (article bans and blocks for violating article bans). Reasonable efforts will be made to keep Homey's identity anonymous, but it should be understood that if he becomes disruptive and the probation is enforced, it will be hard to keep the secret indefinitely.
6. Any new instances of sockpuppetry, block evasion, edits made by his housemates, etc., will result in a final community ban.

Does this work for anyone? Thatcher131 03:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, I would add that he should stay away from articles and talk pages he has previously disrupted. I also suggested by e-mail the possibility of a mentor and I found someone who agreed to consider it. However, standard probation would work too with or without the request that he stay away from certain pages. This was what Fred suggested over a week ago and it was a good idea. SlimVirgin 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He might find a topical ban an unacceptable precondition. Of course, if he doesn't avoid his old haunts he won't be anonymous for long. My thinking is to leave it up to him as to how and what to edit—as long as probation is officially in place and can be enforced against specific topics that he disrupts, this will give him the chance to be good and give us the ability to enforce a topical ban if he can't be good. Thatcher131 03:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is a big problem so this needs to be as simple as possible to enforce. I think staying away from certain articles for a period of time is necessary otherwise I see problems. People are going to be watching and he will likely be detected. Not a good way to start, I think. FloNight 03:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution Thatcher131. It would be best for Homey's sake to stay away from the Allegations of Israeli apartheid and New anti-Semitism for the time being because of the dynamic that has been established at those pages. Is there other pages that have been problematic? --Deodar 03:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be a timelimit for staying away from the articles. 6 months? 12 months? If he edits other articles without a problem than he should get a 2nd chance on these articles after a period of time. --FloNight 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Arb probations often have a 6 month or 12 month expiry. And article bans are at the admin's discretion. If an uninvolved admin and a gatekeeper agree the new account should be banned from a topic per the probation, the period of time should be left up to them and depend on the seriousness of the violation. (I just banned 4 people from an article for 3 days as a wake-up call; the Kven user is indef banned from Kven; its very situation-specific.) If you are thinking that Homey should be banned from certain topics as a precondition of return, then maybe 6 months, but that places a burden on the gatekeepers to continually be checking his contribs. I would argue instead for a return with no pre-determined topical bans but with a vigorously enforced probationary period. Thatcher131 03:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that many people are going to be checking the articles for him. He has rubbed too many editors the wrong way on these article. I see problems and Wikilawyering by him soon if he goes back to them right away. --FloNight 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Homey should only be able to edit those articles if a neutral admin is willing to be close at hand when he does edit those articles because (1) he is ideologically opposed to the majority of the editors here pushing for a community ban, (2) because of the bad blood between parties, it is easy for them to view honest disagreements as malicious disruption and (3) he feels that he has been repeatedly treated poorly and marginalized by this group. It is the perfect situation for an explosion of tempers based on their current perceptions of each other even if everyone is acting in good faith in and of themselves. --Deodar 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is why I suggested a mentor; whether we call that person mentor or gatekeeper, someone neutral to keen an eye on him, and someone he can ask for advice if he needs it. SlimVirgin 04:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It could work. How about the term "conflict guru"? If Homey agrees (and I strongly recommend that he does) and the person we get involved is appropriate for that position then it would help the project effectively capture Homey's valuable contributions and at the same time significantly reduce tensions -- wins all around. --Deodar 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear understanding of the mentor (conflict guru's) role. Is this person an advocate? If so in what sense? Keeping Misplaced Pages free of disruption should always be our primary focus when dealing with problem users, not ensuring that an editor has the ability to edit. I think it is a good idea too. There is a cost involved in making this happen. We need to be careful that we are not spending too much time and energy for the benefit gained. FloNight 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The admin who has been approached, and who is willing to consider doing it, is someone trusted by all involved, I believe, including Homeontherange, and has prior experience of mentoring. My idea was that we should leave it more or less up to him how to handle things. My understanding is that his priority would be the interests of the project and not of any individual editor.

As for time and energy, this has been a major drain for about eight months now. We therefore need a solution that will work so it doesn't flare up again. SlimVirgin 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's modifications of Thatcher131's suggestions

Editing Thatcher's suggestions:

1. Homey selects one account and agrees to edit only from that account, always logged in.
2. The account need only be known by a subset of arbitrators/admins.
3. The account will be placed on standard probation.
4. A neutral admin will be asked to act as a mentor for Homey. The mentor will not be Homey's advocate, but will be allowed wide latitude in deciding how to conduct the relationship.
5. Homey should stay away from articles and talk pages he has previously disrupted until the mentor agrees otherwise; a period of at least six months is recommended but the decision is the mentor's.
6. If it is alleged that the account is editing disruptively, the allegations will be referred to the mentor for review in the first instance, or another admin if the mentor is not available. The mentor/admin can then enforce probation (article bans and blocks as appropriate). Reasonable efforts will be made to keep Homey's new identity anonymous so long as there is no disruption.
7. His previous sockpuppet/alternate accounts will remain tagged as Homeontherange's but without directing to his new account.
8. Any new instances of sockpuppetry, block evasion, edits made by his housemates, etc., will result in a final community ban.
9. No wikilawyering regarding any of the above will be tolerated; when in doubt, all parties should use common sense.

Does that work for everyone? SlimVirgin 05:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a few problems. There's no definition of "disruption", and I have reason to suspect that certain contributors will apply a very liberal definition of the term. I don't like the idea of referring to "another admin" in the mentor's absence, given that this might allow for a non-neutral party to oversee the matter. Also, no sockpuppetry was ever proven, and I can't see how *edits by his housemates* could result in the immediate imposition of a final community ban. This does not strike me as a fair settlement, by any standard. CJCurrie 05:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say no sockpuppetry was proven, given he admitted them only after being caught. Using multiple accounts in order to deceive, or in order to avoid public scrutiny of one's overall contributions, is a violation of WP:SOCK. The "edits by the housemates" part is reasonable; what we're saying to Homey is choose one account, stick to it, and protect it so that others don't get the password or find themselves able to edit because Homey didn't log out. SlimVirgin 06:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, several of us are neutral admins working hard to resolve this without a RFAr. If the case goes to ArbCom I fear that Homey could get worse than the above. An one year ban from the site would not be out of the question. Especially if Homey started with his usual Wikilawyering and disputes on the arb case pages and oddly thought out emails to arb com. RFAr seem to bring the worst out in him. FloNight 06:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing above the conditions under which he would be able to edit the contentious articles -- only with the involvement of the mentor. Thus I think that only one of these two conditions should be included: "A neutral admin will be asked to act as a mentor for Homey. The mentor will not be Homey's advocate, but will be allowed wide latitude in deciding how to conduct the relationship" or "Homey should stay away from articles and talk pages he has previously disrupted." As it currently is, I feel it is too restrictive -- I apologize for the misunderstanding, please review my comments and you'll see what I thought we were talking about. (I also do not see the point of 7, just indef the accounts -- it would avoid making this personal.) --Deodar 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Both can work. He starts off being required not to edit articles he has previously disrupted. It's then up to the mentor whether and if so when to relax that condition. SlimVirgin 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If we can explicitly amend the solution to allow a progression to the contentious articles on approval of the mentor as well as the indef blocking of the old accounts not include any categorization as HotR sockpuppets (because it should not be relevant going forward anyways if we have this agreement, and it sidesteps the contentious issue as to which ones actually were) then I find it a tough but fair solution if HotR displays patience and works within it. The choice of mentor is a difficult one. I would also appreciate Fred Bauder's thoughts on the matter. --Deodar 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason not to tag the HotR accounts as we always do with sockpuppets; if they don't point to his new account, he won't be affected, but they're important to keep so that others can view the pattern of contributions in order to recognize his editing in case he sockpuppets again. As for the mentor, someone has been suggested, but Homey hasn't responded. SlimVirgin 06:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Would it be possible to amend #5 to clearly allow a progression to the contentious articles with mentor approval and oversight if everything goes well? This suggestion isn't about saving face, but rather more substantive. --Deodar 06:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've amended it, but let's not get overly detailed here. The point is that we hand the situation over to a mentor with a lot of common sense and editing experience, and we say "As far as the community is concerned, Homey is on probation; he is not to edit pages he's previously disrupted; and he's to edit with one account only. But please use your discretion regarding exactly how to handle things." And then we let it go. SlimVirgin 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for amending #5, its appreciated. It would be nice to get Fred Bauder's thoughts on this tomorrow. Also g'night! --Deodar 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

SV, sounds good to me. More that once Homey has gotten editors and admins arguing with each about how to deal with him. I hope Homey will accept this so we can move on. Like you said, it has been a long time in coming. If he does not accept the mentor then a time limit for article ban is important. With a mentor it is less improtant to set one.FloNight 06:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I question the need for general probation and excluding him from the talk pages of controversial articles. I do think he needs to perform appropriately on those talk pages before he begins editing the articles again. Fred Bauder 14:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred, your original suggestion was general probation, and I've not seen a better one since then. But either way, we need to proceed toward a decision. SlimVirgin 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

I've found evidence of another Homeontherange sockpuppet, Fullsome prison (talk · contribs), used between May 8 and August 10. This shows clear breaches of WP:SOCK (not an alternative account). It double-voted several times with Homeontherange. There was also an article Fullsome prison nominated for deletion, and which Homeontherange deleted and protected against recreation.

Evidence: In August, Fullsome prison e-mailed several users asking them to vote in an Allegations of Israeli apartheid AfD. One of those users posted the e-mail to his talk page. It is from Fullsome prison, and the e-mail address used by Fullsome prison is an e-mail address of Homeontherange's. A Google search for the address shows it being used by Homeontherange, using his real name. Because it uses his real name, I'm not going to post links here, but I'll e-mail them to a small number of admins or established editors so that others can view the evidence. (In addition, Folsom Prison Blues is an American country song, as is Homeontherange.)

Fullsome prison was created on May 8, before the Apartheid trouble started (Homeontherange created Allegations of Israeli apartheid on May 29), so he can't claim he was "provoked" into creating it by the dispute on that page. This means he was running at least three accounts in May/June that were keeping the Apartheid issue stirred up — User:Homeontherange, User:Fullsome prison, and user:Sonofzion — while he was still an admin.

Examples of the sockpuppetry

• On July 3, Fullsome prison nominated Freedom Party International for deletion, then closed the vote as Homeontherange, deleted the article, and protected it against recreation.

• On May 29, Fullsome prison nominated Allegations of Israeli apartheid for deletion, the same day that he had created it as Homeontherange. He did this because someone wanted to speedy delete it, so he used a sockpuppet to nominate it for deletion, then argued that it couldn't be speedied because of the AfD. After voting to delete it as Fullsome prison, Homey voted Strong keep as Homeontherange.

• In June, he double-voted keep as Homeontherange and Fullsome prison on the Global apartheid AfD.

• He doubled-voted on the Sexual apartheid AfD.

• He double-voted on the Gender apartheid AfD.

• He evaded a 48-hour block for 3RR on June 22 as Sonofzion and as Fullsome prison. Homeontherange was blocked at 23:09. Sonofzion started editing at 01:22 June 23 as a new user and continued until 02:04 June 23. Fullsome prison started editing at 13:09 June 23, and editing the same pages Homey had been editing (e.g. ), after not having edited since June 5. He edited until 16:22 June 23. Sonofzion started editing again at 20:30 June 23. He edited until 22:47 but was blocked as a sockpuppet at 22:50 June 23. Fullsome prison started editing again at 23:08 June 23.

I left a note on Fullsome prison's talk page on August 10 asking that the account holder declare his other accounts, because it was obviously a sockpuppet. He didn't respond and stopped using the account.

I'm offering this further evidence because Homey has so far claimed that his sockpuppets were only alternate accounts and that he didn't violate WP:SOCK, but this shows clear violations. SlimVirgin 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was your original edit to this page where you added the above information deleted from the page history by Jayjg? Just confused me, that's all. --Deodar 01:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Looked at the evidence sent by email and I concur that the evidence shows abusive sockpuppetry linking User:Homeontherange and User:Fullsome prison. Fullsome prison uses an e-mail address previously used by Homeontherange (or rather, by him using his real name). --FloNight 01:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also looked at the evidence and concurr with FloNight's assessment. Same email address used previously. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I verify this too based on email evidence. --MPerel 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also concur. Suggest that it be forwarded to the ArbCom. JoshuaZ 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Homey has now indicated he will consider the mentoring suggestion, but frankly I'm very weary of the whole thing and I'm not sure I want to be involved in advocating mentoring. SlimVirgin 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, based on the evidence, it seems pretty obvious. This is of course contrary to what Homey claimed (that he wasn't sockpuppeting, etc. ). I also wanted to comment that I observed this whole conflict back in June, and was astonished how long it went on before it was finially brought to ArbCom. It seems to me that the disruption—and now the sockpuppets—definately means there needs to be something done. Khoikhoi 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that this could go under the radar for so long, with Homey ignoring so many opportunities to come clean, makes me question whether the whole mentoring idea would even work. People also seem to forget that when Homey left a major arbcom case about him was about to begin, perhaps he knew a lot of this stuff was going to be revealed and he decided he could get out of any possible consequences by leaving wikipedia for a couple of months (well kinda leaving).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough. I hereby propose a community ban on Homey. JoshuaZ 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Fullsome Prison, who nominated Israeli Apartheid (phrase) (as it was then known) for deletion less than 24 hours after Homey created the article, was really Homey? How Machiavellian. I never understood how F.P. could go from nominating the article for deletion the first time and then campaigning against deletion the second time. The sock theory would explain it, though it's very bizarre. If this really was all the same person, he yanked so many peoples' chains and wasted so many peoples' time that I don't see how anyone could oppose a ban. 6SJ7 04:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He nominated it knowing that at that moment the afd wouln't pass, he also knew that 2nd and 3rd nominations are generally less likely to pass.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I feel a bit foolish now. A ban's too good for him. I'd like to send him a bill for the hours I wasted in and around that stupid article. I'll never get that time back, so maybe at least I could get some compensation. It certainly would make for an interesting issue of law... international law, no less... 6SJ7 04:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I still have an email from Fullsome Prison, with an email address that according to Google belongs to Homey's real name. There is abundant evidence, which I can disclose upon request if there is still any doubt, that Fullsome Prison and Homey are the same person. See the Fullsome-Homey combination working together on this page to ensure that the discussion goes nowhere. The content of the Fullsome Prison email to me on June 23 was "Your poll questions are leading questions. I don't think I can answer them. Please eliminate your first three questions as the only purpose they seem to serve is to lead respondants to a particular conclusion - this isn't acceptable in polling. Thanks, Fullsome prison." I fully support the community ban. Kla'quot 06:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He was actually working you over with three sockpuppets there; you might have forgotten that User:Sonofzion was his sockpuppet as well. Jayjg 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just making a note here that I'm withdrawing from this situation for the time being. I've supplied evidence of sockpuppetry; I've taken part in good faith in the 10-day e-mail correspondence that Homey started; I've made various suggestions here and by e-mail; and I've put Homey in touch with an experienced neutral admin who's willing to consider being his mentor. It's up to others to decide how to proceed now, in part because I feel I've spent as much time on this as I'm willing to, and in part because other voices need to be heard. Thank you to everyone else who has tried to help sort this out. I hope we end up with a resolution soon. SlimVirgin 08:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting to see the e-mail evidence as well. I am already aware of his real name, so that should not be an issue. -- Kim van der Linde 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What you want is irrelevant, Kim. You've said you're leaving here for months; cut the cord already. You're not a participant on Misplaced Pages any more, except to stir up trouble. Go back to Citizendium, or continue to post on Misplaced Pages Review, as you see fit. Your input here is no longer required. Jayjg 16:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I see the next phase has entered, I am now accused of posting at wikipedia review. -- Kim van der Linde 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a new phase, and you are posting there; do you deny it? Jayjg 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure the best place to hang this comment and in fact it may be irrelevant now if a ban is put in place for this specific user, but I'd like to note that I think that in the general case, there is a bit of confusion/conflict between the notion of a mentor that has wide latitude in how to deal with a mentoree and with the notion that the mentoree is anonymous or mostly anonymous. If the mentoree is anonymous, they may well get reported to AN/I for something that the mentor would otherwise be chartered to deal with and either the mentor is now at cross purposes with the developing consensus at AN/I (to throw the book or whatever), or the anonymity has to be abrogated to override that and let the mentor deal. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I accept responsibilty for my past mistakes and have and do again apologize for them and I accept responsibility for the fullsome prison thing. These incidents are in the past and I ask that people look at the editing I've done in the past week. Almost 100 edits and only one of them was reverted on the basis of its content, a reversion I accepted. It's been an unfortunate few months and I apologize and accept responsibility but prior to that I was one of the most prolific editors on wikipedia and generally respected. I have been editing quite within policy lines since returning in the past week or so - the exception was a reversion due to the new BLP policy which I am now fully familiar with and complying with. I have accepted that I should only edit with one account and have been doing so. Several days ago I responded to SV's mentorship proposal (though not to her) by agreeing that Will could ban me from any article if, henceforth, my editing appeared tendentious, no questions asked and no appeal. This is similar to the provision User:Zeq was under when the ArbComm found him to be disruptive. The difference is it would apply to any article, not just those in a particular topic area. I was awaiting a response when this whole thing hit ANI. At Misplaced Pages we take sanctions to end a current problem, not to punish for past problems. Everything that has been brought up here is in the past and my current editing is far more inline with my editing practices prior to getting involved with New anti-Semitism in the spring which is where the problems, fuelled by the passions of the debate on Israel-Palestine, began and that is my responsibility alone and I accept it. Gehockteh leber 09:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I find that adequate. Fred Bauder 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you do Fred, but I certainly don't find it adequate, nor do many others. Homey only admits what he is forced to admit, and then only after he's dragged everyone through days and days of denials, posts, e-mails, Machiavellian schemes, backchannel plotting, sockpuppet and IP edits, etc. Then he either says he's leaving, or "apologizes", and lays low for a couple of months, and hopes it will all blow over so he can return to his old patterns. He's still never admitted the Sonofzion sockpuppet, he's still never admitted using open proxies, and he still insists some of his sockpuppets were merely "alternate accounts". He still hasn't even admitted sockpuppeting as Fullsome prison; instead, he's just "accepted responsibility" for "the fullsome prison thing", while privately still insisting it was a roommate, or a friend, or something. If he had really come clean in his apology now and admitted everything it might have helped, but even now he's evading and dissembling. It's not acceptable any more; he could never possibly repay Misplaced Pages for the pain caused and time wasted. Jayjg 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to know what the best course of action is, but if everyone involved trusts Will Beback's judgment this may be a good solution. Although, I would strongly recommend that Gehockteh leber stay away from Allegations of Israeli apartheid and New anti-Semitism for at least a couple months. To make that easier, I can offer to be a proxy for any pressing changes he has to either of these articles if that helps. --Deodar 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As one of his consistent allies and defenders, your offer is unsurprising, but not helpful. Homey should have made this offer 3 months ago, or even a week ago. That train has left the station. Jayjg 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am allowed to voice my opinion on the matter just as you are. It would be less provocative, from my perspective, to respond to the issue directly (apology in this case) rather than my comment on it. --Deodar 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no apology to respond to, is there? Just more blame shedding. Jayjg 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, you should respond to the issue rather than me, you'd have more traction. --Deodar 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I already responded above to Fred. Jayjg 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Much as I love to believe people can change, I don't see it here. Homey offers to be banned from any article "by Will," and says it is similar to the provision Zeq was under. He knows as well as anyone that Zeq was under a provision to be banned by any admin. Then there's this: "At Misplaced Pages we take sanctions to end a current problem" - no, actually we take sanctions to prevent future problems, and he is failing to acknowlege that the community ban or probabation were proposed in good faith to prevent further harm to the community. Kla'quot 16:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was sent one email (see above) asking if I would confirm Homey's sockpuppetry. That evidence all lies within the confines of Misplaced Pages. This is all anyone asked me to do is to confirm the evidence, but I took it upon myself to make a further quick search based on Homey's real name to see whether there might be any further concerns and was shocked at what came up. I feel strongly that a person's private life outside of Misplaced Pages is no one's business. However, when an editor is involved in violent activities, harrassment, and even arrests involving the same kinds of articles he edits I think it is Misplaced Pages's business. This is someone with an extreme agenda who has demonstrated publicly on various occasions that he will say or do anything, even violence for his cause(s). Quite frankly the man frightens me, I trust nothing he says, and I fear being targeted for even mentioning this. I don't understand why Misplaced Pages would go through such extraordinary measurers to allow such a person to edit.

I note that there are several other Misplaced Pages editors involved with Homey on the outside, including some who have edited their own articles about themselves. Homey is not acting alone. There are many in his activist group or I should say groups involved with Homey at Misplaced Pages. Based on my discovery, I'm seriously considering whether I even wish to edit at Misplaced Pages any more, out of fear. I likely will at least steer clear of any article where Homey is. The people involved with this is so widespread I don't see how Misplaced Pages will even be able to deal with it. This is all I wish to say on the matter, just as a warning of what is involved here. Anyone else can easily find anything I discovered. --MPerel 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not involved in any activists groups, nor am I involved in any groups with Homey except for Misplaced Pages. The articles I have written that do mention my work are clearly notable because of adoption of the technology by Pixar, ILM, Stanford and Berkeley. --Deodar 17:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My focus is Homey. And I wasn't referring to your article about your company (that seems up and up). The scope extends beyond the editors and articles involved with this situation. Homey is an extreme activist in many organizations. People he's been arrested and involved with have edited articles about themself (names not even mentioned yet) and Homey has edited their articles too and information on Misplaced Pages about his own arrest. That's for starters. --MPerel 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. May I suggest that the only way to deal with this is the arbitration case we've been dancing around? It seems clear that Fred and Jayjg will continue to disgree here, and it's going to be hard to arrive at community consensus over someone who has so many dedicated supporters and opponents. If Fred and Jayjg recuse based on their public advocacy of particular solutions, we'll still have 7 active arbitrators to decide the case. If the fear is that Homey will a case as a soapbox against other editors, that could be dealt with by a preliminary ruling establishing limits on the scope of the case. Without commenting on the substance of MPerel's allegations, there are precedents for using somone's real life activities to either ban them from certain articles or even (in one or two cases) the whole site. At this point I don't see how Homey's situation can possibly be resolved by amicable discussion. Thatcher131 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a community banning, which pre-empts Arbitration. Jayjg 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to speculate what caused Homeontherange's editing behavior to become like this, but it seems to me that he has exhausted the community's good will. Jayjg's points are well-taken - there is a pattern of bad behavior, ducking out, laying low, then coming back in again. As reluctant as I am in principle about this thing, it is pretty apparent that this editor can not be trusted to play a constructive role and should be banned by the community. --Leifern 18:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been on the sidelines through this, but the persistence of these complaints makes me think that what we're looking at is something other than an insult here, misuse there. It seems to me that the multiplicity of presence (the sockpuppets) is a symptom rather than the offense, that the harsh words are symptoms rather than offenses, that the offenses boil down to too much of a demand for attention and interaction. That makes this a time sink. If we are all continually arguing, negotiating, restraining, modifying, hunting, discovering, upbraiding, etc. just to keep our editors happy and editing, then that is the very definition of exhausting community patience. I would like to conclude otherwise, but I cannot. Geogre 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This editor should be banned. He is wasting everyone's time and interfering with the project. There is ample evidence of his wrongdoings. Elizmr 19:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I concurr with Geogre. I would also say that following this debate, I am surprised at the silk-glove treatment extended to this user for no apparent reason, given the extent of the disruption caused. Other editors have been perma-banned for much less disruption than the one exhibited so far by this user. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that many people are trying to purposely not throw around counter accusations that will just inflame passions and lead to more unproductive battlefield behavior. Many of us are trying to move on -- I apologize if this leads some people's behavior to seem aberrant but its better than the alternative. --Deodar 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I feel that it is getting to the point that some of Homeonetherange's defenders are themselves beginning to look disruptive by ignoring every single one of his infractions, while equating what is left with the actions of the editors who do not agree with them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This should have happened a long time ago. A lot of ink has been spilled over this person. He simply is not productive, repeatedly, and by now he really should know better. We need to put ban this user and move on. Endorse. - crz crztalk 19:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't trust Homey one little bit and strongly support a permanent ban. ←Humus sapiens 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I support community permaban or (at least 6 month block automatically reset with each sockpuppet found) and mentoring afterwords. Alex Bakharev 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you support sending it to ArbComm. I don't think there's any such thing as a community tempban with mentoring afterwards. That's something that would have to be decided by the ArbComm or agreed to voluntarily. Gehockteh leber 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And one of these days, Lucy really is going to hold the football and let Charlie Brown kick it, right? Gzuckier 21:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the most vacuous non-apology I've seen here in a while. No direct acknowledgment of his extensive sock puppetry and recent disruption with anon IPs, but plenty of hedging. Again, Homey has earned nothing less than a community ban; he's wasted literally a half dozen previous chances to reform and community goodwill in turn causing way too much ill will and disruption. What makes anyone think he isn't pulling the community's chain yet one more time, how much time is the community willing to waste on one chronic malcontent? FeloniousMonk 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I support permaban. This has wasted more than enough time. KillerChihuahua 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I do as well, per Humus sapiens. This user has shown, over and over again, that he can't be trusted. AnnH ♫ 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this fellow should be banned. The case is obvious. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with those above supporting a permaban as he has shown time after time that he can't be trusted, has wasted enough time and caused too much disruption. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also support a ban. And I agree with KC, this has wasted too much time already. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the user has a long history of violating certain fundemental policies and guidelines. As much as I would like to naïevly assume good faith and trust in the inherent desire of all editors to better wikipedia, I am afraid this editor does not fall into that category. Further, the issues raised by User:MPerel are very distrurbing. That each one of us has a point-of-view is obvious. The beauty of wikipedia is that there exists a (relatively) amicable and effective method to handle such a multiplicty of views (barring the odd edit war every now and then, which usually blow over after a few days anyway). Anyone who is going to abuse the trust of the community to further an agenda by engaging in what amounts to cyber violence, and from which there exists the true fear of out-of-wiki retaliation, is beyond the scope of editing here. I regretfully support a community ban as well. -- Avi 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture block, CJCurrie unblock

The test for a community ban has now formally failed as I have been blocked and unblocked. If someone wants to take this to ArbComm instead then proceed. I would hope though that people will be patient and wait to see how the probation that has been agreed to unfolds. Gehockteh leber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! You don't get to make the rules here. Nice try, though. Jayjg 20:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor do you, Jay. See belowGehockteh leber 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See for instance "I unblocked her because I don't at this time support a ban, and my understanding is that if Admins dispute a ban, then it's not a community ban. (those being ones where user are banned simply because no one else supports unblocking them)."

I understand some people are very upset and I'm sorry for having caused that. If someone wants to take this to ArbComm I certainly understand that but I would ask people first to look at my actual editing over the past week. I have tried very hard to abide by community rules and am committed to continuing to do so. I agreed to create an account rather than edit as an unlogged in IP as I had been doing previously. You can be quite certain that my edits will be scrutinized and that if I step out of line action will be taken. I just ask for some time to demonstrate that I can again be a positive asset to the community. Gehockteh leber 20:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice try again. You're "sorry" for "upsetting" people? Are you sorry for sockpuppeting, though? For lying to the community? Have you admitted that Fullsome prison was your sockpuppet? Have you admitted that Sonofzion was? Have you admitted using open proxies to evade detection of your sockpuppets? The answers are No, No, No, No, and No. Jayjg 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that while Gehockteh Leber was asking us to notice the uncontroversial work he's done over the past week, he failed to mention his controversial contributions through an IP address (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/74.98.247.123) in the three days before the past week. He also did not mention that for most of the week he's been here, his favorite page has been protected anyway. Kla'quot 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this is the same day, and the same page, in which he says, "There is no clear and present danger that justifies a lynch mob." He's not directly calling us a lynch mob -- just making the kind of statement that implies the existence of a lynch mob has been confirmed, or that a lynch mob is known to be forming. This is how he behaves on a day when he's sorry for upsetting people. Kla'quot 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how one admin can undo the will of the community by a simple unblock. But perhaps I'm naive. In any case, I don't think trying to wikilawyer your way out of this supports your apology above. You hope "that people will be patient"? What do you suppose people have been for the past few months as you've continued to edit? I'll express an opinion that may not shared by others who urge a community ban: I'll be sad to see you go. You have a strong POV, and you tend to push it, yes. But I think people who have strong POVs can be an asset to WP, as long as they play by the rules and remain clueful. But you've violated the rules. Again and again. And not allocuted to all that you've done, and offered a generic half-apology for what you have admitted to. I don't know what else to say. It's just depressing. IronDuke 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "undo the will of the community". I undid the will of an administrator who believed "Gehockteh leber" was a sockpuppet. He isn't. "Gehockteh leber" is not under a community ban either. Why then is he banned? CJCurrie 23:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Freakofnurture hasn't even participated in this conversation, and Homey being unblocked by his personal friend CJCurrie matters not one whit. This looks all too much like the time that he used Fullsome prison to try to delete his Israeli apartheid article as a strawman, so that it would be all that much harder to delete afterwards. This process is proceeding, and it appears that there is very strong support for Homey's permanent banning. Jayjg 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I hope you are not implying implying that I am acting as a strawman of Homey, as I would deeply resent such rumors being spread. In fact, I commented on this issue a couple of weeks ago, when I suggested that somebody pick up and resume the arbitration case that was rejected for based on the grossly naive assumption that Homey was no longer editing. —freak(talk) 22:33, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see how you would take it that way, because my wording was bad, but I didn't intend that at all. I'm sure you acted in good faith, and for good reason; my point was that Homey and his friend CJCurrie jumped in and took advantage of this, CJCurrie to unblock, and then Homey to start wikilawyering yet again, claiming that now the entire community banning process had now "formally failed", as if the rules for this had actually been written up somewhere. Jayjg 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I kinda figured that. But thank you for clarifying it for the peanut gallery's benefit. —freak(talk) 22:45, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

This "apology" is a joke. Home used subtle and manipulative sockpuppetry and has been continually disruptive the last few months. He has exausted any reasonable community patience. JoshuaZ 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke, it's not wikilawyering to point out what the test of a community ban has always been and to say that it's inappropriate to arbitrarily change the rules.

I am sorry about everything I've done wrong over the past few months and am very sad to have lost the respect of a lot of people and want to try to earn it back. I've misled people, I've played games, I basically went over the bend. I'm embarassed about it and want to make amends. Gehockteh leber 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, if there is a case here for banning then take it to ArbComm and put it to them. They can implement any interim restrictions they see fit pending a ruling, including a tempban. There is no clear and present danger that justifies a lynch mob. I have been editing civilly and within the rules and if people feel that the problems with my past conduct need to be addressed they can, and should, make a formal ArbComm request. Jimmy has known that I have been editing since I created the account and if he saw a need to ban me some time in the past few days he would have done so. Fred Bauder, an ArbComm member, has been involved in all the discussion and has followed ANI and has said that my apology and suggested course was acceptable. More serious cases than this have been sent to ArbComm rather than dealt with by community ban. Let the ArbComm do its job and judge the matter in a cool, dispassionate manner rather than have it decided by emotions and heat. Gehockteh leber 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• The desire for an ArbCom solution is puzzling and suggests that, by the time a full case went through, the user (not the account name) would have gone on. At the same time, a community block for this account name is going to be insufficient. The only advantage of an ArbCom hearing is that there might be a ruling against the editor under any name/IP/proxy. I do think that an unblocking admin owes the community the courtesy of explaining him or herself in the conversation here, as, if he had felt that way and expressed it, no one would have wasted a block, and we might be swayed by his reasoning, if any. Geogre 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the block was not an implementation of the community ban as per the block comment. I think we are misunderstanding that block and thus the significance of the following unblock. --Deodar 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and the misunderstanding is being deliberately promulgated. Homey is trying to position this as yet another "Get out of jail free" card. Jayjg 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It has never been the case that just because one person unblocks (and the person who unblocked is a friend of Homey) that there is no community will for a ban.

The reason Homey wants an ArbCom case is that he wants to turn it into another circus. SlimVirgin 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, apart from the link I provided earlier, SimonP has also said that the test is whether an admin is willing to unblock.

In any case, I do not *want* an ArbComm case. I would prefer the probationary arrangement with Will or the mentorship arrangement you suggested as well as the voluntary recusal from several articles that I have alerady agreed to. Yesterday, despite the fullsome prison issue, you said:

"Fred, your original suggestion was general probation, and I've not seen a better one since then. But either way, we need to proceed toward a decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)"

Your suggestion above is quite different from a ban. Gehockteh leber 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not as if CJCurrie is a neutral, uninvolved party in unblocking Homey. He's been Homey's good buddy both on the project and off. I find his actions in unblocking a very close personal friend inappropriate, and I suggest to him that he not use his admin tools in matters relating to Homey again. FeloniousMonk 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the block. The unblocking by CJCurrie clearly does not reflect any form of consensus and was highly suspect considering their close personal relationship. FeloniousMonk 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No CJCurrie is not neutral. I support a community ban. No need to drag the community through more of this in another arbcom case. Here’s another taste of some Misplaced Pages violations. Homey and CJCurrie campaign for this Canadian political candidate Marcell Rodden. Marcell is one of the people arrested with Homey as a member of one of the violent activist groups Homey leads. He edits as Mista-X and edits his own article, as does Homey and CJCurrie in their support for their personal friend, a political candidate. I wonder what we’d do if George Bush’s campaign committee members (and George himself) were editing the George Bush article. This is a political machine intent on self-promoting propaganda we are dealing with (just one of Homey's activities), not just an opinionated POV editor wasting our time. --MPerel 21:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is extremely lame... particularly when it is used to gain an advantage in AfD's, RfA's, content disputes... etc. that said this part of WP:BLOCK does say, "Users may also be banned by community consensus — when a user exhausts the community's patience to the point of being blocked and none of the English Misplaced Pages's ~1000 admins will unblock.". User:CJCurrie certainly qualifies as one of the 1000. There is no doubt that preventative action is called for here but I'll add my voice to those who are not calling for a community ban. (→Netscott) 21:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You have a knack for the obvious and a handicap for the subtle. Yes, CJCurrie qualifies (at this present time) as a "one of 1000 admins", but do you really believe he qualifies as a neutral party? Hell, maybe CJCurrie be willing to unblock Homey until the ability to do so is pried from his cold, dead hands, but do we really want that? —freak(talk) 22:56, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Well apart from your somewhat personal attackish comments re: "handicap" I'll respond with the simple observation that you yourself Freakofnurture did not mention "community exhaustion" in your block note. I'm not going to Wikilawyer about the finer details of blocking/banning policy but given this instance of User:CJCurrie's application of an unblock (particularly in light of your own block note) maybe an update on policy is in order? (→Netscott) 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you say you aren't going to wiki-lawyer, I'm going to hold you to that. As for policy updates, yes perhaps we need to codify what's supposed to happen when the "one in a thousand" admin is promptly told where to stick it (not in so many words of course). —freak(talk) 23:09, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Three months ago Homey wormed his way out of his arbitration cases; doing his best to do so again now. In July or early August Thatcher131 brought the idea community ban here and all his accounts were blocked with broad consensus. Fred then unblocked Homey to participate on a arbitration case he filed against Jayjg and a few others. I for one am not going let him lead us down that path again. FeloniousMonk 21:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it was inappropriate for CJCurrie to unblock his personal friend. The more we discover about this whole affair, the slimier it looks. ←Humus sapiens 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Those so far not supporting a permaban: User:Fred Bauder, User:Deodar, User:CJCurrie, User:Netscott. Who else? (→Netscott) 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can count Deodar as against a ban. Where has he recently said he opposes it? Not sure about Fred either. SlimVirgin 22:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What I know about User:Homeontherange is that his editing habits have been geared heavily towards edits that further criticism of Israel. From those calling for this community ban here there appears to be a rather significant preponderance of editors who tend to edit in a moreso pro-Israel fashion. That gives one cause for concern. That said however there is no excusing User:Homeontherange's behavior of a "community exhausting" nature (particularly the sockpuppetry counter to WP:SOCK policy). Given these realities is it really unreasonable to go forward with an ArbCom case? (→Netscott) 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've never edited any of those articles. You need to recheck your assumptions, I think. FeloniousMonk 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, and neither have I. In fact, I'd say that the names we're seeing in this exchange tend to have no character in common at all. I'm sure that the people who have dealt with Israeli issues are fed up with Homeontherange, but it does not follow that their interests in Israel are why nor that anyone who is fed up is interested in Israeli topics. Further, if they were all, 100%, paid JDL members, it wouldn't be germane, except that they would have encountered Homeontherange more frequently. A person's judgment is not impaired by editing on one topic or another (incl. editing on anti-semitic and anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist topics), although the less rational the point of view the more suspect the reason. Geogre 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Having dealt with his Farnsworth socks on a few occasions and looking through his history of game playing and general disruptive activity, I would support a permaban too. He does not seem to have the good of the project in mind and he seems unlikely to change. His responses here, such as his apologies, have been weak and seem to be trying to manipulate the process rather than any truthful meaning. Misplaced Pages would be better off without him.-Localzuk 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the August discussion referred to above. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive126#Blocking User:Homeontherange sockpuppets I forgot I was the first one to propose a ban but there it is in black and white. Apparently it was left with Fred unblocking him to participate in an Arbcom case that was ultimately rejected, and no final status was ever decided on. Sounds familiar. The only thing I know is that I'm not as smart as I was in August and I have no idea what to do, except that the current situation seems untenable by any definition. Thatcher131 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that a community ban is in order. With the possible exception of CJCurrie, the options here appear to be arbitration or a community ban. The outcome of an arbitration case is pretty predictable - this sort of behaviour gets you a ban. Homey's past behaviour, coupled with his rather limited apology, do not bode well for future actions. I don't believe that community bans require unanimity, just overwhelming support. I believe that there is overwhelming support here, and those who oppose it seem opposed to the mechanism of the ban, rather than the eventuality of it. Guettarda 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only opponent. Unless you're going to arbitrarily rewrite the rules for community bans, no such ban currently exists. CJCurrie 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I can see here to take this to ArbCom would be to investigate the role of CJCurrie in this... I sugggest that his unblock of this current sock was unjustified, and the block be reinstated and that be the end of that. If CJCurrie were to turn up and explain the unblock clearly and rationally, maybe let that go, as long as he doesn't reblock, but if not, consider blocking CJCurrie as well... Seriously, if this isn't "exhausted the communities patience", what is? ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems apparent from this thread that the "community" has failed to handle anything, whereas the arbitration committee long before assumed it would:

• Accept; the evidence here is worrying enough that I think we ought to hear a case. Dmcdevit·t 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) With Homeontherange's desysopping request processed, (and now apparently indefinitely blocked) this issue is moot. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse. - SimonP 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reject given that Homey's left. We can always re-open if necessary. James F. (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reject for now Fred Bauder 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How many arbitrators would have rejected the case if they doubted Homey was already considered banned by the "community"? Two? One maybe? —freak(talk) 22:40, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the CJCurrie unblock was with regards to a different matter, not the community ban proposal, see , and Jayjg agreed with my interpretation, see , although I could be wrong since no one has talked to CJCurrie or FreakOfNature. Let's not get too caught up in this for the time being. --Deodar 22:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the unblock message was "not only is this not a sockpuppet, but no one has even alleged that it is a sockpuppet", which seems odd since the user had at that stage already revealed themself to be yet another incarnation of the user, and clearly in blocking the blocking admin had alleged just that. Couple CJCurrie's apparent friendship with the user, his block log which shows he has only ever made three unblocks, this one, one for User:Homeontherange (apparently trying to repair another admins attempt at unblocking) and one unblocking a block he instated himself a few minutes later (indef blocked an IP, unblocked then reblocked for 24 hours), then yes this unblocking does raise plenty of questions. --pgk 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I looked at that myself. It appears that about 10% of Currie's blocking activity is directly related to emancipating Homey. Unacceptable. —freak(talk) 22:58, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, two of my twenty-two blocks/unblocks were related to HotR (even if one of them was only to correct a mechanical glitch). It must be a conspiracy. CJCurrie 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" would imply that multiple administrators are covertly working together to ensure that Homey is always able to edit. I've never implied this. Quite the opposite, administrator CJCurrie appears to be acting (a) overtly, and (b) alone. —freak(talk) 23:59, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Umm, actually no one has come close to implying a conspiracy, what we are alledging, is that you are inappropriately protecting a personal friend.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I've responded to that accusation. I didn't simply disagree with the block; the block was absurd. CJCurrie 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the only thing that is absurd is the fact that you continue to protect Homey, it seems obvious that you simply do not care of the rules that he has broken and the time he has wasted. With every justification you make, with every unblock you enact, your credibility on this matter and indeed your credibility as a wikipedia editor decreases.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your arguing a debatable point as explained a few times and making it very personal. Let's drop this. --Deodar 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Back up a bit: the previous ArbCom case: I must say that I've seen that occur with other cases as well. I understand, with the crippling workload of ArbCom, why folks would prefer to let a case drop if it looks like the problem editor has left, but I've always been against it. It occurred in the Eternal Equinox case as well, as well as some others best not discussed. The point is that "I quit" has become a way for the cornered to get out of the pickle. I really think we need to follow through to at least determine that the behaviors that got to ArbCom were sanctionable or injunctive. Geogre 02:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, this case would be very bad. There is evidence that Misplaced Pages has been used to further the interests of a small extremist political group and its members; evidence of sustained and abusive sockpuppetry (not just multiple accounts) stretching back for a long time; a disturbing lack of honesty; evidence of abuse of admin tools; evidence of bizarre legal threats against Misplaced Pages editors on other websites and by e-mail; legal threats to the Foundation as a result of certain edits. Added up, it paints certain people in a very poor light. No good will come of shining a bright light on this, with all the posts cached by Google and making their way onto other websites, with real identities involved. It's time for cooler heads to prevail and think about long-term, real-life consequences.

The best the ArbCom would do for Homey is reduce his ban to one year, in my view, given the strength of the evidence. Therefore, let's say if he comes back after a year and wants to edit again, we can reconsider, and of course we would if he wanted to change. Indefinite doesn't necessarily mean infinite. SlimVirgin 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie responds

1. I unblocked "Gehockteh leber" because the block was obviously made as the result of a misunderstanding. The blocking admin was under the mistaken impression that "Gehockteh leber" was a Homeontherange sockpuppet. No one has seriously made this suggestion.
2. I "unblocked" Homeontherange several months ago to correct a mechanical glitch. Someone else had attempted to unblock him, and there was a problem with the system that I tried to flush out. (I actually declined to unblock him earlier, to avoid the appearance of a conflict.)
3. Anyone who has followed my contributions to these debates will know that I am extremely scrupulous about blocking and unblocking. (SlimVirgin should be able to verify this.) If there had been a credible rationale for "Gl"'s block, I would not have intervened even if I disagreed. There wasn't.
4. "Gehockteh leber" is not under a community ban, and is not a sockpuppet. Why then is he blocked?

Add: Q. Would I have posted this if my intent was to assist Gl in evading a community ban? A. Of course not. CJCurrie 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked for his long pattern of disruptive editing and abusive sockpuppetry. His actions are far below acceptable and warrant this block. FloNight 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he was blocked because someone thought he was a sockpuppet. What you're suggesting is a community ban, which is not in effect. CJCurrie 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A sockpuppet skirting a community ban then. FeloniousMonk 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely, since a community ban was never imposed. CJCurrie 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bull. And if User:Gehockteh leber is not Homey, then why did he accept responsibility for Homey's misdeeds and offer an apology above? Your attempt at obfuscation here is transparent. FeloniousMonk 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He is blocked because there's an overwhelming consensus that the person operating the account has exhausted the community's patience. SlimVirgin 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he was blocked because someone thought he was a sockpuppet. What you're suggesting is a community ban, which is not in effect. CJCurrie 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, I think you misunderstand how and why many community bans start. Often a single editor does the block and then other editor discuss and agree to leave it in place. There is not a set way this has to happen. --FloNight 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting if it's accurate. It's also irrelevant. "Gehockteh leber" was not blocked due to a "community ban". He was blocked because someone mistakenly believed he was a sockpuppet. CJCurrie 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you feel he's not a sockpuppet, and why you feel I'm under some sort of mistaken impression kthx. —freak(talk) 23:14, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

He supposidely was going to stick to one account and edit peacefully as some negotiations were ongoing as to future status with SV, Fred Bauder and others. That was the account. Thus in that sense, there was some understanding that this account was not a pure sockpuppet, sort of like a new main account. SV, Jayjg, Avraham, CJCurrie, Fred and others were aware it was HotR and were letting it go pending negotiations or otherwise. --Deodar 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. "Gehockteh leber" did not try to conceal his identity, and did not use any other accounts. The "Homeontherange" account has been dormant for months. This isn't sockpuppetry, it's a new account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJCurrie (talk • contribs) 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, CJC, do you concede that Fullsome prison was a sockpuppet, or do you class that as another alternate account, along with his (at least) 20 others? SlimVirgin 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Homey would have likely been formally banned for some duration by the arbitration committee had the case not died in infancy, and he knew it. His main account was dormant, and it was assumed that he had left the project, which he obviously has not. In fact he has been editing all along under various identities, with the mighty expectation of a clean slate. —freak(talk) 23:49, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

I think you have too much invested in that "likely". CJCurrie 23:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're trading opinions, I think you have too much invested in Homey's freedom. —freak(talk) 00:13, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC)

So ... he's not a sockpuppet, and he's not under a community ban. Why then is he blocked? CJCurrie 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are pressuring me to admit that I blocked Homey's sockpuppet for the sole purpose of exposing your loyalty to him (or, more bluntly, baiting you into unblocking him), you're giving me too much credit. Such sentiment was already self-evident. —freak(talk) 23:49, Nov. 6, 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I thought you misinterpreted the situation; I wasn't accusing you of some byzantine plot. CJCurrie 23:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, your last few comments are the most brazen acts of wikilawyering that I've seen since a half-a-page ago when Homeonetherange's stated his interpretation of why he cannot be community banned at all .- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an argument, or are you just smearing? CJCurrie 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out that there is little substance to your justifications above, like most of Homeontherange's recent posts here, they seem to be almost completely based on novel interpretations of wikipedia policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Novel, like the belief that community bans don't have to be unanimous? CJCurrie 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was and remains a community ban on Homey, and comments on this page attest to its broad support, despite your furious arm waving to the contrary. FeloniousMonk 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What impressionistic definition of "community ban" are you using? CJCurrie 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose he is not using one that says "If an editor is soley supported by a single personal friend, he is not allowed to be community banned".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who objects. If the rules still matter, he's not under a community ban. CJCurrie 00:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I object to the block but will limit my activity to posting whatever appeal he wished to file at Requests for arbitration. Fred Bauder 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I don't think you can be involved in any arbitration case or any appeal, not as an arbitrator, given your close involvement in this. The same applies to Jayjg of course. SlimVirgin 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was Fred undoing a community block that got us here, so I very much hope no one will try to do that again, or we'll be back here in another few weeks. SlimVirgin 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No doubt he'll ask to be unblocked again to do so:. I'd object to doing that one again as it's what brought us here now, and these being the results: Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Homeontherange, Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Homeontherange FeloniousMonk 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Which you've just undeleted without due process. Charming. CJCurrie 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

An open question, why were they deleted in the first place? Because we really believed Homey had left the project? —freak(talk) 00:04, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC)

Without "due process"? It is fairly common for things to be undeleted when applicable, on an administrator's own judgement. When someone wants data from a deleted page, they post on Requests for Undeletion, an admin reads the request, and says Yes, or No, with out any process at all. The pages were deleted because a user left, supposedly forever. Yet this same user is the topic of three sections on this page now, wasting yet more time, and all you can think of to criticise is that SV made the very relevent past of this user available? I certainly hope I am missing something significant here. KillerChihuahua 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest you pay more attention to details. I was criticizing FeloniousMonk, not SlimVirgin. CJCurrie 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an e-mail correspondence that lasted ten days during which a suggestion was made by a third party that Homey should leave permanently, and that if he did so, the sockpuppet category could be deleted as a courtesy. In an effort to show good faith, I deleted the category, but then Homey said he had not in fact agreed to leave. SlimVirgin 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Er ... I believe the page was only deleted (for the second time) a week and a half ago. Am I missing something here? CJCurrie 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you "er" is supposed to mean or imply. I said: I deleted the cat as a courtesy based on my misunderstanding that he was volunteering to leave. SlimVirgin 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I was referring to the first category link, which was deleted by Fred. CJCurrie 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Given the close involvement of certain editors, I propose that Fred Bauder, Jayjg and CJCurrie, rescuse themselves from this discussion, and allow other non-involved admins to look at the evidence presented and decide if a community ban can be applied in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A large percentage people in this thread have conflicts of interest in one way or another. If you want a formal process I would recommend just going ArbCom. --Deodar 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• While I have no doubt certain contributors will assent to your suggestion, I see no reason to recuse myself from a discussion forum. CJCurrie 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Or we could actually open the aborted arbitration case. The evidence is there, with fresh material to be added. It may amount to World War Six when it's all said and done, but one would hope it puts an end to the wiki-lawyering and deliberately self-serving interpretations of policy that have plagued this discussion. —freak(talk) 00:19, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture's suggestion here is very sensible. (→Netscott) 00:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, Netcott, if any of you has the stomach and the stamina to push for re-opening that case, so be it, but what one can gather from this discussion is that there is overwhelming support for a perma-ban. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Jossi, there definitely is an appearance of a general consensus here. Despite my disagreeance with the ban I am definitely in accord with agreeing to what a general consensus arrives at. See my comment about that here. (→Netscott) 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't be participating in any ArbCom unless something extremely exceptional happens. I'm done for the evening anyways. I think the matter has been talked to death anyways. --Deodar 00:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing something here. Could someone explain how the community is expected to respond to a user that has 19 confirmed sockpuppet accounts (see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Homeontherange) ? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually it isn't that hard, the problem is that Homeontherange was an admin and had made a lot of valuable contributions besides the other stuff. It is a unique case in a few respects. --Deodar 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So, are we saying that if you are a useful contributor and an admin, you can have 19 sockpuppet accounts and continue editing wikipedia under a different user name? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators are expected to recuse from cases when they're too involved in the issues, not recuse themselves from the issues if they think a case might be on the way. --Cyde Weys 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Freak's suggestion amounts to more spilled ink. Please - we have spilled enough, as I said above. Nobody needs any more evidence here!! - crz crztalk 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Spilled ink, yes. That's why I had suggested updating the old pages rather than starting new ones. How long do you think this could be put to rest before the cycle repeats. Do we want to leave the door open to new and more complex loopholes by which Homey might not actually be banned? —freak(talk) 01:14, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this circus-like atmosphere is entirely the wrong place for determining whether or not to ban someone? CJCurrie 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You might, but you were instrumental in bringing this particular circus to town. 6SJ7 02:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree. I had no involvement in starting up this AN/I. CJCurrie 05:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You've been directly involved in supporting the disruption and excusing the sockpuppetry. SlimVirgin 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I reject the premise of your accusations. Anyway, this is going nowhere. Again. CJCurrie 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom either way

I predict that this is going to be an ArbCom case either way. Either the insistence of an community ban is pushed through despite that the ArbCom themselves state:

The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.

and the disagreement of several admins on this ban (Fred Bauder, CJCurrie, me, see above for others), and it will result in an appeal, or it is not pushed through, so there is the need for a case to perma ban him.

As for the reference to earlier rejected cases, they all revolved around his behaviour as an Admin, not as a general user. What we have now is months old incidents that will be chewed out again. But I guess there is no other way because only a formal decision from either the ArbCom or Jimmy will resolve this continued battle. -- Kim van der Linde 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd love that, Kim. This would be your fifth kick at that particular ArbCom can, wouldn't it? The term "vexatious litigant" springs to mind. Jayjg 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde , Your statement is not accurate. The last RFAr case was one that Homey started and many users including myself added evidence of abusive sockpuppetry and disruptve editing. You defended him at the time if memory serves me correct. --FloNight 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kim, as you know from discussion elsewhere, arbcom have also said in the Tommstein decision that the community may ban "when there is consensus in favor of the block." They're not clear. Also, could you reply to Jay's question? I'm concerned that a person who has stated they are leaving WP, and possibly posting on WR, is still here as an admin. IronDuke 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, stop it. If you are so concerned about KvdL, then I assume you are equally concerned about FloNight and SlimVirgin? ...given this: . Lets move on. Regards, Huldra 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (PS: If my memory serves me well; Slim also "left" before X-mas last year. She (obviously) changed her mind. So what? No big deal, IMHO. Again: lets move on.

Your memory does not serve you right, Huldra, as is so often the case. SlimVirgin 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The main difference being that Kim's claims she has left are unconditional, and she keeps re-iterating that she has left, over and over, for various and multiple reasons. She's said it as recently as today. The other difference being that she is trying out people on Misplaced Pages Review, which is really beyond the pale. Jayjg 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

@Huldra: I am not at all concerned about Slim, or Flo. Neither of them claimed they were leaving. The diff you refer to merely points to (understandable) frustration that yet another troll was getting a second chance (who'd already had many). Some folks assumed Slim had left out of that frustration, but that didn't make it so. Kim has contributed little recently other than make other people unhappy. And her off-wikipedia activities regarding people who edit here, if they involve other editor's identities, are entirely unacceptable. I don't even know what "moving on" would mean in this context. IronDuke 03:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction: I think that quote is from the St. Christopher ArbCom decision, not Tommstein. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for the correction, NYB. IronDuke 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages works on consensus... although the blocking policy said if 1 of 1000 admins doesn't unblock (which as of now has been updated) it also has had "strong consensus" wording. If I'm not mistaken, the consensus here looks to be pretty strong. (→Netscott) 01:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly an RFAR at this point would be worse than pointless, it would only add to the already notable disruption he's caused. Considering the abundanceof evidence of Homey's disruptive tendencies, does anyone doubt what the outcome would be? Furthermore, the last time Homey was unblocked to participate in an RFAR he artfully dodged the proceedings and then tried to connive the community that his very specific unblocking was actually a general unblocking and then proceeded to renew his disruption of the project, the repercussions of which are are still dealing with here right now. Had his original community ban been left in place we wouldn't be having this discussion again. The community ban has been restored and rightfully remains in place. FeloniousMonk 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is something to remember, folks: community exhaustion bans and ArbCom proceedings are not mutually exclusive, especially with a user who shifts identities and has a medusa head of accounts. In other words, a community blocked person can still post to talk pages, and we could make it possible to edit at the /Evidence pages, if necessary, but I do think there's some value, however slight, in getting consensus that this editor, not this account, be blocked at the first infraction. Months of nose tweaking isn't helping anyone. Geogre 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they kind of are; a community ban pre-empts an Arbitration case; indeed, sometimes the Arbitration Committee practically begs the community to ban an editor, so that there doesn't have to be a case. See, for example, . Jayjg 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the point being made at the outset of the thread is that if the community ban is put in place, ArbCom can be presented with a case (from the editor in question) appealing the ban, so while the initial case is preempted, the matter can ultimately come before the committee anyway. Of course, ArbCom then would have discretion whether to accept the case (e.g. User:Ackoz) or reject it and leave the ban in place (e.g. User:Bonaparte). Newyorkbrad 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly an RFAR at this point would be worse than pointless, it would only add to the already notable disruption he's caused. Considering the abundanceof evidence of Homey's disruptive tendencies, does anyone doubt what the outcome would be? Furthermore, the last time Homey was unblocked to participate in an RFAR he artfully dodged the proceedings and then tried to connive the community that his very specific unblocking was actually a general unblocking and then proceeded to renew his disruption of the project, the repercussions of which are are still dealing with here right now. Had his original community ban been left in place we wouldn't be having this discussion again. The community ban has been restored and rightfully remains in place. FeloniousMonk 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to subpage

My move of this thread to a subpage was met with opposition (see my talk page). Seeing how this thread is close to half of the bd's size (110 of 250k), and that the discussion is ongoing and will only get larger, I think it'd be helpful. Who supports continuing this discussion on a subpage? El_C 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that people are coming here to look for it, and that in moving it, it won't be so easy to find in the archives. I think we should leave it here for the time being and re-assess if it gets much bigger. SlimVirgin 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it on the main page for now, it seems to be an active topic. It's important to get the widest possible consensus on something like this, which means having it highly visible so as many people as possible can comment. Moving it to a sub-page will not provide any particular advantage, and will have the disadvantage of potentially removing it from public view. Jayjg 04:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just move it to El_C's talk page. Actually the discussion seems to have died down somewhat. We get firestorms like this on a fairly regular basis it seems. Nothing to lose sleep over. A proactive approach to transplanting threads that really belong on some other forum would be helpful though. —freak(talk) 04:48, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; AN/I discussions should happen on the AN/I board, not on a user Talk: page. Or was that suggestion in jest? Jayjg 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fon, it needs to stay here so people can find it and then be archived. It wouldn't make sense to have it on a user subpage. SlimVirgin 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was in jest. Crikey. Misunderstandings like these sure do contribute to forum bloat though, I must admit. Sorry. —freak(talk) 04:56, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Fon. I'm suffering from a severe sense of humor failure today. I wonder why. :-) SlimVirgin 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the key search word would be "Home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelope play. Where seldom is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day," which is (partially) in the header. El_C 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't expect opposition to the move (not the first ANI move of the sort on my part), but oh well. El_C 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would create archival irregularities: "143", "144", "145", "Homey", "146", "147", ... —freak(talk) 05:11, Nov. 7, 2006 (UTC)

LOL! SlimVirgin 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AN/ANI subpages are not archived. El_C 05:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the periodicity for Homey subpages, though? Georgewilliamherbert 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it :( - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll put a redirect for now. --Deodar 05:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This has gotten absurdly long

This has gotten absurdly long. I tried to get a handle on it, but I'm not willing to lose a night's sleep reading it all. Three remarks:

1. It seems quite obvious from the above, even on a cursory reading, that User:Gehockteh_leber was blocked on the assumption that he was a sockpuppet and that User:CJCurrie unblocked him because he felt that the assumption was wrong. I see no reason for recriminations on either side over that disagreement, which seems clearly to have been an honest one on both sides. If he is a sockpuppet, can't we go the usual route with usercheck etc. to verify that? Nothing with that account seems like an emergency; if there is something to be discussed about that account, can we please take that up on another thread, rather than in something that is beginning to approach the length of a 19th century Russian novel?
2. Can someone try to summarize neutrally the recent issues about HotR's behavior (given that it seems even HotR agrees that there were problems with his past behavior)?
3. I don't see how moving this thread to another page and placing a link to that page from where the discussion has so far taken place would make it any harder to find. - Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry can't agree with your point 1 at all, given that CJCurrie is fairly friendly with HoTR the fact that he didn't see it as a sockpuppet by using some wikilaweyering reasoning and unblocked is attrocious. As noted above CJCurrie does not regularly unblock users, he didn't stumble across this. as already noted many times there are 1000 other admins any of whom he could have contacted and asked to take a look, he didn't instead he went ahead and unblocked his friend. Similarly the unblock screen says "Remember, there was probably a good reason for the person to be blocked. Please discuss the block with the blocking sysop before unblocking." did this happen? To me this shows, at best, very poor judgement. --pgk 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, you asked for a summary. Briefly, Homey has been sockpuppeting with at least 20 accounts, and also using anon IPs, and has used them in various ways that were disruptive and time-consuming to deal with: for example, he used some of them to continue disputes with editors one of his other accounts was in conflict with. It's been going on for at least six months and people are fed up with it, and have recommended a community ban under the "exhausted the community's patience" provision of WP:BLOCK: at least 29 editors support it, 21 of them admins. The CJCurrie thing is a bit of a red herring: Homey was blocked, CJ unblocked him, he was reblocked. That's about the size of it. SlimVirgin 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a list of people who support this block? (gasp, a straw poll???). Add my name to the list in case there's a tally. Thanks for the precis, Slim... ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper full protection of Misplaced Pages:Avoid using meta-templates by Omegatron

Omegatron was recently involved in a content dispute over Misplaced Pages:Avoid using meta-templates. Omegatron reverted the page to his preferred version, and fully protected it. This action is inconsistent with the letter and the intent of the protection policy, which states that

Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.

John254 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The situation appears to be in hand now, thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not "involved in an edit war". If you look at my edits, I did nothing but revert to the stable, rejected version. I did not "express opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection". I was actually criticized for not being involved in the content dispute. Please look at the page history.

The page is rejected. Netoholic's been banned for a year from editing the page in the past because of his disruptions revolving around it. Now that he's not banned from it, he's trying to resurrect it by changing one paragraph. The info he's trying to add is not policy/guideline material. It belongs on an informative page like Misplaced Pages:Template namespace. Changing the page a little bit does not suddenly validate its fundamental concept.

A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction.

It would be nice if the unprotecting admin had consulted me first. — Omegatron 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You were involved in an edit war (reverting is an edit), and moreover, you've been a long-time participant on the talk page. You are -involved- in the page and should not have protected it. No amount of poisoning the well by talking about me, blockquoting pages, or complaining about other admins is going to change the fact that you should not have protected the page immediately after reverting to your preferred version. -- Netoholic @ 10:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Journalist's comment on Talk:Celine Dion

User:Journalist, an administrator, has made a threat towards another user here. . Is this acceptable behaviour for an admin? If so I'm quitting, if not what can be done? Many thanks for looking --86.135.146.160 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not as much a threat as a warning. Telling someone they'll regret it if they turn a talk page into a battleground? I don't see that as much of a threat. Stick to the rules and no harm will come to you. Pretty simple, really. Perhaps it's borderline incivil but I don't think too much of it. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think that comments like that are at all acceptable. We're supposed to have civil frickin' discourse and it doesn't matter if that doesn't explicitly fall into Misplaced Pages:X policy perfectly. That is clearing threatening a user, vaguely or otherwise, and that is simply not an acceptable way of discussing a page. Were it not an admin saying that he probably already would've been blocked. I'm going to go leave a note on Journalist's page. Snoutwood (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't believe that Journalist is acting in bad faith, nor that this should become a big issue, but at the same time I can't hear comments like that condoned (which is what provoked my above comment). Snoutwood (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Journalist looks like he's threatening to use the Eternal Equinox ArbCom ruling against Velten. I don't know if it's considerate to give a fair warning when probation may be broken... Hbdragon88 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see (I had to look this up, so for the sake of reference, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox#Remedies). I still think that politeness is not sacrificable, and that it would have been hugely more appropriate to mention that and list it on WP:AE. Snoutwood (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the 'threatened' user's edit history, it looks like the admin was simply referencing their past behaviour and warning them not to. Ok, it wasn't the best way to say it - but then again I may be missing something (as the 'you'll regret it' part is in quotes). Maybe Journalist should come here and comment on it?

Also, to Snoutwood, no user would have been block for a single, borderline uncivil comment, they may have been warned about it but that is all.-Localzuk 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, my point was more one of "I've seen new users blocked for saying things like that, so to say that this is perfectly O.K. for an admin is ridiculous." Snoutwood (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence to show that new users are blocked for a single uncivil comment without a warning? That is what I mean, the normal course of action is simply to warn a user - regardless of whether they are unregistered, new, an admin etc... So my comment is not that using 'incivility' (even though I don't think this is a case of that) is acceptable, but more that no user would be blocked for a single comment.-Localzuk 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to go through two years worth of block logs to prove this point, and you can substitute block with warn and my point reads identically. I fully acknowledge that normally, if not always, users are warned for single offenses rather than blocked. Snoutwood (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment I made was a warning, not a threat. Velten has had a long history of disruptive behaviour including sock puppetry, blocks, legal threats, trolling, lying the list goes on. I know from very personal experience how the editor behaves. Even after going through that lengthy RFA (and threatening to leave Misplaced Pages 1 million times), she has engaged in another messy battle with an Admin and has been blocked.

In essence, yes, you guys are missing a lot of things, and in no way do I feel I was out of line in my comment.

PS:Guys, can we format our arguments properly so it's easier to read? Orane (talk • cont.) 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Or you'll regret it" is clearly a threat, and the comment that you start off with, "all talk and no sources," reads as taunting. I honestly don't want to make this a big deal: I just got into it becuase I didn't want to enforce the impression that (what I percieve as) incivility is O.K. There's a lot of ways to say what you wanted to say without being that provocative, and at least at first perusal that appears to be one of the only comments you've made to this user on that page (which makes "all talk and no sources" sound even stranger).

I don't disagree that Velten has been a problem (I am not familiar enough with this case to have any other opinion on that issue), and am fully prepared to agree that she may be a problem on the Celine Dion page. However, I think that you could be more civil. Snoutwood (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first off, if you are adamant in believing that my comment was a threat, then there's no point in me commenting on the matter for it will do me no good. Secondly, a small note on my talk page about the issue would have been far more appropriate than coming here. What do you want me to do now? Apologise to Velten? I will not. As I said, you guys don't know the hell she has put me through. In any case, this discussion is over from my end. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued on talk page. Snoutwood (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Velten has been engaging in vexatious editing several places and times. As a version of user:Eternal Equinox, he has demonstrated previous tendencies toward picking at people and articles to get attention. If he is going back to his old behaviors, then the previous blocks can pick up from where they left off, IMO. He can be a serious time sink. Geogre 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The remedy in this case is probation, allowing Velten to be banned from articles he disrupts for a week at a time (a rather unusual limitation). Any (uninvolved) admin can apply the article ban (use {{subst:User article ban}} or post some diffs at WP:AE. Thatcher131 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Propose community ban. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) was last straw for me. To the best of my knowledge (anecdotal), HH is already banned on he:wiki. - crz crztalk 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Got a bit narky with User:Yanksox on Yanksox's talk page about an article he deleted. Then it seems that Haham tried to get the guideline everyone referred to in the AfD deleted? Excellent. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I think it'd be better to send this to be dealt by ArbCom instead. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • W/ such an extensive block log, i also agree. -- Szvest 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't speak about his/her past history, but I don't see a violation of rules or guidelines recently. I would not endorse a ban. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • With that many block log entries... I think we can all agree he violated the rules numerous times. I really question whether or not recentness really matters... very few repeated rules violaters ever clean up their act and stop being a pain in the ass. Opinionated users remain opinionated, and this guy repeatedly goes around his blocks to continue his ranting. I think I'm gonna have to support an RFAr if one is put forth.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering I was the closing admin on that guideline MFD, I also support sending Haham hanuka to ArbCom. --Coredesat 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Community patience has been worn out, but I do endorse taking this to Arbcom. Yanksox 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that haham hanuka has been indefinitely blocked from the Hebrew Misplaced Pages. The protected user page reads: "haham hanuka is an internet troll... El_C 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

MatthewFenton (talk · contribs)

Per WP:WAF (which I personally think is a very well written and useful guideline), I tagged a couple of articles with the In-universe template. User:MatthewFenton decided to revert these calling them "trolling". Regardless of whether I was correct or incorrect in adding these templates (I will note that the Leoben Conoy article doesn't even mention the name of the actor who plays the role), I don't don't believe it warrants calling me a "troll". I would appreciate it if someone would please remind him on the proper way to constructively deal with other. 75.105.178.150 17:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your above message prooves you didnt actually read the articles.. also the time span in between edits looks suspicious and you are an anon and hence a quick conclusion leads to trolling of articles.. if you had opend up a conversation though at these articles stating what you thought was "in-universe" it would of looked much better. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Read what it says at the top: This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department or the place to go for dispute resolution. It doesn't take admin access to sort out a problem like this. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if that was a bad-faith edit, nothing warrants that any other user to call that trolling. It can be contrued as a personal remark. Matthew, please assume good faith while dealing with other editors and try to discuss issues with them and more seriously don't bite the newcomers. — Nearly Headless Nick <;;;;/span> 09:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:217.235.243.238, vandalism and civility issues

Some other editors and I have reverted this user for adding comments like "edward battye rules!!!!!!!!!!!!" to the current featured article. I reported him to WP:AIV but then the user insisted that it was a mistake and that he was only reverting vandalism. This is nonetheless very peculiar as he added the same line twice and some of the reverts were about reverting his own edits (i.e. capitalising "A" and then changing them to "a" and viceversa). The user replied using explective language on his talk page and removing warnings. He seems to have quite a good grasp of wikipedia terminology to be a newbie (i.e. AGF). Recently, he has started to leave test warnings on my userpage to make a point. At the same time, he has started to contribute to the article. However, he has a big civility problem indeed and seems completely unrepentant. I would appreciate if someone else can look into this. Regards, Asterion 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I just found out he reported me for vandalism for removing his feeble warnings off my talk page. Unbelievable... Asterion 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I added the edward line above by accident while reverting the removal of useful changes. After I got a little brathing space, I removed all vandalisms I accidently added .

I never knew about his AIV until another editor told me about it after it was already done.

I did not initially change "A"s to "a"s or vice versa.

Yeah, I did, though I never attacked anyone personally.

I did not remove any warnings except the ones Asterion added while vandalizing my discussion page.

I am not a newbie, and never claimed I was. What is it with you guys to never get that right?

I indeed left warnings on Asterion's user page because he removed discussion items. See WP:AIV for details.

I started to contribute to the article before any of this hit the fan. --217.235.243.238

Quite obviously "my removal of content" was nothing but an edit conflict causing by editing through a diff. edits screen, therefore giving me no warning of you editing at the same time. I treat all users, newbies or not, with respect and expect likewise. Asterion 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, why didn't you say so earlier? I don't use diff.edits screen (or even know what that is), maybe you shouldn't if they destroy data.

That got me laughing, thanks! A question: If someone puts a vandalism warning on your /Talk, do you always ignore that without even looking what's going on? --217.235.243.238

I do recognise disruption to make a point when I see it, in the same way I recognise uncivil comments towards me and other users. There is no need to make wikipedia an unpleasant place for anyone. Please be civil. Regards, Asterion 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please share with us, as I cannot see WP:POINT in any way involved.

Your (collective) rv attempts were clumsy, Daniel5127 fingering of my /Talk was misplaced, and I don't see the problem with the last one.

You, on the other hand, have an axe to grind. Calm down and take a break. --217.235.243.238

Vandalism isnt a mistake you make, you either vandalise or you dont - theres no middle line.. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So I don't. --217.235.243.238

"I removed all vandalisms I accidently added" - yes, apparently you do. Crimsone 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(Ah great, bickering about words is just what we need.) I don't vandalized, I only accidently added text that should not have been added. Vandalism implies intent. --217.235.243.238

I merely pointed out what the comment was responding to (ie, the contradictory nature of your previous words, which appeared not to have been noticed by yourself) - I'm not one for bickering. I'm merely the sort of person that explains the misunderstood. Crimsone 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please quit this bickering between the two of you. This is not the place for it. Incidentally, when you edit through page diffs, it's pretty difficult to botch up a vandalism revert unless there are multiple vandal edits and you fail to go all the way back. Even then, it isn't really botched as all you have to do is go to the correct old version of the page, and click edit to revert from there. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an indication of any edits submitted in the mean time, but it's easy enough to revert back and fix if you notice tha you've done it (and you should always check for it). I'm not even going to suggest dispute resolution as this particular dispute is quite trivial - all everybody needs to do is follow policy, and avoid making mountains out of molehills. Crimsone 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In particular I think both sides should admit they've made mistakes and get it over with. I saw this begin almost an hour ago and it's all pretty ridiculous. --Wafulz 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --217.235.243.238

Good to hear :) Lets hope that's the end of the matter. Crimsone 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In almost a year doing RC patrols, I have never encountered a case of accidental vandalism, but I am willing to afford him the benefit of doubt. Sorry for wasting your time, folks. I should know my beans better. Good night, Asterion 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez

Moved at Jayjg's suggestion from WP:AN - Jmabel | Talk 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We've got what I think is becoming a problem with Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez (talk · contribs). Jimenez was a prominent early member of the Young Lords, and is one of the people keeping alive the flame of that organization. The Young Lords in their heyday were certainly notable, and—from everything I understand—Jimenez was a notable member of their leadership. However, he was not as uniquely notable as is suggested in his own recent edits. He has been doing a lot egotistical writing about himself that runs up against WP:AUTO, and from what I can tell he is not doing it all under this one account: 207.241.132.148 (talk · contribs), 207.241.134.232 (talk · contribs) and Jose jimenez (talk · contribs) are clearly him (not just based on content but on idiosyncratic punctuation).

I've tried to warn him gently on his talk page, and to suggest what might be some more appropriate topics for him to write about, but it isn't getting any results. I don't want to get into a war with him, and I don't want to drive him away: this is a guy who doubtless could bring a lot to Misplaced Pages if someone can get through to him what this is actually about.

I reverted several of his edits once at Young Lords; he has re-introduced roughly the same, anonymously. I would appreciate if a few more people get involved in this, because I don't want it to get personal. - Jmabel | Talk 02:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like in the roughly 24 hours since I wrote this, no one has touched the Young Lords article. Again, I'm asking that someone else look in on this, because I don't want this to get personal between me and him. - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the page on a version that will, ideally, deal with WP:AUTO issues and hopefully bring him to the Talk: page. Please let me know if that helps, as I don't really know anything about this topic. Jayjg 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith

Timelist (talk · contribs) has been adding the following description to several articles relevant to journalistic fraud, "consistently conned, fooled, and duped the newspaper and its readers, over and over again, on many important news stories" (e.g., New York Times, Jayson Blair, The New Republic, Stephen Glass, etc). I left a note on Timelist's talk page explaining to the relatively new user that these edits were POV and created an unencyclopedic tone through hyperbole. In response, Timelist blanked my comment on his/her talk page, said "Why are you trying to minimize the seriousness of journalistic fraud?" on my talk page, and, after I cautioned Timlist to adhere to WP:AGF, wrote "Please do not cite policies you don't comprehend." in an edit summary reverting my edits to an article. Aside from the POV and WP:NOT problems inherent in Timelist's edits, I found Timelist's post on my talk page and edit summary to be evidence of bad faith. Perhaps Timelist needs to be encouraged by others to adhere to WP:AGF? · j e r s y k o talk · 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your objections to me in a coherent way before wasting the valuable time of administrators. I'm a reasonable person and am willing to listen to coherent arguments. I just prefer straight talk in encyclopedias, not ambiguous terms like "journalistic fraud" Timelist 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Timelist just implied that I have some sort of "personal agenda" despite my pleas to assume good faith and explanation that, in my nearly two years of editing here, I have followed a consistent pattern of fighting POV and unencyclopedic language (which explains my dealings with Timelist, it's certainly not because of some "personal agenda" relating to journalistic fraud). I think this behavior reiterates the need for someone else to remind Timelist of AGF. I don't plan to discuss this situation with Timelist any further, for what its worth. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All persons have agendas. How is this assuming bad faith? Let's not take up valuable time and space playing word games Timelist 03:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, saying that people have personal agendas is considered assuming bad faith. We are not here to impose our ideologies upon the encyclopedia; rather, we are here to build it as the most impartial possible. --physicq (c) 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen far too much edit warring and hostile edit summaries. If you continue in this way you could very well be blocked.--Jersey Devil 04:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

linkspammer with sockpuppet?

Mccain.blogging seems to be an SPA account for a linkspammer. this edit might be a sockpuppet judging by the content. --Doc Tropics 08:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, now that's what I call responsive. Thanks :) --Doc Tropics 09:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Sun newspaper's report on the Borat article

On The Sun's website, here, it has falsely claimed that Misplaced Pages has banned users from editing the page - yet, it's still editable by anyone, and it looks as if this report could be giving Misplaced Pages a bad image. I've already watchlisted the page; please do so, as vandalism seems to be becoming more frequent. --SunStar Net 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is semi protected. --Salix alba (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairly customary when we're getting slashdotted, but these two are going to be lingering sores (except that The Sun's report makes the Borat article "in the news" and therefore eligible for the slashdotted template & s-protection), so we're just going to have to sit on top of them as if they were toddlers in traffic. Geogre 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages may be put into legal trouble 65.0.101.151 (talk · contribs)

This user has placed personal information on Misplaced Pages without consent and should be permanently blocked. Misplaced Pages may be held liable for this user's actions. Please refer to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sasha_Sokol&diff=85990352&oldid=85834424

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paulina_Rubio&diff=85989277&oldid=85923346

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thal%C3%ADa&oldid=85989528

History info should be cleaned up and the named "person's" info should be removed as there is no proof the named person created the links (spam). Misplaced Pages could be held liable for defamation. Please remember that IP numbers may be shared by multiple users. Please refer to 65.0.101.151 (talk · contribs) contributions page.

Jack 11:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you not to make legal threats? All further correspondence should be directed to the Wikimedia Foundation. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with these reverts of your atrocious linkspam. —Cryptic 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he has done nothing wrong apparently, unless a specific diff is found... -- Grafikm 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

65.0.101.151 (talk · contribs) violated privacy issues, which can lead to legal action. Starblue9 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User's first edit... -- Grafikm 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont post personal info on the web then. "To every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the IP adding the linkspam appears to have started the "flinging personal information about" thing (check out the history in the Sasha Sokol link above) - the complaint is rather curious, no. *headshake* Not to mention that 65.* seems to be doing a fine job of removing advertising links and material from a number of articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages’s double standards?

I've noticed that for a 3RR report some users received 2 weeks block and others received nothing.

On articles related to Transnistria I've had to deal with edit warrior User:William Mauco (a correspondent for Tiraspol Times see the end of the article - an on-line newspaper which supports Transnistrian regime and Russian expansionism), for whom I alone counted 6 different cases of 3RR violations, which I reported. He was never blocked. He was "warned" twice , ; once, the report was rejected because I did not indicate a "Previous version" ; I simply received no reply in the fourth case , and in the last two cases, which took place in 4th November, a Russian admin (not coincidentally Russian) protected the respective articles on which the 3RR had been violated but did not also block the guilty user , .

I am calling attention to this double standard (in fact to the lack of any standards) in which one user receives two weeks for violating the 3RR while another violates the rule six times without even being blocked once. It seems for me a pattern of 3RR violation with some admin's acceptance. I myself have violated the 3RR once some time ago because of said edit warrior (I also didn’t receive a block, I refrained myself from Misplaced Pages for 24 h after that violation).--MariusM 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question. I believe that he will be making his comments shorty. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nearly Headless, thanks for the chance to comment. Most, if not all, of the above is misleading, starting with the now-almost-daily disqualification from MariusM that I write for the Tiraspol Times (he uses that frequently on lots of pages against me as a way to imply that I have a conflict of interest.) I have merely a single unpaid guest comment once on the OpEd page, which is the section where Letters to the Editor go. My own nationality (I am from India) and that of User:Alex Bakharev (from Russia) is also wholly irrelevant to any technical evaluation of 3RR. MariusM himself has violated 3RR more than the single instance which he claims but it is not my style to report anyone, and I very rarely do so. Another admin, User:Firsfron, has commented on some of this and may want to give his thoughts on the current debacle. I personally feel that I am being wikistalked and continually reverted by User:MariusM and I have already discussed this problem with a third admin, User:Khoikhoi. He has followed the problematic issue as well. I have not been wanting to take action yet, but I am concerned about the increasing hostility of this situation and will probably need to file an RfC if it escalates. - Mauco 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, if you claim that I violated 3RR more than once, please prove it. I have the same feeling as you, as being wikistalked. You were reverted not only by me, but by other users also. I mention that tommorow I will not be on the internet, but from aftertommorow I am ready to meet again with my friend Mauco and answer at all his concerns about me. I call him a friend as I talk with him more than with my wife - talk pages of Transnistria related articles in Misplaced Pages prove this :-) .--MariusM 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Annoying non-civility

• Kaltenborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randazzo56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• many AoL edits

There seems to be an AoL user who is frequently adding racist and non-encyclopedic information to articles, such as Tom McCahill or Angus MacKenzie (since deleted). If I had to guess, Randazzo56 is the "good cop" and speaks as if truly interested in improving Misplaced Pages but Kaltenborn is the ID he uses to write non-civil obscenties and other slams against users. From my talk page, it's clear that he frequently logs in/out and signs on via AoL proxies in order to have any overt vandalism cleaned up and attributed to an AoL IP. I didn't put the two accounts together until it just seems like Kaltenborn is interested in too many of the same articles as Randazzo56, such as Batmobile, Bonnie and Clyde, Tom McCahill, Talk:Dual-Ghia. Finally, their edit style for talk pages is highly similar (Randazzo56: ; Kaltenborn: ). You'll notice the use of the 2-word phrase as a section title, followed by the rest of the sentence, and they both never sign the correct 4 tilde, leaving the date off.

Any suggestions on how to handle this one? He's become an annoyance and frequently acts as if I'm ruining his articles when I remove non-encyclopedic content (has WP:OWN issues). ju66l3r 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI.. again

How does everyone feel about a community ban on SPUI? After two blocks for adding the SQUIDWARD edit summaries he stopped. But as soon as he returned, he was blocked for 31 hours for a 3RR violation. It's becoming very obvious that he is coming to Misplaced Pages to disrupt with every edit he makes and not to contribute positively. semper fi — Moe 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All prior warnings, notices, and recommendations that he stop become covered by an admin. Yes, you can revert so that it is visible, but when its been covered several times, recovering becomes an incredible hassle. Looking at his block log and his recent edits, it seems as if he does not want to constructively contribute to Misplaced Pages after "leaving." How many "second chances" must we give this destructive user? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. He's had too many chances. --Kbdank71 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see SPUI community-banned. He's made a lot of good encyclopedic edits, and I think he's a good user. OK, so he had a moment of madness, but he's a decent editor, IMHO. --SunStar Net 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

God let's end this already. Yes, he was a very prolific contributer, but I don't think he's here to be constructive anymore. Also, all my recent real-life experiences tell me that I would rather have someone who contributes less but doesn't cause any trouble, than someone like this. Grandmasterka 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

His 3RR block is kind of odd. He reverted the featured article of the day 4 times by removing what he considered was unsourced original research, and then reported himself on the en-wiki mailing list. Thatcher131 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing his recent 3RR block as typical of any past disruption he may have been involved with is not fair, IMO. Even the best editors go into 3RR from time to time, and this specific instance involved enforcing the Misplaced Pages original research policy on the article that sat on the front page all day. Whether he's exhausted the community's patience, I have no real input on, although I think he does valuable work here. But let's not try to frame this specific instance from yesterday as part of anything greater than what it was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)...or as Thatcher said above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose community banning. SPUI deserves an RFC to start with anyway, not some AN/I discussion. Bastiq▼e 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We tried that. Others came and defended him, ignoring the evidence. WP:RFC/SPUI --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The current popular principle behind a community block is that if no admin will unlbock then the block was probably OK. That isn's going to hapen with SPUI.Geni 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time. Kusma (討論) 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because he's hardly contributing doesn't mean he hasn't been a problem. Ever since the beginning of October he has been a problem. Lets look at the facts shall we:

• October 12-13 he edits with SQUIDWARD summaries:

He recieves a block: 03:41, 14 October 2006 Lar (Talk contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 minutes (Please stop SQUIDWARDing...)

• He returns October 23/24 to edit with the SQUIDWARD summaries again:

Blocked again: 05:19, 24 October 2006 Konstable (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (again, please stop SQUIDWARDing)

• He returns on November 3-5 to edit V for Vendetta (film) and it's talk:

Blocked again: 03:35, 5 November 2006 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Violation of 3RR)

Literally the only edit he hasn't been blocked for in the last month is blanking his talk page with an Image of a duck. semper fi — Moe 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? Apparently as long as you have some good contributions, you get to act however you want, and your admirers, defenders, whatever, will at best hand out a series of 24 hour (or less) blocks, and at worst, ignore the behavior completely. Can anyone explain why this has been allowed to continue? --Kbdank71 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he's made 74,000 contributions. Of which 40,000 are probably controversial page moves which have been corrected by new

guidelines now.. :\ semper fi — Moe 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and we have no real method of knowing which contributions are constructive. The page moves did nothing but create mass controversy and led many editors to quit in disgust. It's even worse when one or two admins reverted his blocks because he was such a good editor. I'll repeat what Lar spoke of during some controversy that SPUI created: "No one editor is indispensable to the project." If SPUI becomes a nuisance, then he should not be able to contribute in that manner; yes, he made good edits, but so have we, and the project continues forward. Whether or not we have SPUI is irrelevant; there will always be other editors to take his place, as clearly demonstrated today. After his "leave", we still have editors on road topics throughout all 50 states that do fine without SPUI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because we're here to contribute? On a more serious note, I don't see what exactly is bannable here. Prior to the V 3RR thing, he got blocked for using weird edit summaries on edits that either attempted to remove OR marginally-encyclopedic material or were RfA votes. His second block was for squidward edit summaries on two talk pages. How is this significantly more grounds for banning than using no summary at all? Are people that bothered to see "squidward" on the RC list twice in two days (in latter case)? I agree with Jeff on the description of the V incident. --user:Qviri 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to review all of his prior blocks to get a good idea of how much he's gotten away with... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SQUIDWARD! is the name fast-pace vandal. The vandal generally gave the edit summary SQUIDWARD! as he was vandalizing. SPUI copyign that was inappropriate, whether he was vandalizing or not. semper fi — Moe 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's because the case is not made at present. If the guy is reporting himself for 3RR, then it may be WP:POINT, but it's hardly serial disruption. Basically, we can't see how he's going to behave after the last block. He has built up a lot of animosity from some people, and they're very ready to get the gallows ready, but I don't see him currently earning the noose. I think it has to be an unrepentant pattern, and the only unrepenting problem was the edit summaries, and now he's repented. Geogre 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR may not be serial disruption. What would you call the remainder of his block log? And so what if he's repented? Maybe it's just me, but to see problem, repent, problem, repent, problem, repent, would seem to indicate we have a problem with more than just SPUI. Look, I make no assumptions that this will go anywhere; as I said, there are too many people willing to overlook too much. --Kbdank71 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a serial disruption when SPUI was disrupting page after page with his own naming conventions. It's been done in the past, which should not be overlooked. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely: it should not be overlooked, and I wouldn't advocate turning the other way. The question isn't, I hope, all or nothing. I just didn't see anything going on since that nasty episode. If it does, I'll be on board with a community ban, but I think community bans should be when the other person isn't acting out of an interpretation of what's best for Misplaced Pages. When the other person is misinterpreting or being petulant about their views of policy and practice, ArbCom's deliberative process should be best. When a person is just exhausting everyone by insisting after a clearly settled issue or pride or a desire to play gotcha with someone or a desire to settle political scores (real life ones, like the nationalists and monomaniacs), then it's community patience. That's my view, anyway. Geogre 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on the situation. Give him a block that will actually prevent him from disrupting (a few days or so). See how he acts then. If he socks during, or continues acting up after, then I think that should remove some doubt. --InShaneee 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah why not? A community ban for a few days? Or a week? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika

Greetings. A user by the user-name of Afrika paprika had made serious violations: edit-warring, POV and original research-pushing as well as numerous violations of the blocks he received by creating sockpuppets such as User:Zrinski and various IP anon. He got blocked by User:Pilotguy after these mistakes. I am requesting here his unblocking, as I think that an indef block is far too harsh towards him. Note also that I am not a wiki-friend of his, nor that he asked me to have him unbanned, but practically, his worst nightmare. Note our extensive argument at Talk:Pagania. Finally, User:Hipi Zhdripi received only a "limitation to one account and one-year ban from Kosovo-related articles" after an arbitration about Kosovo - and Hipi (by collective opinion) deserves a lot bigger punishment and should've received 40 community bans by now. I think we have to treat all equally, as this gives the picture of the traditional stereotype when regarding the Yugoslavs (a Croat in this case), whereas the Albanian seems to be favored in a way, regardless of the fact that he's a young Willy on Wheels! (and Afrika only a minor offender). And lastly, I am starting a movement to ban banns since I consider then highly unappropriate (with the exceptions of self-requested ones, useless/damaging bots or just thin-headed vandals).

With heart, --PaxEquilibrium 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You say right on the bottom of Paprika's talk page that blocks are meant as punishment. It is specifically mentioned in our Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy that blocks are not punitive but preventative (not to be used as "punishment") and that blocks can be used to prevent disruption. Paprika appears to have caused nothing but disruption, from viewing the whole talk page. Thus, an indef block is not "too harsh", it serves its purpose to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Grandmasterka 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But such an opinion itself is POV. I guarantee that I can affect Afrika paprika and make him/her into a productive member of our society. He may/will be useful to the project. I once again repeat, Hipi had caused so much disruption, that he deserves to stand by Willy's side. Likeways, User:Dardanv is the Father of sockpuppetry (with a dozen of sockpuppets found & identified, unknown how many more others are there). It is thus that it's too harsh. Anyways, an indef ban is simply/practicly a waste. Isn't a timed (at least one-year-or-similar-type) more appropriate? --PaxEquilibrium 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruption, edit warring, and incivility

Fix Bayonets! (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked a few months ago for a legal threat but was let off the hook after convincing me and others that he was going to engage in thoughtful discourse, has, since being unblocked, engaged in numerous edit wars and is pushing POV in multiple articles (Sons of Confederate Veterans, Southern Poverty Law Center, League of the South et al). While Fix Bayonets' contributions provide adequate evidence for my description here, two examples from today are George Allen (U.S. politician) and Sons of Confederate Veterans. Note that aside from edit warring at George Allen, Fix Bayonets also has violated 3RR there (which Fix Bayonets has been warned about in the past). I don't know what else to do about Fix Bayonets other than report the behavior here for now. I will consider starting a user conduct Rfc if it is deemed appropriate, but I'm concerned that the edit warring and POV-pushing will continue in the meantime. In any event, one could say that Fix Bayonets got lucky to be unblocked at all after a legal threat. Fix Bayonets' behavior after the unblock are a violation of the trust placed in him by established editors. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the SCV article, the consensus was to remove "Lost Cause" material, as it belonged in "Lost Cause" article. Therefore, I and other editors agreed that Walter Williams quote would be treated in the same fashion. But all of the "Lost Cause" comment was not deleted. I assumed this was merely an oversight, as I assumed good-faith -- that is the reason I removed the remaining "Lost Cause" sentence. If ALL the parties concerned (SCV editors) would comment, that would be more appropriate than Jersyko's bad-faith ad hominem attacks.

And I add that other Administrators and editors have agreed with my assessment of the SCV article. So I am not some crazed "lone wolf" at Misplaced Pages. {Even Jeseyko admitted that the SCV artcile was not NPOV when I began editing it.(SCV talk -- j e r s y k o talk · 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC).}

Regarding the George Allen article, my edit was reverted 4 times, as indicated here. You will notice that prior to the 4th revert by the other editor, I requested an RFC and had kindly requested no more reverts. --Fix Bayonets! 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion does not need to take place here, but rather at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans. In any event, Fix Bayonets!'s claim of "consensus" is simply false. The consensus is here, and it was to remove a description of what Lost Cause is in the article text, not to remove sourced criticism of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that just so happens to mention Lost Cause, as Fix Bayonets! did here. Relevant diffs from George Allen from today: , , , , . · j e r s y k o talk · 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko is aware that his description of the consensus reached at article SCV is incorrect, as can be seen from the 1st paragraph here.

And regarding the George Allen article, my 3RR request was valid:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• PER TALK PAGE, I (FIX BAYONETS!] THEN STARTED AN RFC, AND REQUESTED NO MORE RVs:
• 4th revert:

Time 3RR report made: 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)--Fix Bayonets! --Fix Bayonets! 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've actually a huge number of reverts to that article today, as have a number of other RC Patrollers. --Doc Tropics 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fix Bayonets! has now altered my comment on this very page with this edit. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jersyko, I renamed the SCV Talk page subsection-in-question and then updated your link so that Administrators and RFC respondents can MORE QUICKLY SEE which exact issue we are talking about (i.e., the "Lost Cause and Williams quote")... though I believe that User:L0b0t had originally named that section... not you. As I did not alter any actual relevant text (i.e., your accusations) you had written, your last accusation is unfounded, as are the rest of your accusations.--Fix Bayonets! 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. You changed the title of the subsection on the talk page containing the consensus I was referring to, then changed my link here to point to the correct subsection. I would merely note that the change in the subsection title was misleading, as it made the conversation appear to be about something that it was not. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, your continuing ad hominem attacks and shrill accusations are disruptive and in violation of Wiki policy. I had asked that you allow discussion to take place on the SCV talk page, and you have responded frantically with more unfounded accusations. Again, I had renamed the SCV Talk page subsection-in-question and then updated your link so that Administrators and RFC respondents can MORE QUICKLY SEE which exact issue we are talking about (i.e., the "Lost Cause and Williams quote"). I believe that neutral parties will clearly see that your attempt to "spin" and skew facts concerning the consensus reached are not appropriate. And again, I respectfully ask that you allow the OTHER SCV editors comment on the issue, instead of continuing ad hominem attacks against me.--Fix Bayonets! 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think User:jersyko is the disruptive one. Fix is just trying to prevent slander on Misplaced Pages, and jersyko is encouraging it.--Bedford 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Ok then. I find it a little amusing that my contributions to Misplaced Pages are suddenly in question, and I'm beginning to think that arbitration is approaching, though I hope not. · j e r s y k o talk ·

It's more than a bit rich to see someone who was indef banned for making legal threats, who is a pov-pusher, 3rr violator argue that someone who points this out is "slanderous". Fix Bayonets!'s pov-pushing and policy violations (detailed above) mean productive users must waste valuable time dealing with him, and not writing articles. I strongly ask that an admin look into this matter. --Zantastik talk 00:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In my defense, the below edit is a fine example of the type of problems I and others are trying to address at the SCV article:

"By definition, heritage groups selectively interpret the aspects of the past that conform to desired positive characteristic of a predetermined philosophy….heritage promotion is above all an exercise in pride, which often deemphasizes or conflicts with universally accepted historic fact. Most professionally trained historians criticize the Sons of Confederate Veterans, their tenacious engagement in the “Lost Cause” myth and their aggressive attempts to stifle or obstruct any historic discussion contrary to their ideological constructs.”

— name of editor isn't imp., the Issue is

Obviuosly, there are editors who take a very hostile stance against the SCV, and there are other editors who are happy to stand by and watch those types of edits be made and do nothing about it. I suggest to you, User:Zantastik, that such edits violate Jimbo Wales' vision for Misplaced Pages:

"...e don't act in Misplaced Pages as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral."

— Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)(Re: Wikipedians by politics; emph. in original)

And that is why I and other editors, including at least one Administrator, have observed that the article was not compliant with WP:NPOV. Therefore, with all due respect, I again ask that you cease ad hominem attacks and allow the concerned editors to comment on the "Lost Cause"/Williams quote issue on the SCV Talk page.--Fix Bayonets! 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fix Bayonets! appears to have engaged in POV pushing and unhelpful editing activity. -Will Beback 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Bebeck, you are one of the editors who have defended and guarded the POV edit I quoted above or others very much like it. Again, in my defense, other Administrators and editors have agreed with my assessment of the SCV article -- that it was a poorly written biased article in violation of WP:NPOV. And it is apparent from other comments that others agree with my understanding of the exact nature of the "lost Cause"/"Williams" consensus --Fix Bayonets! 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot has happened since September 13th. The SCV article was almost completely rewritten, for one thing. I fail to see how any of this is relevant to continuous POV-pushing, edit warring, and today's 3RR violation on your part. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You have now heard from at least two editors who were parties to the consensus state that they disagree with your assessment (of that "consensus"). Instead of continuing shrill ad hominem attacks against me on this page and elsewhere, why don't you attempt to re-address the actual matter in dispute (SCV "Lost Cause" and Williams quote). If you want the Lost Cause material to stay, I and others editors had stated that it was only appropriate to include referenced rebuttal. If you don't want the Williams quote (the rebittal), it is only fair that the "Lost Cause" material be removed from the SCV article. Even if you refuse to negotiate here, levelling accusations is not the way to resolve the matter. We can take this matter to a fair and impartial group of Misplaced Pages mediators. And again, I have cross-referenceed other Wiki pages to this sub-section, so I am asking you politely for the third time to not re-name the SCV talk page subsection.--Fix Bayonets! 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bedford didn't say anything about the consensus, but rather accused me of supporting slander. Again, I'm not seeing the relevance of all of this to edit warring, POV-pushing, and today's 3RR violation on your part. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This has turned from a conduct complaint, which an RfC will do, into a content dispute, which does not belong here. Please use dispute resolution unless you people need us to do anything. --physicq (c) 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have gone with my original thought and started a User conduct Rfc. I'm starting one now, thanks for the reply. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would also point out that it didn't turn into a content dispute until Fix Bayonets tried to turn it into one (successfully, I see), despite my efforts to focus the issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandalism of British National Party

A self-proclaimed "army of editors" editing from a variety of IP addresses has descended on the British National Party article, which has duly been {{vprotected}}. This "army" appears to be a single editor, as the IPs share a common writing style, and a common ISP, BT: specifically BT-CENTRAL-PLUS IP pools There was some warm-up vandalism on other articles, notably Finale, prior to this, with some generic admin-baiting . See for warnings given. Please keep a watching brief on this, in case this recurs, or morphs in other directions. -- The Anome 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Some sample IPs:

• 81.153.125.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.140.140.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.138.21.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.137.26.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.147.110.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.137.61.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.129.56.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.143.234.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.154.35.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-- The Anome 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Long-term POV pushing, sock-puppetry and other disruption

I started a RFC recently to find out if I alone in seeing a disruptive pattern to a user's edits. Well, I received a fair amount of support from well respected users. Devilmaycares (talk · contribs) has already been blocked from editing once and has been warned with nearly every template out there.

In the course of the RFC I was made aware of another editors suspicions that this user was a sock puppet of User:Grazon. With less then 300 edits under his belt he did seem to have a strange amount of knowledge of the ins/outs of wikipedia. So I investigated further.

My first step was to compare the edit histories of both accounts. One of the first things I noticed was that these two accounts never edited the same articles, except for one exception. Seeing as both accounts edited similar types of articles that seemed very odd.

The next thing I looked at was what days of the week did they edit most often in the month of October. Well, they both seemed to favor the end of the week, but that might not mean anything.

The second to last thing I checked took a bit of extra effort. I found days where both accounts had edited on the same day and I noticed something interesting: A clear pattern of switching between accounts can be seen. If these were different people then it would stand to reason that the "editing sessions" would overlap, or be in very different time periods, right? The edit histories showed a something very suspicious. The account would switch off editing and often with 2-5 min in between. Not just once... a ton of times. See my evidence if you wish to confirm it for yourself.

Now, with renewed confidence I checked one last thing... block logs. I noticed something interesting... when Grazon was blocked Devilmaycares would suddenly start editing. This has happened three times. (Compare the Grazon's block log to Devil's contributions for those days.)

Based on all the above... I think this user has created "Devilsmaycares" as a single purpose account with the intent to disrupt wikipedia. I recommend a long-term block for the Grazon account and a indef-block for Devilmaycares account. ---J.S (t|c) 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cross posting to WP:LTA - I guess thats a better place for this ---J.S (t|c) 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by page move, was: Botched long Series of Redirects

MRNA Display -> mRNA Display A botched attempt at fixing the name, via move, has resulted in many redirects and the page not loading.Lancepickens 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have moved the same page nine times. This is a Bad Thing. Anyways, have you decided on a final resting place for the page? Until then, we don't know what all the other pages should end up pointing to. Picaroon9288 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't ever do that many moves ever again Lance. :\ And besides it's impossible to begin an article name with a lowercase letter. See technical restrictions. semper fi — Moe 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This smells like trolling. Block Lancepickens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Levisimons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please. Kavadi carrier 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. semper fi — Moe 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced gossip and violation of BLP policy

User:71.82.137.219 is seemingly obsessed with the Bollywood actress Bipasha Basu and arrives once a day to add completely unreferenced gossip about her romantic life. No references; this is a living person; we must be careful. We revert him and he returns again to add the same gossip. I have posted on his talk page, asking him to stop posting gossip, and he never replies. He has never engaged in any discussion with any of the other editors. (He has added gossip to other actress articles, but he doesn't seem to be as persistent there.)

Do we have to just keep reverting him and hope that he'll give up and go away, or does the BLP policy allow for blocking a persistent gossip-poster? Zora 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I warned again. I would certainly be willing to place a brief IP block (with account creation enabled to encourage him to register) if he keeps it up. Thatcher131 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed his stuff -- and some other stuff that maybe should be restored, but that's a side issue -- and he immediately replaced it. Minutes after you warned him and cleared out the article. I don't think he knows how to read messages on his talk page. Or how to read the discussion page for the article. Zora 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please leave him a notice to which page it is in question; in this case, I'm moving the prior discussions to my header so the IPuser can reference which page this criticism is lodged against. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz active?

I stumbled across this page (copy saved here in case it disappears) which seems could imply that User:MyWikiBiz is actively editing using sockpuppets. Quick checks of a few of the articles appear to show significant edits by various user accounts over the last month or so, since being blocked by Jimbo on 5 October. I was unsure where to post this. — Moondyne 06:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is not a bad place. The Oct 27 timestamps indicate that they're still up to something, but I looked at a few of the files and they are just copies of our articles (e.g. Chris White (musician) and Katsuko Saruhasi, which were written almost exclusively by AlisonW and Pschemp). ×Meegs 07:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:MyWikiBiz can do anything he wants on his site. Anon wikipedians are allowed to edit wikipedia. Including adding GFDL NPOV encyclopedia articles. NPOV is the key here rather than assuming bad faith by anons. - (unless a pattern develops, and his past history is not encouraging ... ) WAS 4.250 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

MWB has had some meatpuppets for a while who were willing to add GFDL articles up here. Socks are possible, but it probably isn't needed. *sigh* ---J.S (t|c) 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

81.117.200.37 (talk · contribs)

When will something be done to stop this abusive sockpuppeter, now confirmed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ruy Lopez? JBKramer 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards