Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 10 January 2007

• 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

NLP update - Some COI issues and reluctance of some editors to get along (and some positive points)

Hi all. Recent notifications concerning the NLP article have covered promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information ) and users of a known COI editing the article To be found under "Comaze" Under "NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views" . An admin has already civilly explained the situation to those above editors . Also Cleanup taskforce has asked for a serious cleanup of the article - including reducing redundancy and making the debate more concise and contained . Efforts to balance views emphasizing the concept seem to be getting ignored -

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview."

Some editors have been persistently trying to suppress core information from the opening and these tend to be the ones reluctant to get along with those of a different view , ,

,,

There is still a misuse of argumentative words to avoid. There is no need at all for the argumentative or debate word "however" in the line yet they insist. . Their behaviour seems to me to be highly unconstructive considering the assessment of the CleanupTaskforce.

Editors have been ignoring efforts to make the article more concise (without obscuring views), by physically distancing the discussion on the article - and by removing it completely from discussion .

There is some evidence of editors with known COI making odd edits on other articles .

On the positive side - there are fewer edits per day (usually less than 40). A lot of the problem was caused by the plus 50 eds per day which has led to an oversized article. The CleanupTaskforce has given helpful instructions to make the article more concise and to clarify what NLP is about. I don't see any particular problem long term and I'm fairly sure editors will come round to the idea that editors of different views are supposed to try to get along. Once they properly discuss the suppression of information policy I'm sure a win-win can be achieved. Trolling - sockuppetry - and meatpuppetry don't seem to me to be an issue. I believe the main point is to encourage editors of various views to work together collaboratively and civilly in the long term. AlanBarnet 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All other editors on the NLP page are in agreement that AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is either a sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown or he is equally bad. At least two more independent users on his talk page have identified him as a sockpuppet also. However, even in his own right, this new user has exhausted all patience with his disinformation, distortion, and lies (much of which continues above). This is his third WP:AN/I notice about content disagreement. A block has been requested before. 58.178.142.37 07:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello user 58.178.142.37. The editors you mention all seem to be keen on obscuring key views or at the very least they are all reluctant to make clear concise statements of each view. I've provided edits and discussion recently and on multiple prior occasions and encouraged discussion concerning getting along and making sure that each view is concisely summarized to the best of each view. Rather than discussing or adjusting my edits - others have tried to either marginalize the discussion or in your case - delete my edits altogether without discussion on a regular basis - call me a troll with venom - and restore argumentative debate into the article. I believe that most would see your actions as unreasonable. I havn't tried to cut away - reduce- or obscure any of the sourced NLP views. You and others seem to have obscured the views of science either by removing them from the lead - reduce them so they become obscure - add undue argument - or cover them with nonrelevant information. All the article needs is to present the subject of NLP with each view summarized so that it becomes clear to the reader. This can all be done without excess size and it can be done civilly. This is not a content disagreement. Its about COI - obscuring key views - getting along- and a simple enough NPOV solution. AlanBarnet 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your diffs above clearly show several other editors consistently reverting you. Can't you see that only incriminates yourself as the editor that pushed an edit-war? 58.179.166.57 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article. Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again. My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett. I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though. There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your view that editors are partly motivated out of their POV is unfounded and must necessarily be based on not having read the NLP talk page. Both User:Doc_pato and User:Fainites have been very extremely verbal in promoting the mainstream scientific view and nonetheless they both want AlanBarnet blocked . And quite frankly Guy, you are in personal conflict posting here as an admin; having previously labelled NLP pejoratively as a cultic , and with AlanBarnet saying he communicates with you privately . There is no consistent evidence that there is either a pro-NLP or anti-NLP camp. In fact, the NLP talk page clearly shows there is much healthy debate, except on one issue where all agree: User:AlanBarnet is an abusive sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. Users have had two months to determine this. AlanBarnet is just as antagonistic and disruptive as HeadleyDown and more and he has maliciously posted a users' personal information several times . Woohookitty? Voice-of-all? Can we please have an admin that is qualified to recognise this sockpuppet? 58.179.166.57 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am convinced that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown not because of the views he/she pushes), but from his/her well-documented pattern of behaviour (btw, personally I would tend to be more on the anti-NLP side). Jbhood 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi user 58.179.166.57. I am cooperatively posting notices on ANI to solve a problem. I never said I communicated with Guy privately - only that I am keen on cooperating with admin. There have been over 80 edits on the NLP article per day at times and with no sufficient discussion. There are editors on the article who seem to have a COI and you seem to be encouraging them to edit. I've reiterated admin suggestions and assessments and you call it harassment. You seem to be dismissing key NPOV points about keeping the article summarized and you've been regularly marginalizing key science views as can be seen in the links above. When I make reasonable suggestions towards making sure all relevant views are presented as best as the proponent of each view can - you delete the suggestion. When helpful editors restore the suggestion you delete again . You and others seem to be refusing to balance views and refusing to make succinct concise statements about each view. I am talking about getting along. If you would like to start civilly discussing the Suppression of Information policy on the NLP talkpage I'm sure admin would be happy that editors of different views are trying to get along. AlanBarnet 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Utter baloney! AlanBarnet, if you are so wonderful how do you explain six separate editors thinking you are a manipulative sockpuppet and wanting you blocked? Coincidence? All editors are reverting you blindly now, quite obviously sick of your falsified article citations and talk page sugercoated baloney. Your own talk page confirms what I am saying. Clearly you should be blocked. 58.179.166.57 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi 58.179.166.57. Editors who have not shown a reluctance to presenting all views clearly seem to be reverting you (Editor MER-C at least). And rather than blind reversion - it seems to be a reversion based upon the need for collaborative and civil discussion. AlanBarnet 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again; Just to help get the ball rolling towards collaborative editing and discussion - I'd like to present this for discussion on the NLP talkpage. Rather than just delete such a large piece of unsourced argumentative commentary - it seems more constructive to see if there is anything of any value in it by discussing with other editors. Thanks AlanBarnet 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy. You are being naive. Just because AlanBarnet says he's presenting mainstream scientific views and preventing them being obscured by others doesn't make it true. AlanBarnet has done virtually none of the work in sourcing, verifying and citing the mainstream scientific views which now have a full clear section. I know because I did alot of it myself in collaboration with other editors, including Comaze, but almost never AlanBarnet. He has no real interest in ascertaining genuine views from genuine sources, whether they're pro or anti NLP. Neither is he remotely interested in helping shorten, improve or clarify anything else. Mostly what AlanBarnet does is revert to older inaccurate versions without bothering to clear up the mess created with references, citations etc, put inaccurate or highly selective quotes in the introduction (over and over again), put in grossly POV statements, unverified and unsourced and refuse to provide verified sources on request, and then clutter up the talk page insultingly accusing everybody else of doing these things. (note inadequate edit summary) If you believe any of that nonsense about wanting to collaborate or work constructively with others then you are the only one who does. Those of us who have had the pleasure of trying to work with him (and I tried very hard) know this protestation for what it is worth. Less than zilch. I also asked you some time ago that if you had any decent sources to back up your claim that it is a 'fact' NLP is a cult, to let us have them, because nearly all of the ones from the HeadleyDown/AlanBarnet camp, when somebody troubles to actually read the blasted things, don't support this. The only sources left are Protopriest Novopashin and you. In the circumstances I would support the request for somebody else from admin. Fainites 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JzG/Guy. There is no pro-NLP camp. Firstly Fainites and 58.* tend to be on the side of skepticsm and scientific rigor. As far as I know they have no prior knowledge or personal experience in studying NLP. They are basing their edits on what is in the reputable / verifiable literature. It is a complex topic because there are so many different views with no black and white mainstream view. --Comaze 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Users Comaze and Fainites. Rather than repeatedly and dismissively delete the concise view of science from the lead section - you could discuss why you feel it does not quite capture the full view of science and we could go on with improving it . Also as yet - the Suppression of Information policy has not been discussed at all on the talk page. I presented it several times and my suggestion for civil discussion was met with dismissive deletion. So as a solution I present a concise lead again and I present the Suppression of Information policy on the talk page . Open for civil discussion. AlanBarnet 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I invite anybody reading this to go to the NLP article and read in particular the sections on Mental Health practice and Research Reviews and then state whether they think there is 'promotional obscuring of scientific views' as alleged (ad nauseam).Fainites 16:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure Fainites. This Information Suppression policy is helpful: . "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview.". As shown above - you (and Comaze and 58 and others) have removed clear succinct summaries of the critical view from the lead section. The whole article can easily be improved with reasonable following of that Suppression of Information link. AlanBarnet 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This message keeps getting posted to the NLP talkpage whenever I post the Information Suppression policy or whenever I suggest NPOV policies. If there is any disinformation or trolling (or any uncooperative action or comment) in the messages I post - I would be grateful if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage. Thanks. AlanBarnet 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User 58.179.166.57 keeps restoring argumentative WP words to avoid - even after the Cleanuptaskforce urging to remove undue debate. AlanBarnet 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistress seems to be causing disparaging comments about others. . In order to calm the situation down I suggested a reduction in conflict and the wisdom of taking a break occasionally. AlanBarnet 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. User 58.178.199.92 seems to think I'm sockpuppeting - trolling and wikilawyering, removes my discussion and states "we're still waiting for a block on AlanBarnet" . As far as I know Suppression of Information is on the NPOV tutorial and supports editing according to NPOV policy. 58.178.199.92 and others still seem to me to be strongly reluctant to deal with important parts of NPOV policy. In the light of assessments here and the present situation on the NLP talkpage - I'll just have to civilly continue to present the tutorial in order to solve problems with the article. AlanBarnet 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy. The only person about whom there is even a COI allegation is Comaze (from AlanBarnet only). Can one editor be a 'camp'? Who else precisely are you including in the 'they' of the 'pro-NLP camp' who supposedly dominate the article and about whom there is apparently abundant evidence? Do we get to see this 'abundant evidence'?Fainites 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I presented this (below) and on the NLP talkpage in order to sort the NLP article out as per NPOV and neutral wording. I am adding it here so admin can get a chance to add suggestions and some editors seem reluctant to countenance the finer points of NPOV policy so it may well get deleted or dismissed from the talkpage:

Hi all. Further to outside/authority assessments from the ANI and Cleanuptaskforce: Again here is a back to basics solution: The NPOV tutorial: .

• The suggestion from ANI is that there tends to be too much promotional obscuring of science views.

• The Cleanup taskforce looks at this from the view that editors are putting criticism diffusively all over the place and then defending it as if it is some sort of debate – thus obscuring lots of views and never really getting round to saying what NLP is or does.

• Writing what NLP is should be done in as neutral language as possible without adding any pro or con argument directly to it. Straight reporting of what NLP is and does on terms that a reader will understand – without promotional language – without confounding jargon – and without any unattributed promotional claims such as “Modeling' another person can effect belief and behavior changes to improve functioning” or defensive statements such as “Neuro-linguistic Programming is an eclectic field, and”…. Sentences should be written in neutral language with proper attributions of who says what (eg scientist (name date) says…. or NLP author (name date) says…..

• Prioritize information according to the most reliable sources. Prioritizing will help reduce the overload and help editors in choosing what to include or exclude and to determine weight. We need to look at how the most reliable sources describe what NLP is and does - and what NLP proponents do with NLP specifically. The most concise and clear descriptions will make the article encyclopedic and accessible to the reader.

• Regarding controversies: The NPOV solution is to summarize each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability” . This can be done throughout – or if it disturbs flow (which right now it seems to) – it can be confined into sections.

• We can practically negotiate weight and neutrality using the evidence we have . Part of the reason for problems with the article is that too much evidence has been added to the article through exessive daily edits - when it should have just been placed in the talk page and properly discussed before summarizing each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability”.

• There has been a problem with un-neutral language in the article at times (for example - argumentative howevers and nonsequiturs). Again – the NPOV tutorial and WP words to avoid are useful guides

So – feel free to discuss any of these points. Constructive suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing for bot approval

Section moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot#ANI

Dealing with Cplot edits

I happened to see one of Cplot's more recent edits before it was reverted. In it, the Cplot sock says that even though these edits are all being reverted, they are still worth making because they live on forever in the page histories and curious users look to see what has been reverted. I don't know whether that is right or not but I wonder if admins should begin the practice of deleting rather than merely reverting these edits. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to delete the entire WP:ANI and restore it all each time minus one edit each time he does it, be my guest. So, basically, it's impractical. Oversight would be an option though, however, I don't know if those with oversight permissions would consider this a proper use of their abilities. That'd be up to them to decide I'd imagine. Metros232 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The way the user interface is set up, edits to pages with huge histories like this are much easier to oversight than to delete. On less traveled pages, deletion might be an option. Thatcher131 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, until the better revision deletion system for admins is created (rather than the hack we're doing now), it's nearly impossible to delete a ceratin revision from a page with many edits. Martinp23 14:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of responding new edits where it's the top one in the history, not of going back through all the old ones. I thought deletion was easier under that circumstance, but please disregard this if I'm wrong. Newyorkbrad 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could the restore deleted edits page have a button that checks all the boxes? That way you'd only have to unclick the all the ones you want deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but it works fine when using the shift key. Khoikhoi 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles with large edit histories brings the servers to their knees. Remember what happened when AfD got deleted? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, could someone explain this diff to me? -75.42.174.181 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an innocent error resulting from an edit conflict. Clumsy, perhaps, but I don't see a reason to assume it was malevolent. Could re-insert or ask the acting editor for clarification. Luna Santin 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good explanation! (I wasn't presuming villainy.) Deletia follows. -75.42.174.181 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems absolutly strange that such an edit conflict somehow managed to slip by, as I thought I used thew '+' to add a new section - I'll experiment in one of the sandboxes (later) to see if I can reproduce it. --Sigma 7 08:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Cplot would then just gloat about the workload that he was imposing on administrators. In any event, except when a particular version is cited somewhere with real importance, such diffs probably have even less importance than, say, comments to LiveJournal.com or to Usenet. Arguably, it's better for the world if Cplot wastes his time here. ;-D. -SlamDiego 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If I had oversight, I'd use it to get rid of this obvious idiocy. I don't see a need to keep it around... Grandmasterka 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance on this issue - I'm not well and so don't familiarise myself with sockpuppeteers. Is CPlot the one currently insisting on posting the "federal clowns" rubbish at such places as the village pump? Crimsone 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy wacky funtime

• User talk:SirChristdom
• User talk:Flintrock
• User talk:OpalPI
• User talk:WikiTitan

All four users were indefinitely blocked by yours truly for personal attacks (part of a long-standing effort against an editor I work with often, as well as a couple others now). Threats were met with "use {{unblock}}", which was met with more threats, which was met with a lockdown of their talk pages.

I'm only mentioning it here because I just want a thumbs-up that it is okay to do this (considering that I've completely removed their ability to request an unblock, which I see as an opportunity they squandered by threatening me).

For those that don't want to bother reading the talk pages, the highlights can be found at User:EVula#Collection of threats. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

—Cryptic 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen such artfully crafted death threats. No-brainer support. Grandmasterka 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hells yeah. I wholeheartedly endorse these blocks. -- Merope 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Fancy Moses. Danny Lilithborne 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really have to give credit to the "murder you and hang your body from a oak tree for the piegons to eat" one. I mean, threatening someone with "I will sue" and "I will report you" is the equivalent to just phoning it in. Feeding me to pigeons? That is creative. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I think the claim that pigeons are scavenging carnivores really needs a reliable source, seesh OR threats, double whammy. Pete.Hurd 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This one is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Well done. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the fun never stops, apparently. I now have the blood of seven vandals on my hands for this particular incident... is there perhaps something a bit more permanent that I can do? This is my first foray into the wonderful world of sockpuppetry (the closest I've ever come was blocking a Bobby Boulders sock), so I'm severely lost. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Put in a checkuser request for all of them, ensure that their point of origin is noted by a CU person for future reference. Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Those threats were actually one of the few times I've laughed out loud on Misplaced Pages. They were unusually creative as well as unusually poorly spelled. 65.102.35.249 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fun never stops at Crazy Happy Sock World! Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What really gets you, of course, is when the actual sockmaster is making good edits and having the vandals attack his page. I've never quite figured that one out. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that CheckUser confirms that User:American Brit is the sockmaster. All known sockpuppets are now blocked. I'll leave it to the board here to decide what to do about this. Best, Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of a similar situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

<Yoda>Behind the Separatist Sock Puppet attacks, American Brit is? Disturbing, this is. Doubt you, I do not, yet difficult to believe this is. If the Sock Master he is, why accuse himself, as he apparently did? Interesting, this is, as EVula stated. Look into this further, I must; suspected slightly I did, yet decided against it. Taken me by surprise, this has.</Yoda> ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this crazy or what? I hope it's not true. --Majorly (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to the checkuser result? --Majorly (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you that guy was messed up, Majorly. Who the heck has children at the age of 12? Nishkid64 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64 . --Majorly (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that's the link I was talking about yesterday. Dude, I still think that was made up. They have no clue how it happened, though. This kid says he had kids at 2 kids by the age of 16. How the hell does he afford anything? Nishkid64 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked I am being accused of sock puppetry. I ASSURE I HAVE NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING. I also am quite upset both of my friends on Misplaced Pages EVula and Haunted Angel are buying this lie. I honestly now think I should just leave Misplaced Pages. Also Majorly I hope you know this is all bull crap American Brit 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't lie. --Majorly (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's right. Stop trying to act innocent. We take sockpuppetry seriously at Misplaced Pages. Nishkid64 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not acting innocent. I am innocent. This all junk. You cannot prove this. My IP could be shared by over 200 computers. And one man vandalized so I got the blame. Anyway I will be considered leaving this whole website. I feel so betrayed by my once close Wiki friends. All of you know deep down this is not true. I am not a vandal. American Brit 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know, even CheckUsers do extend a little good faith now then. Gosh knows it's hard sometimes. But, the thing of it is, you've got a static IP address which you're sharing with a drawer full of sockpuppets, all of which attack you and disrupt the same articles. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I agree that the odds of me and a vandal who argues with me sharing the same IP are very slim, but I am not the puppeter. I admit I knew I was on the same account as them because I was autoblocked when they were blocked. I did not request unblock because I was afraid I would be accused of what I am being accused of now. I really dont know if I am staying here or not. American Brit 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, never would have guessed it.

It does make sense to me though after further review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HolyHandGrenadez (talk • contribs).

omg...No comment...--Dil 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I... don't know whether to laugh or beat my head against a wall. And don't crows or ravens normally eat hanged people, not pigeons? --tjstrf talk 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to use logic in this situation... you'll only end up hurting yourself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...

• CheckUser confirms it
• changing story from American Brit ("My IP could be shared by over 200 computers" became "I admit I knew I was on the same account as them")
• some awfully damming diffs
• similar spelling structure (or lack thereof)
• quirky personal history
• similar userpage setups between socks and suspected puppetmaster (bulleted userboxes)

Yeah, sorry, far too much secondary evidence is backing up the CheckUser for me to consider it a mistake. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My story was not changed I stuck to that from the start.. The damning biffs: the first was explained, I was not trying to attack Haunted ANgel but start a discussion. The wording made it sound bad, it was accident. What do you mean by simalar setup? and quirky personal history? American Brit 19:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User EaglesFanInTampa using nickname of 'Jimbo' in signature

User:EaglesFanInTampa is using Jimbo as his nickname, so that his comments on talk pages are signed Jimbo. It is disconcerting to see Jimbo participating and !voting in discussions such Talk:Newark#Proposed move. Does this strike anyone else as improper? -- Donald Albury 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't like it one bit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, his sig links to his user page, not to User:Jimbo Wales. (See for an example.) It may or may not be a great thing ... but I just wanted to clarify that he isn't trying to impersonate Jimbo Wales. --BigDT 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should treat "Jimbo" the same way we treat "God" and just not allow anyone else to use that name. I'm not talking about the username but even giving someone the name "Jimbo", "James", "Jim", etc at birth. --206.165.70.2 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably an innocent mistake if he's new, but definitely not a permissible nickname either. If he were to change it to, say, Jimbo Brown, it might be permissible then. --tjstrf talk 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova asked him to change his nickname two weeks ago, and got this response. Theresa Knott's request today to change his name, and my notice that I had brought this here, and EaglesFan's response, are here. If everyone is agreeable, let's drop the subject. -- Donald Albury 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask Jimbo Wales himself what he thinks, something tells me jwales hasnt trademarked his name on wikipedia :P. (assuming the person in question isnt a vandal) --Cat out 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimbo redirects to User:Jimbo Wales. Names such as 'Jimbo Whales' have been blocked for being too much like his name. Using a nickname of 'Jimbo' that shows up on talk pages, whether intentional or not, causes a problem. No one should be using a nickname that looks like another user's accoint name. -- Donald Albury 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales were just some random user or even low-profile admin, then using the nickname Jimbo wouldn't be a problem. However, when he's the guy who runs the whole show, it's highly confusing and disruptive. EaglesFanInTampa should recognize that using a name that will be attributed by any experienced editor to another person is unacceptable. We're not trying to gang up on him here, we're trying to save mass confusion and accusations of imitating "The True Jimbo" later on. --tjstrf talk 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:USERNAME should be amended so that it clearly states that usernames/nicknames that resemble Jimbo's cannot be used. This is already on the borderline of the "Inappropriate usernames-Misplaced Pages terms" section of that policy, since we can interpret "Jimbo" as a name "implying an official position on Misplaced Pages".--Húsönd 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with *any* nickname that duplicates another user's account name. This example stood out because it was 'Jimbo'. How would you feel if some user were signing on talk pages with something like ]? -- Donald Albury 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Invalid comparison, given that tjstrf is my entire name, while Jimbo is only half of User:Jimbo Wales. A more accurate comparison would be a user signing as "Mr. Weys", half of User:Cyde's signature. Or the concurrent existance of both User:Nemu and User:TTN who both sign their names Nemu. If a user was signing as tjs, then that might be an issue, but if it was their real initials and they weren't regularly editing the same pages as me, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. --tjstrf talk 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Click on User:Jimbo. Btw, that was created as a redirect to User:Jimbo Wales almost five years ago. The man is referred to in Misplaced Pages as 'Jimbo' much more often than as 'Jimbo Wales'. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what the problem is... so what if he uses the name "Jimbo"? Should other users be making blind assumptions based on the text in someone's signature? The chance of confusion is low, especially among experienced users. If someone thinks that it might be the real Jimbo, they should first check where the link in the signature goes to. In this case, that will instantly resolve any confusion. This situation reminds me of my days on the gamefaqs boards when users would be banned for having "CJ" in their names, even when there is clearly no chance of real confusion. --- RockMFR 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem I had was that I initially thought someone was counterfeiting Jimbo's signature. That meant I spent time looking into the matter that I could have spent more productively. Signing as 'Jimbo' is distracting, and some of of us still find it inappropriate even though it was a good faith sig. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole idea is messed up. I happen to know a person who has gone by the name Jimbo for almost 40 years. I guess if he wanted to join Misplaced Pages with the name lots of people know him by that would be impermissible? I understand the username policy is to prevent impersonation, but using the example of a bunch of letters like tjstrf's signature is comparing apples to oranges. When you start beating up on good editors simply because of their signature, rather than their edits or actions, you aren't helping the Encyclopedia, you're enforcing policy for the sake of policy. --Elaragirl 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your name is, or what you are called in real life, or what name you have used in 20 other internet venues, etc., if that name is already in use when you come to Misplaced Pages, you can't appropriate it for your own use. A nickname that matches a registered user name (and User:Jimbo has been registered since 2002) is a problem. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. Does the fact that I sign my signature with "Peter Dodge" mean that everybody named Peter can no longer sign using their actual name? Hell no. It shouldn't for Jimbo either. If Jimbo minds it he will see this AN/I report and block the user. If he doesn't, then why are WE worrying about it? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  It doesn't mean no-one else can use the name Peter, but don't you think it would be just a tiny bit confusing if I also started to sign my name as "Peter M Dodge" (or as "Wizardry Dragon"), even if that actually was my real name? I wouldn't object to EaglesFanInTampa calling himself "Jimbo R. Smith" or "JimboX" or "The other Jimbo" or whatever, but the plain "Jimbo" is already taken, thank you very much. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock, usernames does call some serious stuff here. I've seen RFAs get racked up "oppose" votes purely because the user who was up for RFA had a signature that was different from his/her username. Jimbo is thrown quite often and always refers to Jimbo Wales himserlf; heck, even WP:JIMBO redirects to his user talk page. Hbdragon88 08:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this sitting 30 miles from Dublin Ireland, where Jimbo is a REALLY common nickname, I have to say that if Jimbo Wales doesn't mind nobody else should, though it might be wise to create a hard and fast protocol that, to avoid confusion, the name "Jimbo" can only be signed if accompanied by a suffix or prefix that is NOT "Wales", or that make it clear the editor is NOT Jimbo Wales? --Zeraeph 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He could call himself "The other Jimbo", or something... Although I don't know how much I'd like to be known as the "other" owner of my name. I'd tend to think that Wales guy is the "other" Jimbo... -GTBacchus 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to trolling problems in the past, a lot of variants of Jimbo's name, such as User:Jimbo Whales, have been indefinitely blocked (that account was later deleted). A user making good contributions could probably get by with a user name incorporating 'Jimbo', but creating such user accounts will set off the 'troll radar' of many editors. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid, the fact that he has the name Jimbo should not be a problem. It is a common first name and a someone must not have a monopoly over it. -Lapinmies 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, internet communities have "holy" names like "sysop" "admin" and this one has "Jimbo" and a few others. This isn't something new to the internet, it's nessessary for security. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me those a few others for future reference. -Lapinmies 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• These names should be clearly listed in WP:USERNAME, then, so there is no excuse and no confusion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I really don't see a problem with a user signing with "Jimbo", as long as it is clear that the user is not Jimbo Wales. This should be pretty clear, not only because of the link to his user page (perhaps a note could be posted on there to clear any confusion?), but because of the fact that "Wales" is not mentioned anywhere in the signature. It's a popular first name and it's not unique; simply because Jimbo Wales has such a first name should not preclude anyone else from using their own name. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out hand. Read my response to these accusations on my talk page and let's move on...I already have. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations? Where? We all understand that your choice of nickname was perfectly innocent in intention. The only thing getting out of hand is your not-particularly-veiled threat to report us to the Wikimedia office for asking you to change your name. People are required to change their names all the time, for reasons ranging from it being too similar to a real individual's name to being in a non-Latin script. We aren't ganging up on you, and if you believe that you should reread the discussion above, where several people advocate allowing you to keep your name, either simply as Jimbo or by some form of disambiguation. --tjstrf talk 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, and I appreciate everything that everyone has done to stick up for me. However, I have much better things to do with my time on this site than to be singled out just because my name's similar as someone else. I really am appreciative of everyone who's fighting in my defense, but that comment was directed toward the people who started this in the first place, not you guys. It just not worth fighting with a brick wall, though, and you can only spin your tires in mud for so long. I'm willing to just bite the bullet and move on. I've made 25 significant edits today and I would much rather spend my time doing that than trying to explain to someone 6000 miles away why the nickname "Jimbo" is not offensive, deceiving, or improper. If someone can't realize that there's more than one Jimbo in St. Pete, than what's the point in trying to change their mind. However, thjsrf and everyone else trying to side with me, I really am thankful to know that's there's clear-headed people left on this site and you're all welcome to ask me to help you out with anything you need...you know where to find me! Now, back to my editing of Florida roads.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had made a topic on Jimbo's talk page asking what he thought about this issue, but I guess it's already been resolved. Hbdragon88 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rampant removal of thread

The constant removal of a thread by an assorted variety of IPs is bordering on disruption on this board. I was wondering if there was precedence in semi-protecting this board. While I realize that this is a draconian and potentially controversial measure, I believe that the person behind the removal of the thread is unlikely to stop until we apply such a drastic measure. Any thoughts? Constructive criticism welcome. --physicq (c) 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a certain banned user clowning around here using IPs. Do it. The sooner, the better. MER-C 07:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am probably going to be slaughtered for this ;) but why not semi-protect this page? Unless you have an account really there should be no need for you to come here anyway. Yes, I know it is against the spirit of Misplaced Pages but a lot of people are going to get blocked without reason when we need to block entire IP ranges. MartinDK 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, during the summer there was a period of time that both WP:AN and WP:ANI were semiprotected while I was dealing with a user who had a similar amount of ISP usage that was harassing me. I agree with MartinDK that unless you have a fairly old account, you shouldn't be here, necessarily.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs · count) has been constructively commenting on certain issues, including a request to check his/her edit to the {{db-copyvio}} template. Hbdragon88 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing great IP user, whom we need more of. – Chacor 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. He can do a rename to The user formerly known as 68.39.174.238. John Broughton | Talk 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be very unfair to do that, he has said previously that he isn't going to register an account. We should not be shutting ANI to anons. – Chacor 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We're doing it out of sheer necessity, not because we are anti-anon. --physicq (c) 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chacor, if you were me, struggling to control the vandalism to this page because two totally independent dynamic IP vandals were vandalising this page, what would you do? There was little way to get a word in edgeways, since the page was going back and forth between revisions from both the vandals. Notice I customised the sprotection notice to apologise to all the anons? The fact remains that sprotected, the board can be used by almost everyone, but were it to be unsprotected at present, it would be filled with vandalism, and nobody would be able to add notices due to constant reversions. Unfortunately, the fact remains that not many anons use WP:ANI, and I really am sorry that that user is shut out. But right now, it is totally necessary. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a pity we have to shut anons out of the conversation, but we are, as Deskana said, doing it out of necessity. Anyone who needs help can go to some signed-up user and ask them to post on their behalf; we can't continually let this noticeboard waste users' time and bandwidth by letting the whole page get filled with vandalism. This is only a short compromise until these socks/vandalbots/etc. are shot down. Cheers, Yuser31415 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:1B6

User:1B6 has posted on my talk page () (3 days ago, but since the last time I checked Misplaced Pages) asking to be blocked. That user then vandalised their own userpage () and talkpage (), and reverted the vandalism on their own userpage with a note implying that the account has been compromised (). I'm reporting the issue here now, but as the user has not edited for almost 2 days this probably isn't urgent. --ais523 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranks and hierarchies

One of the biggest problems with Esperanza was the leadership council, which made decisions that were binding on other people. I recently found Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day which has a similar hierarchy. It has several sections that may only be edited by "overseers" (whatever that is) and appears to make decisions based on seniority of those "overseers". I think this is bad and unwiki. Thoughts, anyone? >Radiant< 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite concerning. Dan Bryant is listedgone, and he's a frequent ANI-er, so I think let's wait for his opinions. – Chacor 10:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"My opinions", sounds like a mini-heirachy for this thread - just kidding :) I forgot all about this "project". Anyways, I'm strongly against that sort of heirachy, and combined with my inactivity regarding MOTD, I've speedily-resigned. As you can see, I "signed up" (or was it elected? I can't remember) during August, when I was a very new editor. Although MOTD is good, the current system of "overseers" isn't, and I don't have any brainwaves currently on how to fix it.

I think that there will be an overwhelming concensus here to remove the "overseers" per se, and replace it with a better system where everyone is equal (and no, none will be more equal than others. As I said, MOTD is a good concept, and it should be reformed instead of being dished into hell for being heirachal. Again, I'd just like to repeat I'm totally and utterly against this kind of, in my opinion, destructive structure which promotes the idea that some users' opinions are worth infinitely more than others - within reason it is appropriate, eg admins to trolls, but having it spelled out and definitive in such a black-and-white fashion is not the Wiki way. Wow, I still can't believe I joined that...I hope I'm forgiven for a lapse in judgement given it was so long ago *grovels* :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The hiearchy, in my opinion, should be removed immediately. Also, as I have seen in the past, MOTD has been going rather downhill. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen such bureaucracy for such a tiny concept, one I'd never even heard of before. Any small group of editors could do this if it's seen as important (I don't) with little coordination required. Grandmasterka 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty evident what the concensus here will be, so I'm going to go through and rid MOTD of this heirachy. Daniel.Bryant 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(responds to self) I believe I've got rid of every bit of hierarchal creep that was in MOTD, and I've left a note on the no-longer-"Overseer",-now-"Co-ordination" desk linking here. I also made it clear that everyone who wants to is invited to help co-ordinate the project from the desk, and I removed the veto voting scheme and promotion "rules" from the procedure text at the top of two of the pages. If you see anything else, feel free to remove it and replace it with a less rank-like system and/or description. Daniel.Bryant 11:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The "anything else" I saw was a "I am the senior overseer" userbox on User:Geo.plrd, which I've now replaced with {{User MOTD}}. >Radiant< 11:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I didn't spot that - I didn't leave Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day and subpages, actually. Daniel.Bryant 11:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd seems to be obsessed with creating hierarchal structures on Misplaced Pages (with himself as head, of course). It seems to be his sole reason for being here. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There’s still Misplaced Pages:Motd/Template:Warnvote. —xyzzy_n 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuck. Tagged for speedy deletion. Daniel.Bryant 12:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I do believe that this is blatantly excessive bureaucracy for something as simple as a daily tagline. Brazil, anyone? >Radiant< 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess, all the date subpages of mottos now-used (eg all of 2006) can be killed. However, if you take out all those, there is barely any pages. Daniel.Bryant 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A handful of the date pages have talk pages; modulo those (and possibly page history, if motto pages were edited), they seem entirely redundant with the schedule archive. —xyzzy_n 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Far out, it all got readded, and there is still the apparent group of users who have their names distinctly listed in the big yellow box at the top. I'm half-tempted to MfD the desk, just to get rid of it. Daniel.Bryant 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo.plrd took over after User:Go for it! moved on, i think. Geo does indeed have a long history of inventing hierarchies and pseudo-projects, and joining everything in sight.

They (MOTD) just asked again about putting the MOTD in the Community Portal. I still believe it to be very unsuitable. It might be acceptable if confined to userspace, though I'd be happy to see it MfD'd entirely. I prefer humour hidden like a treasure, and actually funny.. —Quiddity 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

i took over after Childzy left. i do edit articles Geo. 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Jacob Peters socks to be blocked

This are a latest lot, described by Checkuser as "likely" at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters. The ones to be blocked are:

• Fox33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Daniel Shays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

FBabeuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has already been blocked, so it's just the first two that need to be done. Cheers, Moreschi 12:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I thought you were admin. :P — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not yet:) Moreschi 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someday Soon F♯, D♭ -- Szvest - 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, quit with the flattery or I shall verily break you in pieces like a potter's vessel, for he is like a refiner's fire. Moreschi 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That song was for Julia. Don't you like it? -- Szvest - 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Article created by sockpuppet?

What should I do with an article (Charles C. Poindexter) created by a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user (User:Mykungfu)? I had sent it to AfD, primarily because I didn't think the subject met WP:BIO, but after seeing the debate (including comments by Mykungfu), I don't believe that is the case. He is notable, so the article's other issues (such as it being a POV fork from Alpha Phi Alpha) should be dealt with elsewhere. My question is whether an article created and almost solely edited by a blocked user should simply be deleted on that basis. I'm also hesitant to overstep my bounds here, as I was also the admin who blocked the last two MKF socks. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Articles created by Banned/InDef blocked folks should be speedied without prejudice to recreation under CSD C5 (Sock of blocked/banned user). If the article is notable, it will be remade. A ban/block is exactly that. There's no wiggle room with "Ban, except for articles that are notable". SirFozzie 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would keep the article but reduce it to a stub - thereby losing the content added by the banned user and allowing a new article to grow. I voiced the same opinion at the AFD.--Spartaz 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it per CSD-G5. However, it does appear that the subject is notable, so if the article is re-created by a legitimate user, I won't AfD it again. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page mass posting

Hypnosadist (talk · contribs) has posted to a lot of user talk pages soliciting input to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/InShaneee. I am concerned the user seems to be trying to rustle up a lynch mob. Even assuming good faith, this was more inclined to escalate than resolve the dispute, so I'm rolling back the posts. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here, Guy. It's pretty common to contact users who have previously commented in an RfC (which is what was done here) if further action is being taken (he is preparing a request for arbitration). I won't revert you, but I wouldn't qualify it as "rustling up a lynch mob." —bbatsell ¿? 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just took a quick jaunt through your talk page and see that more fundamentally, he appears to be picking and choosing commenters, which is obviously canvassing, so I retract my above comment. —bbatsell ¿? 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

yep - that's a no-no - trying to stack the deck. I think Guy was right to remove the soliciting. --Charlesknight 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Considering that I commented in the original RfC I'm not sure how much impact soliciting my opinion again is supposed to have. You have a point about the canvassing, but removing talk page threads that have already been replied to isn't very productive. --tjstrf talk 18:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to reinstate the conversational element. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

":::I have slowly contacted a 7 people over 2 days and had 5 replys, no one contacted has said don't post. As for canvasing how am i ment to build a case against an admin without talking to the people he has delt with. The RfC which came to nothing was a good place. to start. This is just an attempt to stop an arbitration against an admin and find having my talk deleted highly offencive and the rest civility rules don't allow me to even start on.Hypnosadist 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You posted text soliciting input in an RfC designed to get InShaneee stripped of the sysop bit. The text was the same on all Talk pages. In both tone and target, it was unacceptable, as noted above. Please do not do this again. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rfc had stopped, i'm trying to get an arbitration on Inshaneee and his conduct. As a result of that i do want him stripped of his sysop powers, because of the way he uses them. This is not spam so what policy are you deleteing them under?Hypnosadist 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh look NuclearUmpf has just reverted Guys deleteion of my message, maybe he wanted to help stop Inshanee abuseing his powers as well.Hypnosadist 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think your tone will help anything, Hypnosadist--please try being the one NOT running around calling editors "douches." However, I don't object to the message being put on my talk page, but am a little irritated that it was deleted without notice on my talk page. Hypnosadist could have posted this on the InShaneee RfC, that he was moving on to arbitration, except that InShaneee archived his own RfC while it was still active, not giving Hypnosadist the opportunity to use that avenue. KP Botany 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could i make a request of guy to keep his accusations of which polices i am breaking together, preferably here. At the moment he is claiming i am breaking Misplaced Pages:Canvassing but no vote or Afd or such is ongoing nor is my posting disruptive.Hypnosadist 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A third editor i contacted has reverted but was re-reverted and a message left by an admin says not to. This is getting beyond a joke now, is Guy really aloud to run blocking coverage to stop an arbitration about another admin.Hypnosadist 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:SPAM#Canvassing. May I recommend you stop for a second, assemble your own version of events for the RfAr, file the RfAr, then notify all parties (i.e., not just ones that you agree with) that an RfAr has been filed. That's generally how this is done. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"May I recommend you stop for a second, assemble your own version of events for the RfAr" thats what i'm doing! Bbatsell this case invovles probably 20-30 different people Inshaneee has had less that optimal interactions with, such as the 7 people i MASS mailed.Hypnosadist 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I got one of the messages from Hypnosadist, , but there were more people involved in the RFC other than the seven of us. While I will not comment one way or another on this issue, I really think that the RFC went nowhere and no real solutions were brought up. I would suggest another firm RFC, out of InShaneee's control, so we can see what could happen. User:Zscout370 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just found something. Before the messaging began, I found Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_abuse. This was composed by Hypnosadist. User:Zscout370 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Question, so simply giving a neutral notice and posting on the talk pages of all who had responded to the RfC, even those supporting InShaneee, and including InShaneee, would have been okay, or Hypnosadist would have had to wait until after posting an RfAr? I think it's an important distinction, particularly with the RfC closed prematurely, as it would have been a general venue to post a single notice rather than proceeding to post messages on individual talk pages. I don't see that InShaneee controlled the RfC outside of archiving it during the holidays. Thanks for the link, Bbatsell. KP Botany 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist also mentioned about the posting on the messages at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_petulant_and_totally_unjustified_block, so that pretty much two, public places, that he mentioned he will contact people involved with the RFC about the impending RFAr. I won't get involved in the RFAr, but I wish for no sanctions to be placed on Hypnosadist for this, since he was going to have to do it anyways due to ArbCom procedures. User:Zscout370 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to KP Botany: essentially, yes. If Hypnosadist had contacted everybody who commented on InShaneee's RfC and noted that he was adding additional information to that RfC and inviting participants to consider it, that would have been fine. The problem here was twofold: first, the apparent selection of only those likely to be anti; second, the tone of the message, which was essentially "let's all get together to get InShaneee desysopped". Posting a single comment inviting participation, in neutral terms, to all existing participants in a process, is not usually viewed as problematic, although it may depend on the circumstances. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't contact everyone from the rfc and Inshaneee's talk page because i thought THAT would be spamming, oh the irony.Hypnosadist 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean if Hypnosadist had left messages on the talk pages of all those who commented on InShaneee's RfC, he would not be accused of spamming? Please explain this policy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ahwaz, why did you delete my post? I'll assume it was by accident, which I've done before. Ironic, but now you know how to do it in the future, and, as Zscout370 points out administrators had notice beforehand about what you intended to do, and the tone you would take, and no one bothered to stop you before you did it. So, it appears it's not a well-understood or well-known or well-respected or .... policy, and it's not like you did it on the sly. In general, though, being mellow about the situation will make it easier for everyone, potentially gain you more supporters and clearly deliniate between you and the person you are complaining about, not just on Misplaced Pages, but in all situations. So, in the future be neutral and invite everyone to the party, but, yes, oh the irony of it all. Thanks for the information, Guy. KP Botany 20:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had deleted your post and wasn't aware that I had broken any policy. Are your remarks referring to me or Hypnosadist?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As you'll see from Hypnosadist's Talk, I went there and told him that he had done wrong, and pointed out why, and did so in terms which assumed good faith (ignorance is a defence on Misplaced Pages). I went out of my way to assume that this was a one-off based on not knowing it's wrong. Sadly Hypnosadist chose to bluster and escalate rather than ask for clarification. "You can't do that!" tends not to work with the better-known and more active admins, because generally we are doing it precisely because we can - and usually should - do that. We are the rouge admin cabal and our anthem is "We Will Block You" but only if you persist after your errors have been pointed out. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just a joke to you isn't it "We are the rouge admin cabal and our anthem is "We Will Block You" but only if you persist after your errors have been pointed out." This is pathetic!Hypnosadist 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to be contacted by Hypnosadist regarding this matter and was unhappy that his message to me was censored on my talk page by Guy, who refused to allow me to revert his deletion of the message to me.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A joke? No. Using humour to attempt to defuse the situation. You are taking this way too seriously. Bu don't be fooled, WP:ROUGE has a very serious message. So come down from the Reichstag and get a sense of perspective, eh? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, as I posted above, it's best to wait to leave notes on the RfC commenters pages until an RfAr has been filed. Otherwise it's like you're plotting to overthrow someone, which shouldn't be your intention. Your intention should be to tell your side of the story, let everyone else tell theirs as well, and then allow the ArbCom to come to the appropriate conclusion(s). —bbatsell ¿? 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to sum up, InShaneee gets given a clean slate after so many examples of uncivil and over-the-top actions that breach Misplaced Pages guidelines and he is let off the hook without so much as a warning. Hypnosadist, who was insulted by InShaneee, feels this doesn't adequately address his or others' concerns about this admin and wants to take it further, asking other editors suffering similar grievances to outline their complaints ahead of arbitration. In response, admins come down on him like a tonne of bricks for allegedly spamming users' talk pages (although those users have not complained). This is about admins covering each others' backs, not an even application of policy. This strengthens Hypnosadist's case for taking the problem to a higher level.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that the admin's are not coming down on him for spamming folks pages. If he had contacted ALL members of the RfC, then there would have been no repercussions. Instead, he selectively chooses those who would be the most sympathetic to his cause . That's not allowed. Please read the notes earlier in the case, and try to assume good faith of their legitimate issues. Comments like "This is about admins covering each others' backs" do nothing to help your cause. SirFozzie 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Sir Fozzie i was accused of as the title suggests MASS posting and now you say i did not post enough when it turns out what i was doing was not spam. What happened was the charge against me was changed mid stream when it became obviouse that i was not guilty of any spamming.Hypnosadist 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps as for my good faith how about "the user seems to be trying to rustle up a lynch mob" thats good faith i take it. Hypnosadist 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are seeing parts of this discussion and not others. Several folks (admin, and not-admin alike, including myself) have agreed that the mass discussion you were doing was ok in theory.. EXCEPT: A) you were only letting people know that already agreed with you, when to be fair, you are supposed to let all sides know that you are adding more information to the RfC, and inviting comment, and B)You did not do so in a neutral manner. SirFozzie 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, I have explained MULTIPLE times the correct procedure for the future, and have explained exactly what policies you did not follow. You were not blocked, you are not being attacked, you are not being hindered in any way. Please acknowledge this and move on. Thank you. —bbatsell ¿? 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Bbatsell i understand the correct proceedure, that from now i should go to arb com then tell inshaneee that i've done it then try to get the evidence for my case. I am being attacked as this tread is about how i'm wrong while i'm trying to get justice for how me and many other people have been treat by inshaneee. I've been hinderd by having my messages deleted on talk pages, i deliberately did not post loads of messages just so i would not be accused of spamming and then i am accused of doing that because of how few messages i posted. I am really having difficulty with this.Hypnosadist 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is not about your attempts to get "justice". That's not the issue at hand here. There are other places for that. Like the RFC you have filed. You didn't follow WP proceedure in your canvassing. Period. Accept that and move on. No one is having a big black mark against their name. No one is getting blocked, banned, etcetera. The only thing you are doing is prejuducing people AGAINST your case, with your constant complaints about how you're being treated unfairly, despite SEVERAL people trying to explain what you did incorrectly so we can all move on. Now, PLEASE, take the advice you are given and move on. SirFozzie 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not filed an RfC ever! Given that you have that fact wrong could you relook at this case!Hypnosadist 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be the confusion "If Hypnosadist had contacted everybody who commented on InShaneee's RfC and noted that he was adding additional information to that RfC and inviting participants to consider it, that would have been fine". I'm not doing anything to do with an RfC, the one A Link with the past started died with nothing happening. Hypnosadist 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is because a RfC cannot hand out disciplinary measures. You need an arbitration to do that. BTW, I have reviewed the information. It makes things worse AGAINST you, not for you. You are actively soliciting those who agree with you to file a case against the admin (who even I agree has not been lily white in this whole issue). You are/were attempting "Trial by Ambush" here, (please don't attempt to tell me different, telling folks that you are messaging them only because they supported your case in the RFC as in ] . Just end this farce, Stop claiming you're being persecuted in here, and get on with the Arbitration (then let EVERYONE involved know, not just those on your side). ~~

Actually Hypnosadist I did add the note that you had explained what you were going to do before you did it in two notes (as Zscout pointed out) and that folks/admins could have asked you not to before you did what you did, and I pointed out that you didn't try to hide it or anything. Still, this is, imo, the kind of thing that happens when people "in power" abuse it or are perceived to abuse it, it builds up bad feelings, the kind that don't readily go away. That's why I also urge you to take a cool step back to deal with this. KP Botany 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

At last my real crime is revealed "You are actively soliciting those who agree with you to file a case against the admin" yep thats a fair cop, i only told you that every time you asked.Hypnosadist 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Weirdoactor

Out of the blue, Weirdoactor (talk · contribs) posted this comment on my Talk page. I considered it verging on a personal attack, if not a threat, and I replied with this, which was probably not the most diplomatic response, but I wanted to make it clear that his comment on my Talk page was worrisome. He removed the comment, calling it "admin harrassment". I reverted the removal. He responded on my Talk page with this. This is completely coming out of the blue, as I had no previous dealings with him except for suggesting he be civil in an AfD discussion. This threat should not be idly dismissed, but I have no intentions of continuing the discussion. I will, however, take action if there are further such threats issued against anyone else. The User's comments on Talk pages have been generally of such poor quality. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird. My previous interaction with this user was completely acceptable and very pleasant, but that kind of conduct as listed by Zoe cannot really be tolerated. Final warnings needed per WP:NPA. Moreschi 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I really don't like the look of that - a little chat about civility is in order. --Charlesknight 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... yeah, needs one final warning from someone not!Zoe and if the incivility continues, a 24h block is definitely in order. —bbatsell ¿? 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had some brief encouters with this editor and found him to be very reasonable and civil. This is out of character. I suggest attempt at clarification and discussion, not blocking, as the appropriate course of action. KillerChihuahua 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This was the comment that I suggested he needed to be civil about. See also , , (and note the edit summary), . I stopped at that point. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for posting all these diffs, it helps to know the situation background. I will attempt to obtain an understanding of what Weirdoactor's view of the situation is, as I can see no reason for his characterizing your comments as harassment, or any reason for his reactions at all. Hopefully it is just a case of him having a Very Bad Day and reading your posts wrong. KillerChihuahua 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

His replies to you on his Talk page seem to be more in a similar vein. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Perhaps we should ask Durova, as the only admin he seems to have respect for, to take a look? KillerChihuahua 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. His attitude seems to be that the "deletionists" are out to destroy Misplaced Pages and he's here to protect it from the evil ones. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know about that, but his current attitude is certainly "any admin who politely informs me my incivility and hostile demeanor is unacceptable is harrassing me, and anyone who says s/he isn't is just protecting her/his friends and is a Bad Admin too!" which is hardly a helpful or rational attitude. I wouldn't have taken the trouble, except that I had interacted with this editor before, as I've mentioned, and seen nothing to indicate this kind of attitude - as Moreschi has also noted above. I'll post to Durova's talk page, up to her whether she wants to give it a go or not. I now withdraw any objection to any block deemed acceptable by any admin, my attempt to help this user resulted in insults and accusations. KillerChihuahua 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(un-indenting) Hi! Please see my talk page for a short but sweet mea culpa. Also, Zoe?

• I was referring to myself here in terms of a need for caffeine. Me. The sleepy editor. Hi!
• Re: here; Jmabel had stated that he wouldn't be returning to the thread; it wasn't an attack on him in any way.

Just thought I'd clarify. If you have any more diffs of mine you'd like me to clarify, please do let me know. Ta. -- weirdoactor 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weirdoactor's rather... uh... weird, suffers from an juxtapositionally idiosyncratic sense of humour, just like some others; but my previous conversations with him have been harmless. Just be a little nice with those you don't know, they might misapprehend your intentions. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Decimal block bug?

Didn't see anything on bugzilla that looked like it matched:

Earlier today, Consumed Crustacean blocked 68.254.181.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for "2.37685 weeks" (see block log). However, the wiki software parsed that as...

17:41, 8 January 2007, Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.254.181.254 (contribs) (expires 02:37, 24 February 2020, anon. only) (Unblock) (Repeat school based IP-vandal, with much activity recently. Anon-only block.)

...which is considerably longer than 2.37685 weeks. Basically it looks like it took 2.37 as 02:37, and the remaining 685 as "685 weeks" (13.173 years, or 2020).

Anyone seen this before, or should I submit it to bugzilla? Syrthiss 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth did he block them for 2.37685 weeks anyway? Isn't that a little overprecise? --tjstrf talk 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever. I would have done a simple 2 or 3 week block if I had known this. The system should have an error check built in to refuse such input rather than outright breaking, if that's possible with the way it's set up. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubt you'd get much joy from raising a bug, last i looked (some time ago) the system uses a php function to parse the relative dates and it is that which is failing. --pgk 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely case that the gory details are useful for somebody: the PHP code for the block form is at and calls strtotime(). The manpage claims that the date syntax is identical to the tar syntax (for which see ) and lies. (Otherwise, it would be possible to specify ‘1 fortnight’…) The actual grammar is here. The rules that were used in the above example are timetiny12 (e. g. ‘1:13’ or ‘12.05’) and relative (e. g. ‘3 weeks’). The important thing to remember here is that for specifications like ‘2 days’ or ‘1 year’, the number is expected to be a (possibly signed) integer and the function (which is technically a lexer, not a parser) is no ELIZA, so don’t expect it to understand jokes. Hope this helps. —xyzzy_n 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note: it does accept 1 fortnight. ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I somehow managed to miss those lines. It even does forthnights ago… —xyzzy_n 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with the title of this section, I'll be more impressed if they implement decimal seconds, decimal minutes, and decimal hours. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've filed this bug: bugzilla:8554. --ais523 18:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest User:JB196 Sock accounts

GaryGoingggg has gone back to standard User:JB196 behaviour, inserting links to articles JB196 has written ] as well as nominating wrestling articles for AfD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rick Scaia‎. Note: The account is only a few days old, which is a strong indicator of trying to get around JB's ban.

See Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/JB196‎ for his full history.

Also user:Machodawg is inserting JB196 links in articles as well ]

(Sorry, forgot to sign) SirFozzie 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a very obvious JB196 sock, and he's already threatening to evade any block that may be imposed. One Night In Hackney 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is comforting to know that you must stoop to the level of personally attacking new users and wrongly accusing new users of sockpuppeting because you dont want a verifiable source (which they added) to remain in a article. theres no threat on my part--and the only personal attacks have came from you.

GaryGoingggg 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "verifiable source" is largely unverifiable original research carried out by JB196, a link to which has been inserted on a constant basis by JB196 and all his socks. The claim of a personal attack refers to me stating Common sense says that screenshots can easily be doctored or manipulated, so they are not reliable, which is clearly not a personal attack. The sooner this disruptive editor is blocked the better. One Night In Hackney 08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. hopefully, someone can look at this ASAP SirFozzie 18:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

-1. I am not disruptive. -2. You are harassing me with these false sockpuppetting accusations and you are not assuming good faith. -and most importantly 3. The source is extremely verifiable and the day that Tommy Dreamer saying his opinion on a particular matter becomes not relevent or not verifiable in relation to Tommy Dreamer's opinion on said particular matter is the day that the world ends.

Stop harassing me.GaryGoingggg 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not have to assume good faith where there is a pattern otherwise. SirFozzie 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

antivandalbot error report

Richard Branson's page was edited for the 2nd time today, text is full of attention-seeking vandalism. Should consider closing this page's editing.

This page is now sprotected

I really didn't want to do it but I was struggling to keep up with reverting the vandalism, meaning that nobody else could get an edit in edgeways. Lets leave this long enough for the vandal to stop and then unsprotect. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not long ago WP:DEFCON was set to the second-highest level of vandalism, suggesting a vandalbot or other similiar mass-vandalism tool was in action. Yuser31415 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem with adding the text, "in the interim, please feel free to contact an administrator directly" or words to that effect? --BigDT 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...either that, or use the talk page...Guettarda 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the text. I don't know that asking for messages to be posted on the talk page is a great idea, but I won't yell/scream too loudly if someone disagrees and changes it. Really, though, you could contact any established user ... anyone can copy/paste your message here for you. --BigDT 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Cplot has stashed accounts sitting around waiting to disrupt, since he was just able to vandalize this page again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go new account patrolling sometime and bash anything that follows his username pattern with {{username}} --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot just managed to hit it again, as User:AbsoluteXer0. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Raspor

For several weeks now a highly aggressive and partisan new contributor, Raspor, has been causing serious disruption at Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Discovery Institute as well as various user talk pages. This prompted me to file a user conduct RFC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Raspor, where there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate against his behavior. He has dismissed the community's input and is now attempting to expand his disruption with petty trolling: He's exhausted the community's patience, as recent comments on my talk page and the RFC talk page indicate.

Considering the disruption he's caused over the last 72 hours and his unwillingness to moderate his behavior despite many past warnings and kindlier efforts, something needs to be done to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I support either a community ban in general (given his increasing incivility) or a topic ban on articles related to creationism and evolution in the broad sense. A week or so ago I favoured the latter, but he has now moved to trolling user talk pages. I am now in favour of a community ban. Guettarda 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This guy has done very little but troll in the time he's been here. I recommend a lengthy block - maybe 72 hours, or even a week - and for it to be made absolutely clear to him that what he is doing is just not on. Mind you, if anyone wants to block indef, I won't be calling for your desysopping. I can just about envisage this fellow turning into a decent editor, but it's a stretch. Block now and the next time he trolls kick him out for good. Moreschi 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a block. However, given that the user has only one previous block- a standard 3RR block, an indefinite block at this point seems uncalled for. I would recommend some block time between 24 to 96 hours. JoshuaZ 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Four days seems more than a bit light for the amount of disruption he's caused and the fact he simply shugged off his last block. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user goes back to the same things after the block we can always immediately respond with another block. However, if someone blocks for a week I'm not going to object. JoshuaZ 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to do this incrementally, then I would propose a couple weeks of a topic ban - tell him to stay away from articles related to evo-creo (and stop trolling user talk pages). Guettarda 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the matter here is exhausting community patience, which isn't something that builds from shorter to longer blocks, is it? There is, of course, a separate issue of his personal attacks and incivility, which probably needs a lot more attention than it has been given. Guettarda 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week to start, but if someone wants to block permanently I wouldn't object. Jayjg 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also wouldn't object to an indefblock. My favorite: "no one ever told me not to call him fellatio. i really dont remember that." No? Oh okay, that's better then. —bbatsell ¿? 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a community ban. He seems to be here only to disrupt. SlimVirgin 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send in the Balrog! Apart from that, I would support a community ban per a large amount of disruption and incivilty. Yuser31415 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that the situation got so out of control that FeloniousMonk set up a whole separate page on Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor's and another editor's various rants and rapid-fire diatribes. I support FM's way of dealing with the situation, which had gotten well beyond reason. That page alone (Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections) is already at 137kB of content (a couple kB of which is due to my own attempts at response/explanation/conciliation, along with similar conciliatory attempts by several other users). Raspor has settled down just a bit of late on Talk:Intelligent design, and he's mostly respected the request to post comments on the page that was set up to accommodate the various shotgun-style objections and accusations (though I see he's moved his activities to some other pages in the meantime). I'm in favor of a temporary block, perhaps a week, if only to give it a rest for awhile, take a forced wiki-break, and hopefully have Raspor come back (if he wishes) with more of an orientation towards interactive discussion and contribution rather than just ranting. ... Kenosis 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I now see Jayjig appears to already have blocked Raspor for a week. Seems to me if he's to be allowed to return after whatever the decision is among the admins, it should be with the caveat that a repetition of the pattern will result in a permanent block--just my opinion. ... Kenosis 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this course of action - if this editor returns and makes one more personal attack, I support indef. The "fellatio" remark alone is beyond the pale, and one look at the talk page of his Rfc shows mutiple personal attacks and a total lack of interest in being even remotely civil. His goal seems disruption and trolling, with one or two productive edits buried amongst thousands of counter-productive hostile rants. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

After a quick skim of contributions - I've got to wonder why we spent so many manhours on such hopeless cases - editing wikipedia is an entitlement, it's not a right, yet I've seen less handwringing about sending people to prison (mind you that might say more about the UK Justice system..) --Charlesknight 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that some of the comments in this section are incorrect and/or misleading. I question the claim that "there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate"; it seems that most if not all of the people objecting to him are on one side of the debate (and not his side, of course!). I'm not sure what the claim that "he simply shugged (sic) off his last block" means; he was new, didn't know about the three-reverts rule, but now does and hasn't reoffended on that. And although I agree he has been aggressive and abusive, it was largely in response to others insulting him or being abusive to him. Philip J. Rayment 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that raspor seems to have had so much difficulty in reading and following policy, specifically WP:3RR which he was warned of twice (in the first instance not in the recommended format) and allowed to get to 8 reversions before being blocked, then treated it as an unfair personal attack that he'd not been allowed to argue against. As this comment shows he's still having difficulty in understanding what behaviour is expected of him: you've had some success in discussing some things with him, Philip, and it would be good if you could persuade him that he should fully comply with the rules so that an ending of the block is not immediately followed by a repetition of disruptive behaviour. ... dave souza, talk 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters

JP is back with new IP socks. The Vladimir Lenin article's history page for the last few days includes them, and I think his sock page is up to date. He's editing/abusing other articles as well. The edits (primarily deletions) are disruptive as is his habit of reverting. It looks like he's trying to whitewash Soviet history using Soviet sources and removing qualified academic sources. At any rate, JP has long since been banned for this sort of behavior, but he persists with socks. An admin on the vandalism page has referred the matter here. The IP sock du jour is 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with 3RR and some talk page blanking. Rklawton 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The IPs are similar to those of Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, including the above, 207.151.38.178 which was blocked yesterday for 3RR, and 68.126.253.190 which was also blocked yesterday.Ultramarine 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected Vladimir Lenin. Khoikhoi 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late, he's dead. OK, just kidding. What about the other article this sock is editing? Rklawton 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One of very few posts lately that have made me laugh out loud. Thanks, I needed that. —bbatsell ¿? 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm lenin towards support for this. Full marx to Khoikoi. Stalin work, that man. The guy wants trouble? So viet. Uss'r quite happy to block 'im, and if he gets bolshie we'll krusch evry sockpuppet we find. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We will bury him, figuratively speaking, of course. - Merzbow 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Genius. This thread almost made all of JP's hassles worth it. Kudos all around! --C33 05:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

Trolling or not, should someone remove this edit from the history? Fan-1967 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That needs to go to Request for Oversight. I have emailed them. --Edokter (Talk) 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really important enough for oversight IMO, it was just an e-mail address. I've removed it and the other time it happened from the history. —bbatsell ¿? 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Already gone. Looks like someone else reported it at WP:AIV and it was handled. Fan-1967 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Burlington, Ontario

Check page history and you'll see what I mean. It is pretty obvious that these IPs are from the same person. FellowWikipedian 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please tell us what you mean. We shouldn't have to perform an investigation to find out what it is that you're referring to. —Psychonaut 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, some guy with the IPs: User:209.250.162.237 User:209.250.163.105, etc is vandalising the article. I am hoping that the Misplaced Pages admins can help me, if that is possible. FellowWikipedian 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's been going on for a while, I was reverting them back in December. Needs an IP range block. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More (seemingly) from blocked user User:BryanFromPalatine

It would appear that he has not given up sockpuppeting his way around blocks. BenBurch 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! --BenBurch 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Abusive subject header, seeking removal

User:Smashingworth behaving abusively: user created a top-level section header titled "Joie's Record of Editing Hypocrisy Reveals True Motives for Crashing This Page" at Talk:Lavenski_Smith. I would like to see the tabloid-style header removed or at least renamed. Please advise. Sorry if this is incorrectly placed. 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed the heading per WP:RTP as a simple refactoring for brevity and to promote discussion rather than attacks. Please note that this is not an indication that I agree with either side in this dispute, but I trust discussion will prove more productive without inflammatory content such as that. —bbatsell ¿? 23:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kai bohrmann

This appears to be a repost of an article that was deleted from the German Misplaced Pages. I'm not a sysop over there (und mein Deutsch ist ein bisschen schwach), so I can't attest to the circumstances. According to the author, Kai bohrmann (talk · contribs), the public reason was for being an "agitation article." This article is now sitting in Kai bohrmann's userspace, still in German, either to be translated or sent back to de. Either way, I'm not very happy about the present situation, but as the speedy deletion is contested, I'm coming here for a second opinion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:SEIFE. Deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Patchbook (talk · contribs)

I request that action (IMO a block preferably) be taken with this user. He has an ever growing list of improper behaviour which began with the continuous removal of maintenance tags from Police memorabilia collecting, for which he was warned more than once. Then in reply to edits to his (the one mentioned above) article, seemingly unable to accept that articles one writes are edited by other users, began personal attacks and threats on User:Kintetsubuffalo and myself User:SGGH, for which he was again warned. However, these warnings have had no effect, and User:Kintetsubuffalo has contacted Jimbo Wales himself requesting assistance, and I myself am here to request action. In addition to the problems already mentioned, User:Patchbook recently edited the Article Watch list of the Law Enforcement wikiproject, which he had was in no place to edit, and he had no reason so. I view his edits there, in a place used only by the "admin staff" (so to speak) of the wikiproject, to be vandalism in order to further his own argument. I kindly request advice and/or action in this matter, and would request that such advice is given to User:Kintetsubuffalo as well, as he had borne the brunt of Patchbook's attacks. Many thanks, SGGH 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the user in question has edited as User:208.127.49.118 and as User:Patchbook. As Patchbook, he left what could be considered a death threat on User:Kintetsubuffalo's talk page. I left npa3 on the user's talkpage after this message and he has not edited as that username since then ... although he has been a disruption as the IP address as SGGH pointed out. --BigDT 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet more Art Dominique (talk · contribs) socks

These are pretty clearly socks of banned user Art Dominique. Could not be checkusered for technical reasons. Recommend reviewing them and blocking if found to be socks.

• Evelina Carlson (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Swedish girl (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Historical truth (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thanks, researchers ! (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Notable world figures (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Use the shower curtain (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• No fear, no remorse (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thanks! TheQuandry 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that they are socks. All blocked Alex Bakharev 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possible WP:JARLAXLE sock

Imapoed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably, but not certainly, another WP:JARLAXLE sockpuppet. (User's very first edit was to undo a recent edit of mine, followed by a complaint on my talk page, followed by several more reversions of my edits. User's other edits seem to be legitimate vandalism reversion.) I'm reporting this here because I'm going to bed and thus won't be able to monitor the user. Someone else should check occasionally to make sure the user is (or is not) harmless. —Psychonaut 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism from dynamic IP

The article Game rip (audio) has been frequently vandalized by an anonymous user with a dynamic IP since its creation, as you can see from the history . Recently, their vandalism attempts have involved the repeated insertion of a link to an apparently virus-infected file, which they are trying to pass off as a legitimate program. Since their IP is different every time they edit the page, there isn't anything I can do besides just reverting their edits. Any ideas? WarpstarRider 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, adding to my watchlist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have semiprotected the article. Next time request protection/semiprotection on WP:RPP Alex Bakharev 01:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1 annon vandalism a day isn't realy a good reason to protect it. Mine if I unprotect? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New User's Username

Under the naming conventions of Misplaced Pages, is Mrs.chokesondick (talk · contribs) an appropriate user name? I'd like to issue a request to change it to the user but first would like community advice. Ramsquire 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

File it at WP:RFC/NAME

On one hand it's a name of a South Park character. On the other, not everybody watches South Park... file away in the correct place, and see what happens :) Crimsone 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by another user (and Crimsone beat me to the punch about the South Park reference). I still think whoever chose that name needs to pick another one. User:Zscout370 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the name aloud, people. It's a South Park character with an intentionally offensive name, and should always be blocked. Grandmasterka 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:École Polytechnique massacre

I'm about ready to pack it in over this one. I've become involved as an editor, so my admin tools are no help. I filed an Rfc here Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Suemcp but the user in question has refused to participate. I'm totally at a loss. The most recent thread in question (there are lots) is here Talk:École_Polytechnique_massacre#Challenge_for_Sue. I have not used my admin tools in this dispute, but I'll accept criticism from any admin about my tone, or other behaviour. Mostly, level-headed help is needed, from any quarter. I originally got involved to try and help solve the dispute, but I'm forced to admit failure at that. Any input or advice is welcome. Cheers. Dina 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried mediation? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, it doesn't merit mediation -- it isn't a dispute between two users, but a dispute between one user, and every other user that visits the article or talk page. However, the user in question did request mediation here: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre as well as contacting User:Cowman109 personally: here. Some of the accusations are certainly toeing the line of personal attacks but I feel powerless to do anything about it since I've edited the article. Dina 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrative intervention needed

New user Baristarim seems to believe talkpages are items that are, in his words, "owned." He posted several complaints on my talkpage and a WP:3RR warning after I reverted, one time, his removal of categories from two pages. He is now claiming that I am not allowed to remove his rude statements from my talkpage because the WP:3RR warning was "legitimate." Would an administrator please explain to him how talkpages work? Thanks, KazakhPol 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please. Yuser31415 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

He openly admits to posting the WP:3RR warning after one reversion on the grounds that my "tone" implied I would violate the policy. If you look at the history of my talkpage you will see he accuses me of vandalism when I revert his incivil comments. KazakhPol 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User states that user talkpages are owned, and states that Kazakhstan "does not matter." KazakhPol 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not fall for this trap. I gave him 3RR warnings and he insists on removing them from his talk page saying that " I can remove any comment you post on my talkpage and I do not have to state why". I gave him a 3RR warning because I was sure that he would go all the way to 3RR, and two minutes after my warning he did his second revert and fifteen minutes later his third. He was adding an irrelevant cat to certain articles, then I reverted him, then I noticed that he had created a "Terrorism in Kazakhstan" template that I TfDed. I already notified an administrator about this .

And I am not a new user. I have been here longer than this user has, and have much more edits. In fact, I would like to request intervention on my part. He is insisting that I am being uncivil, and accusing me of being a new user, being ignorant of Wiki policies etc (see my talk page). He is insisting on removing my warnings and posts from his talk page , by saying that I am breaking WP:OWN, but is breaking the same rule himself by saying "I can remove any comment I please from my talk page" . If anyone finds any comment that breaks WP:CIVIL, I have nothing more to say, all my posts were civil, decent and standard. This user also posted messages at the talk pages of numerous users, practically inviting them for edit warring on concerned articles in the space of a couple of minutes.Baristarim 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that this user has demonstrated he/she does not understand a single Misplaced Pages policy, could someone either give him a stern warning or block him so he gets the point? I am trying to work and he is becoming a nuisance. KazakhPol 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, big deal. You're both reasonably experienced users and you should both know better than this. Stay away from each other, okay? You've both made your points. Yuser31415 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Would KazakhPol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please stop harassing Baristarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): ? Thanks. Yuser31415 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely right. After the reverts, I only notified one admin so that he can take a look, but I didn't go to ANI by claiming that "new user" was doing this or that. If possible, I would still like clarification on if he can revert 3RR warnings by saying that "I can remove anything that I want from my talk page". He posted msgs to 14 users practically inviting them for edit-warring. However, I didn't think that ANI was the right place for this in the first place. Cheers! Baristarim 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Struck out my comments, no need for now. Baristarim 04:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When users ask to be "banned"

What should be done when a user (Phillers (talk · contribs), in this case) asks to be "banned," presumably a synonym for "block," as his first edit? (Warning:The font he used is huge, so you might wanna view it with popups instead of clicking.) His second and third edits have been petty vandalism. I've been debating whether to welcome him (which may be useless - this is probably not his first interaction with Misplaced Pages, based on his knowledge of formatting and site layout), add him at WP:AIV, or add a section here. I recall users being blocked indef at their request, one blocked indef at their request and then unblocked involuntarily, and at least one completely ignored. Any other opinions on the situation? Oh, and forgive me if this has been discussed before. Picaroon 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You block the account because they are obviously not here to contribute to the project and only here to disrupt it to make a point. I've blanked his user page, and his contributions are disruptive and not done in good faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IP inserting misinformation

72.137.114.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is has repeatedly changed legitimate information in pages. Randomly picked examples include , , , and . Could some admin rollback all of his or her changes quickly? Cheers. Yuser31415 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with watching over an article

Rascalpatrol (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppeteer of a number of different accounts used to edit Canadian political articles (see his request for checkuser here). I'm not knowledgeable in Canadian politics, but it does appear that he is removing sourced material that he perceives to be negative towards right-wing politicians. He previously used sockpuppets to attempt to influence an AfD, and now is using them to game WP:3RR on Erik Bornmann (maybe other articles, I'm not sure). I need some help reviewing all of this user's actions (you can see the full list of sockpuppets on the RFCU I linked above). Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for page semi-protection concerning this was denied and deferred here. Carson 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article (I have no idea why it needed to be deferred), and I have blocked all Rascalpatrol's sockpuppets, as they are single purpose throwaway accounts created solely for the purposes of disrupting articles (and the AFD on Erik Bornmann, which he tried to have deleted, see the thread further up the page). I have left Rascalpatrol (talk · contribs) unblocked for now, but if he continues to use socks in a disruptive manner, I see no reason why he should not be blocked, also. Proto::► 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review a block

I just indefblocked Sillysailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for page move vandalism which took me some time to unravel. As I did this block technically out of process (i.e. no warnings, and some good-faith edits in the past, though mixed with vandalism), I invite others to comment and either change the length of the block themselves, or ask me to do so (I will if there is consensus).

And, while you're at it, could someone please review this to make sure I didn't miss any of this user's havoc? --Ginkgo100 04:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Valid block. Naconkantari 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a random sampling of his edits (dating back to the beginning and middle of '06) and almost all of it was sneaky vandalism. Should have been blocked a long time ago. No problems here. —bbatsell ¿? 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got all the moves cleaned up too. —bbatsell ¿? 04:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a vandalism-only account in the vein of Willy on Wheels, except not as funny. Hbdragon88 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Willy would be disappointed with the lack of wit shown by the impersonator. Valid block. Daniel.Bryant 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Fann Wong by sockpuppets

When checking on Fann Wong, I noticed that Wenfangs (talk · contribs) added nonsensical tags to Fann Wong (such as sprotected, unreferenced and inappropriate tone tags) when the article is completely referenced and has recently obtained GA status. I've warned the user on his/her talk page but the user has accused me of vandalising another article, Zoe Tay. When I checked Zoe Tay, I noticed that a user with a similar nickname Wenfangfan (talk · contribs) was blocked for being a returning vandal. The tumultous edit war in Zoe Tay by sockpuppets resulted in it being sprotected. It seems that both Wenfangs (talk · contribs) and Wenfangfan (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets engaging in vandalism on both the Zoe Tay and Fann Wong articles. In any case, these usernames should be blocked for violating Misplaced Pages's naming policy (celebrity names - Fann Wong's Chinese name is Wenfang, which probably explains the choice of nickname). Voda voda 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given a username block to Wenfangs (talk · contribs). This matter was also raised on my talk page by someone who believes this user is the most recent sock of someone Zoe blocked. Can you clarify why you feel Wenfangfan is also a username violation, doesn't the "fan" part make it different enough? Sorry, I don't mean to be ignorant but I really don't know anything about Chinese names. :) Cheers, Sarah 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I see that second account was blocked a few days ago. Sorry about that. Sarah 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fann Wong's full Chinese name is Fan Wenfang, and Wenfangfan can be taken as too similar to her Chinese name for comfort, even if the first name here (Wenfang) precedes the last name (Fan) - as compared to Chinese custom where the last name (Fan) precedes the first name (Wenfang). Alternatively, you could see Wenfangfan as a username coined in spite; for despite calling himself/herself a fan of Fann Wong, (ie. 'fan' refers to supporter and not the last name of the actress), the user has merely tagged on nonsensical tags to the article instead of improving it. I've just examined the Zoe Tay edit conflict and Wenfangs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page and I think it's quite obvious that it's definitely the same person stirring up nonsense in Fann Wong. Voda voda 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Madonna Vandalism

User 87.196.44.177 unexplainably removed the three first links of the Madonna criticism section.

Despite her undeniable fame , success , iconic and superstar status and groundbreaking career achievements , it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has been the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt.

They wrote: Despite her success, it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has been the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt.

They also completely removed GTBacchus' edit we all agreed on.

However, some critics do see Madonna as a talented vocalist and songwriter. Madonna also received good reviews for her "Love Don't Live Here Anymore," cover on which her performance was described as a "heartfelt vocal". Her vocals on Live To Tell were considered her best at the time by some, and the song's lyrics have been described as "poignant": "A man call tell a thousand lies. I've learned my lesson well. Hope I live to tell the secret I have learned. 'Til then it will burn inside of me."

I gave them a warning. It's vandalism since they removed the three first links without any reason. They did not disagree on the content "Despite her success...", but on the links only...

Israell 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

SPA User:Dhg247 vandalism

Dhg247 (talk · contribs) (a single-purpose account) recently wrote an essay in article space where the controversial Electric universe (concept) was recently deleted as a result of AfD. The account (as well as the article page) may be worth keeping an eye on for the near future for potential recreation, NPOV, or vandalism reasons. ju66l3r 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment was removed (accidentally?), likely as a result of an edit conflict improperly resolved by the above editor. I'm replacing it. ju66l3r 07:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Electric universe (concept) page creation vandalism has stood for about 6 hours now with 2 db tags on it. It would be good to WP:DENY the creator (a single purpose account, likely sockpuppet) their attention for rallying the troops to recreate the original article that failed numerous policies and resulted in a deletion by AfD. Can someone help out here? Thanks. ju66l3r 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the article page under 'A3. No content whatsoever', as the page consisted solely of a message to other editors, which I had moved to the talk page where it belonged. I left the talk page in place, however. -- Donald Albury 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For closure, I submitted the orphaned talk page for deletion and it was removed. Anyone watchlisting this article may want to keep track of it a bit longer. ju66l3r 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Embryoglio - disruption

Embryoglio (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of someone, being somewhat trollish and disruptive, but done with enough skill, it's difficult to deal with.

See threads in Talk:Breast, Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this board to report Armadillo, as well his allies Atomaton and others, but I see that Armadillo has already made an entry of me here. Apparently Armadillo believes that if oneself is the first person to report the dispute, then people will think that oneself is in the right, even when the evidence shows otherwise. It doesn't work like that, Armadillo... or at least I hope it doesn't.

I have extensively catalogged many of the policy violations of User:Atomaton in an entry that I made to this board. That entry was disruptively deleted by the admin User:Ryulong, who, not surprisingly, is known to have a long history of disrupting wikipedia. Look at the edit history of this page to read the deleted entry.

In addition to Armadillo's above lie (which can be seen to be a lie simply by following the links that he/she has provided), he has also made uncivil false accusations and threats against me on the pages that he so conveniently linked to.

Embryoglio 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) is not an admin. Daniel.Bryant 11:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment or reply on Embryoglio's rant. I've been reminded several times recently to not feed the trolls. Anyone who desires to know what is going on here can best make up their own mind by reading recent comments on the talk:breast. Also useful might be Misplaced Pages:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard for user:embryoglio. Reading those will indicate that several people have complained about Embryoglio, and that my role has been marginal.

As for the breast article, civil discussion between the other current editors of the article on the talk pages and elsewhere, including user:MotherAmy, user:RexImperium, user:Xyzzy n, user:I already forgot, user:Honeymane, user:ArmadilloFromHell, user:.V. and user:Jpgordon have led to a discussion of what images are desired on the article. We've pretty much resolved any disputes and have moved forward while user:embryoglio seems to have become mired in arguments with every person that has disagreed with him at some point. Apparently that list now includes Daniel.Bryant and User:Ryulong. My approach, as is likely the approach of the other editors listed above, is to just ignore future comments from Embryoglio and proceed onward to improve the quality of the article. I have full confidence that Embryoglio will someday be a constructive and positive adition to Misplaced Pages. Several users,including myself, have recommended that he get familiar with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, including WP:CIV, WP:EQ, WP:CON, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:DR and WP:RFC Atom 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For precision’s sake, I did not actually participate in the image debate. All I did was talk to Embryoglio (and that got me added to his user page). —xyzzy_n 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Upset user, or immaturity

This user seems a bit upset over the Gundam deletion happening at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. Normally I wouldn't care that he decided to conduct vote-stacking and personal attacking at the same time, but he also vandalized Doug Bell's page. Can someone tell this guy to get a grip? or at least not vandalize? --Elaragirl 09:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note for him. SlimVirgin 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Notifying the Wikiproject that some of their articles are AfD-ed is NOT votestacking, this should be done as common courtesy.... Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem with notifying the project in a neutral way, but this one had a personal attack and asked specifically to keep the articles, which are both things that shouldn't be done... Fram 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the person who nominated the article for deletion should have taken the step to notify the WP, which wasn't done. Yzak's understandably angry, since (again, imo) he feels that the Gundam articles are being singled out. He overreacted, fine, but calling him immature, calling for the disbandment of the Project, and revert warring on the Project page is taking it too far. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe he did actually contact the Wikiproject, or one did.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the nominator of the OTHER AfD did. Not the one for the one that Yzak is going off over. Kyaa the Catlord 10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain WikiProjects are responsible for their own votestacking. --Sam Blanning 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... WP:AGF, but given some of the behavior I've seen coming out of other Wikiprojects when articles their project are involved with get sent to AfD, I'm not so sure I'd be going out of my way to notify a Wikiproject during an AfD. Besides, I thought that was kind of the point of the project, to watch the articles.--Isotope23 16:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yzak notified the WikiProject of the AfD. My opinion, as I pointed out all in caps above, is that it would be neighborly and courteous to inform the WP's when you nominate an article with their tag on it. You don't have to be courteous, this is your own choice. Kyaa the Catlord 17:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to that opinion, but as I've stated above, AfD participation I've seen from other Wikiprojects would make me a bit leary about contacting them about an AfD... Reading through some of the AfDs linked above and the appearance of some mastodons at those discussions, I think bears out my opinion.--Isotope23 17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone needs a bit of WP:AGF right now; or we'll have some pot, kettle, etc. Elaragirl is simply suggesting that the greater community look into the work of WP:GUNDAM and how they create articles that their area of expertise covers, which is exactly what the two AFDs are looking into.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that people should remember that a lot of the Gundam articles were created long before the Wikiproject was founded. Picking on the Project cause of articles that were created before it was created is low.... Kyaa the Catlord 10:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true, but it also up to WikiProjects to clean up existing articles as well as creating new ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we should delete WP: Fiction for having thousands of articles that violate WP:WAF first. Seriously, Misplaced Pages is not our job, we don't get paid to do this, we only have limitted amounts of time to spend cleaning up the mess. If you have clean up concerns, AfD is not the proper step. Kyaa the Catlord 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICTION is a guideline for articles, WP:GUNDAM is a group of people who want to work on Gundam articles. The articles are up for deletion because they are unsourced and full of unverifiable information with no assertion of importance within the metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the literary wikiprojects are then. There are THOUSANDS of articles labelled for problems with WAF, compared to the few articles that WP:GUNDAM have really been involved with... Seriously, calling for the removal of the project is uncalled for and "attack"ish. Kyaa the Catlord 10:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It was uncalled for, yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps editors like Elaragirl could tone down their comments on AfDs. It's not necessary to call the article "ridiculous", a "pile of nonsense", or to say that all the articles should be "burnt with fire". Faced with that sort of language, those who have obviously put in a lot of work on the articles might understandably get a little heated themselves. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A number of the Gundam project members are not helping their case by calling me a troll, reverting the removal of personal attacks under the edit summary 'RV Vandalism', and then threatening me with 3RR for removing them again (which is a total of 1R). Although now I've removed them again. Proto::►

Just for clarity, I called your actions (joining into a revert war on the page) "borderline trollish". Your actions, not you. And if you do break 3RR, you should be reported for 3RR. That's common sense. Kyaa the Catlord 10:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am my actions - that's all we have to go on when relating to our fellow users here. And I would humbly suggest removing personal attacks is not a revert of the kind covered by 3RR. Proto::► 11:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're overreacting then. And perhaps gaming the system. Kicking someone when he's down is poor form, chap. Kyaa the Catlord 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, removing personal attacks is not protected behaviour from 3RR. See: . Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 11:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. Reinserting them is, however, not protected behaviour in WP:NPA. Proto::► 11:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, Yzak's being a naughty boy. Happy now? I thought we all agreed on that already. My problem was that you were encouraging and goading him, so I asked you to stop. Then again, maybe the Gundam kids have a point when they feel they're being harrassed and singled out by Misplaced Pages at large.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Total number of AFDs created since January 1: 1170. Total number of AFDs created since January 1 relating to Gundam: 2. I don't see how this constitutes harrassment and singling out (nor even how the 'Gundam kids' could feel like they are being harrassed or singled out). Proto::► 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. *last word*. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of the WP:OWN violations by WikiProjects. Nobody has an obligation to notify any of the thousands of projects that one of the articles they have (or have not) slapped their templates on has been nominated for AfD. If they're really all that concerned with the articles they claim to be trying to improve, wouldn't at least one of the people involved in the project patrol all of the articles they are claiming ownership on at least once in a five day period? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of people bitching when other people ask to be treated with courtesy and common sense. What happened here was that one of the members of the WikiProject DID check, then posted about it on the WikiProject and was accused of vote-stacking for his efforts! Personally, I'm sick and tired of people not reading articles they vote on in AfD, not reading discussions they take part of on noticeboards or talk pages and then making off-topic posts about how they're sick and tired of something.... Kyaa the Catlord 17:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he was accused of attacking ("Some idiots", "keeping it out of the hands of this deletionist anti-Gundam cabal") and vandalizing an administrator's userpage. There's a pretty big difference between what you're saying happened and what actually happened. Had he/she simply notified the Wikiproject, then we wouldn't be here. —bbatsell ¿? 17:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I already agreed that what Yzak did was pretty damn stupid. But Zoe seems to have missed the fact that Elaragirl did exactly what she asks others to not do on her talk page, or get flamed, she whined after wikistalking Yzak. It wasn't the WP that escalated this case, it wasn't Yzak who fanned the flames on the WP discussion page.... The WP:Gundam, and those who are defending the page on AfD, for the most part have acted in a straight up manner. Kyaa the Catlord 17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you would rather attack me than to address my concerns without how WikiProjects continue to feel as if the guidelines and policies which are supposed to apply to the entire encyclopedia do not apply to them. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Victim card played! Well done. Kyaa the Catlord 18:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This hurts. The incivility and blatant votestacking involved in that post just staggers. I've seen few more blatant examples. Wikiproject votestacking is becoming a real concern. Plenty keep lists of their stuff that is up for deletion, and these are often abused. Moreschi 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If AfD worked, votestacking wouldn't be any issue. AfD is not a vote, right? It is the weight of evidence and the arguments made that matter. So, regardless of the cries of "votestacking" being made, all that should matter is the discussion. The raw number of keeps vs. deletes made by sheep deletionist/inclusionists should have no bearing whatsoever.... unless of course, they can out-argue those who have a fetish for watching AfD. Kyaa the Catlord 17:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is when an AfD gets inundated with scores of WP:ILIKEIT and "Me too" !voters who think that it is avote and get upset that their numbers are the only criterion which should be considered. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's when the closing admin should use his or her brain and only consider those "votes" which contain arguments built off policy and guidelines. Refactoring away the mindless votes is a good place to start, then building off the arguments, the admin should use reason to make a decision. Informing people, perhaps experts, on the subject of the article in question of the AfD would help gather input from persons who KNOW about the article, rather than basing the decision off of those who merely scan or less the article before placing their two cents in. Kyaa the Catlord 18:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You ought to see the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth at DRVs when we "use our brains and only consider arguments built off policy". Fortunately, not too many people have realised that DRV is an accident waiting to happen. And the trouble with "experts" only contributing in such areas is that the majority of "experts" in areas such as Gundam, Pokemon, Warcraft, etc, are 15 year old boys (generalising slightly), who will refuse to let the Evil Deletionist Nazi Admin Cabal crush and destroy their freedom of speech and Right To Cruft. Proto::► 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice stereotyping. This shows you know absolutely nothing about Gundam or anime fandom in Japan. This is precisely the type of bias I was pointing out all morning in the AfD, the sort of false belief that noone but 15 year old pimply geeks could possibly like anime, or that an anime such as Gundam could have an impact on the pop, and regular for that matter, culture of Japan. (Refactor: I don't intend this to slight or attack you, it is just my experience that the average person in the US does not have any clue what sort of impact anime, manga and its related materials have on Japan as a whole and judge Japan based on their US/Western European Culture-centric view of anime geeks.) Kyaa the Catlord 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did say I was generalising and only the majority were of that ilk. Perhaps it would be better to apologise for any percieved stereotyping (sorry), and say that fans of Gundam, Pokemon, etc, are very fiercely devoted fans, and very often believe they and they alone know what is best for their topic, irrespective of Misplaced Pages policy. Proto::► 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey no worries, I'm a bit shell-shocked at this point. :P Its not every day you discover that, yes Victoria, there is a cabal. And well, I'm a grown-up who watches cartoons and is a bit bloody touchy about it. :P Kyaa the Catlord 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen his contributions. Also be aware that Yzak is a vandal-only account, so the next move he makes, you should report him to WP:AIV. --WTGDMan1986 (D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams) 17:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very much not true, and unfounded accusations are neither helpful nor constructive. Yzak is upset and has a shaky grasp of WP:OWN and is being very incivil at times because of it, but is not a 'vandal only account'. Proto::► 18:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking through Yzak's contributions and I agree with Proto, this is an spurious statement. Yzak's actions here appear to have been done out of frustration, but incivility != vandalism. Since it was Yzak's actions that started this whole thread and he appears to have taken the advice SlimVirgin gave him, I think it's about time to let this one go.--Isotope23 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While not retracting my criticism of Elaragirl, I must admit that the above exchange demonstrates pretty clearly that some, at least, of the Gundamn defenders don't need provocation to set off their incivility and unpleasantness. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, BACK UP. Kyaa, did you just accuse me of wikistalking? I see something that looks very much like vandalism. I warn the guy. I check his contribs, I see he's not a vandal only account, he's done some contributing, I try to find out why, I find a PERSONAL ATTACK on WP:GUNDAM, and I report that, then I go to vote on AfD's (one of which I voted on before this all began), and you call that WIKISTALKING? Apologize. Either that, or stop saying everyone else is not following AGF and "whining" about civility. I, for one, agree with Zoe. I'm sick of project owning articles. I'm really insulted by the fact that if I try to fix something I'm stalking, but if you dismiss everyone who isn't a huge Gundam fan by saying their vote on AfD is worthless because they only "scan" the article, you're being helpful? Somebody give this guy the Wikihalo, he's a model Wikipedian! </sarcasm> --Elaragirl 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, you follow the guy around and point out his mistakes. You form an agenda to attack him. Sounds like stalking to me. If the shoe fits... Kyaa the Catlord 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's time for the personal attacks to end, now, Kyaa. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Its time for you to review what is not a personal attack. "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user." I have not personally attacked anyone. I have commented on their actions. Which I'll admit, I could be wrong about.... Kyaa the Catlord 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no futher comments to make to this person, other than to note that further personal attacks could result in a block. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of this user's comments, such as suggesting people are "misusing" AfD, accusing others of being ignorant and not qualified to comment, and (my favorite) placing his own actions in the best possible light while casting everyone else's in the worst possible light is truly ... something. Unlike some people, though, I won't call this person a troll or accuse him of trolling behavior like he has to Proto, I'll simply suggest that you are coming off as unreasonable, and that accusing people of wikistalking is low. --Elaragirl 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Goes for a cup of tea, anyone want some? Kyaa the Catlord 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that there's any point trying to reason with Kyaa the Catlord, I'm afraid. This section could grow indefinitely, with editors trying to explain how he's mistaken, that he's behaving unreasonably and uncivilly, etc., and it's just going to spark off more dreary snideness. I suggest that people don't feed the troll. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Get me some hot chocolate! And no, I haven't been lurking in this discussion waiting for a chance at tea... ^_^ JuJube 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good man - ok, there are a lot of issues in here - I really think that everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath. This "gundam" issue has popped up on a number of boards and has gone beyond this individual editor and I'm seeing editors "digging" at each other (and I hold my hands up here as well) in a number of places. It's pretty silly to let it develop into a them/us issue - we are wikipedians first and foremost. Many of those articles predate the Gundam project and it is a big job to clean them all up. On the other hand, I would suggest that the Gundam project looks at it's to-do list - removes the expand for the moment and concentrate solely on merging/editing and even AFDing articles that don't need to exist (and let's be honest there are lots of those). I am going to join the wikiproject as a "lay" member (to try and reduce some of the concerns about WP:OWN) and hopefully a couple of other people who are not interested in Gundam but are interested in developing an encyclopedia could pitch in.

--Charlesknight 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More Madonna Vandalism

The same user -87.196.44.177- now deleted Madonna's main picture... Please take action. They got a warning from me and two other user and went ahead and deleted Madonnas's picture. I gave them another warning.

Israell 10:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to handle content disputes. Vandalism should be taken to WP:AIV, page protection requests to WP:RFPP, and disputes on content should follow WP:DR. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A temporary ban for 124.5.223.207, please

This user has been busy reverting the edits made by OrphanBot and reinserting unsafe images in to Misplaced Pages articles . Despite repeated warnings from me , this activity is still continuing . Please put a stop to it. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Ekkenekepen

I've indefinitely blocked Ekkenekepen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His entire recent contribution history here consists of complaining about the German Misplaced Pages, where he was apparently banned, mainly on User talk:Jimbo Wales. This wild accusation is the final straw for me. He's not even making a pretense of being here for the encyclopaedia - he has a history before that but nothing particularly useful.

He's already had one week's block for legal threats, and has a long block log on deWiki, including an impressive four indefinites (the ones marked unbeschränkt), the one before last for "massives Stalking (Benutzerdiskussionsseiten, Artikeldiskussionen, Zusammenfassungszeilen, Emailbelästigung, persönliche Belästigung, Klarnamenveröffentlichung)" - "massive stalking (user talk pages, article talk pages, edit summaries, email harrassment, personal attacks, publication of users' real names)". Do we want or need this person here? No we don't. Posted here for review etc. --Sam Blanning 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if he was trolling in the end. This seems like a genuine problem – (I can't understand German, but are they asking for donations for something else, other than Misplaced Pages?) — Nearly Headless Nick 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo's page is any indication, sounds like he thinks wikimedia donations are being used inappropriately. Syrthiss 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The user appears to be asking for donations to himself, yes. The notice has been there for a while, out of interest I'm going to see if there's anything on his talk page about it. However, the German Misplaced Pages is a big boy and can look after itself. I'm fairly certain that if there is a problem, a banned troll disrupting talk pages on a completely different wiki with no jurisdiction over what he's complaining about is not the solution. --Sam Blanning 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Penta's donation notice was added on 19th December, and as far as I can see there's nothing about it on his talk page. If you want to ask him about it, he speaks advanced English. --Sam Blanning 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Also would support removing content on his user and talk pages, to reduce soapboxing. Syrthiss 14:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for dynamic IP addresses evading the block, he's used dynamic IPs in the past. – Chacor 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the user page with {{indefblockeduser}} - I don't see a pressing need to remove what's currently there on the talk page, but if he decides to use it to continue his soapboxing I'll probably protect it. --Sam Blanning 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations are baseless. He said some kind i do not know exactly what was going on. Good block. -- Szvest - 14:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User PBurns3711 - vandalism and deletion

This user is consisently placing large amounts of POV, incorrect and inappropriate content in the League Against Cruel Sports article.

He has broken the 3RR several times and has now resorted to pasting a large amount of plagiarised and POV content on the page.

Help would be appreciated.

GWP 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More ranks and hierarchies

While we're on the subject of bureaucratic instances within Misplaced Pages, I found the Association of Member's Advocates (AMA) as an apparent example of overcomplexity. It has an elected coordinator, three elected deputy coordinators, rather formalized meetings and an apparent strong reliance on the letter of policy. I'm not sure how effective the AMA is, but perhaps debureaucraticization would help? >Radiant< 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, both the co-ordinator and the deputy co-ordinators were basically co-opted into their positions. David Mestel 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced image uploading

Mexico123 seems to be constantly uploading unsourced images (and indeed seems to have virtually no other contributions besides inserting these images into articles). He was warned about this before and then blocked for a week when he continued. I found that he had continued, and gave him a stern warning, but he's continued. Time for a lengthier block, perhaps? David Mestel 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

propose indefblock on User:Router

First brought up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Can_I_get_another_read_on_a_situation.3F, Router (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s single purpose on Misplaced Pages appears to be "My purpose is to counter accounts like you who delete or minimize the minority view of articles." He has added sites like farmersinsurancesucks.com and fuckpaypal.net to Farmers Insurance and PayPal, and vigorously defends their removal on talk pages as "trying to remove information critical to the subject". This is patently untrue, as I've told him on Talk:Farmers Insurance and jpgordon (talk · contribs · count) has told him on Talk:Paypal. As Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and his only contributions are these additions of foosucks.com, I propose an indefblock for tendentious editing...but am posting here first for comment.

I know that I don't have bias coming into the situation, as I only ran across the farmer's insurance article because of a vandalism report. Syrthiss 17:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, of course, but I've got a possible WP:COI regarding PayPal, being a past employee of their parent company. --jpgordon 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• I also agree with the indefinite block. Contributions consist exclusively of adding "...sucks.com" links to articles, which is soapboxing, linkspam or both. Sandstein 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)\
• Comment: I did not originally add the Allstates sucks or the Paypal Sucks external links. I was just re-adding them after I noticed they were deleted to keep the NPOV for External Links. There needs to be a balance in external links articles and banning someone who tries to protect these is not the answer. Router 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of the external links policy, particularly under links to be avoided, Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Any site of the type foosucks.com is likely to be full of original research, unverifiable personal experiences, and highly tendentious point of view material. If there is notable negative information about a company or organinzation that can be verified through reliable sources, then add it to the body of the article. Thatcher131 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the indefinite block. A warning or a short block (to give Router time to reflect on why this is not a good idea) for a first offence is appropriate. An indefinite block at this stage would be draconian. Proto::► 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A job worth doing is worth doing right. He has already been warned not to include the links, and warned that I believe his actions are of a disruptive account. He's now aware (since he posted above) that this is something that could warrant a block, and continued to replace the links (which have now been reverted again by other users). A short block in my opinion is unlikely to have any positive effect. Syrthiss 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually his last post was here and he has not added the links since. If he keeps it up though I think a short block might be in order since at this point he has to realize this is against WP:EL and apparently against WP:CONSENSUS as well.--Isotope23 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

True. Syrthiss 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

'A short block is unlikely to have any positive effect' - we won't know until we try. Assume good etc etc. Proto::► 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User harassing another user

Hi. Power level (Dragon Ball) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is harassing Recoome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about removing comments and warnings from Recoome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page; Recoome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s replies are a little insulting. I would like it if an admin could step in and either give them a sharp warning, or block them for 24h per disruption. Yuser31415 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but let me see if I can diffuse this a bit before someone gets blocked.--Isotope23 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant!'s abuse of CFD

Radiant! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added three categories to Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working in the deletion section even though the renaming had already been processed: , the result of which the three categories are now empty. This behaviour seems outrageous, and all help is welcome in undoing this act. Tim! 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to consider Radiant's comments here:

Per the CFD discussion above, these three were renamed from "actors" to "cast members", to exclude the many one-time guest actors and focus instead on the actual cast. However, 90% of the members of the cats are in fact those one-time guest actors. So it would be easiest to have a bot depopulate them, and repop them from the existing articles on the series.

In this context, I think it does make sense to empty the articles and restart them from scratch, making sure that only regular cast members are listed. The category for Murder She Wrote had over 500 articles in it; anyone who had ever appeared in even one segment in a single episode! That doesn't seem notable enough for categorization into a cast member category. --Cyde Weys 18:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A bot can easily depopulate a category, but it cannot repopulate it with the required items. It should be left to editors to select the members of the category through normal editing. I had already pruned the X-Files category down but now it is empty. Tim! 18:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the X-Files stuff then, but for the other two categories, it's less work to empty them out automatically and just add in the ones that really need it than to remove it from the hundreds of pages that don't need it. It's not like cast lists for TV shows are hard to come by. Also, I don't think you should be labeling Radiant! a vandal, so I'm fixing the tag. --Cyde Weys 18:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I was taken aback at seeing Radiant! acused of "abusing" anything. -- Donald Albury 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism on article "North Korea"

Someone keeps inserting inappropriate words in the first sentence of the article on North Korea. Originally, I believe the term, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)" was used. The vandal first substituted " Democratic Brandon Republic of Korea," then, "Dmocratic Brandon Yang's Mother Republic of Korea," then "Brandon Yang's Papa's Stinker Republic of Korea." I tried to change it, but I am a novice at all this. It took me quite a while just to find this message box. Hope you can intervene. Pepperosa 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Pepperosa

All fixed, I think. Thank you for reporting this vandalism; happy editing! I have given you your formal welcome on your talk page. Cheers! Yuser31415 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:129.7.35.194

User:129.7.35.194 has vandalized DDT (professional wrestling) and Facebuster, given personal attacks to me and just broke the three revert rule. He has atleast two previous blocks. Could he please be permanently blocked? ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if this should have been in WP:AIV instead.↪Lakes (Talk) 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The reporter is a dumbass: even on top of the Facebuster page it states that if a move incorporates a headlock it isn't a Facebuster at all, but a DDT or Bulldog. The move is because one of the moves listed is really a DDT. I've been trying to repair HIS vandalist shit ever since making the correction to shitopedia's inaccuracy.

Wow, that's a good amount of rules broken in one post. Look at WP:NPA WP:CIVIL, amonst others. Honest question. if you don't like it here, why do you edit? SirFozzie 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IP range 129.7.35.0/24 blocked for 1 week for block evasion. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Downside, the university of houston has a /16 range and you only blocked the /24. Upside, they might actually respond to a complaint. Bonus: classes are not in session so that cuts down the suspects to emloyees, faculty and grad students. Thatcher131 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to imagine a university student acting like that. I guess it shows how some people act when they're relatively anonymous. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You might ask Chris O. The business about reverting a "lying scientologist" strikes me as nonrandom and more than simple wrestling fandom. Thatcher131 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, you're talking about people who think the highest goal of life is to go someplace where they can drink themselves blind everynight and then use getting a sunburn as a hangover cure. -- Donald Albury 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And you're talking about me, Donald! Well, not the sunburn bit, but the drunk bit. I'm yet to actually do too much work on my degree though :-P --Deskana [[User talk:Deskana|

I warned a vandal to test2 or 3 (I can't remember which, it was quite a while ago) once and the IP was registered to M.I.T.. That was pretty funny, Prodego 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot