Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:30, 10 November 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Mikenacy

Personal attack only account. See also // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Homey's latest account seems to be blocked, and no one seems to be willing to unblock him. Due to topic drift (see below) I'm slapping the closed sign on this debate. OK? Thatcher131 05:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Homeontherange Again

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

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

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

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

Copied from User talk:Fred Bauder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thatcher131's suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SlimVirgin's modifications of Thatcher131's suggestions

Editing Thatcher's suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another sockpuppet

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

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

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

Examples of the sockpuppetry

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

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

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

• He doubled-voted on the Sexual apartheid AfD.

• He double-voted on the Gender apartheid AfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to make you happy. So, I have posted at Misplaced Pages review. My opinion about them: The side sucks, Brandt is an idiot, and they have no clue about wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. Anomo 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me that, once you remove the silly vandalism that occurs whenever Jr. High School computers are made available to anyone ("Jimmy rules DUDE"), sockpuppetry is Misplaced Pages's true Achilles Heel. For that reason alone I think we need to take as hard a stance against it as possible. It takes any problem and makes it exponentially worse. 20 sock puppets over an extended period of time - what possible kind of excuse could anyone have for that other than they (1) were willing to go out of their way to make life difficult for others and (2) giving the finger to the whole project? The above apology doesn't come close to making up for this. Ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture block, CJCurrie unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You understand, then, that what we'd have to do is propose the following:

1. Community ban on user:Homeontherange and all accounts and IP's employed by him for at least one year
2. Any administrator is allowed, if not actually required, to block on sight any likely Homeontherange account
3. Have any evidence of the use of open proxies or alternate accounts in the year trigger an automatic indefinite ban?

The reason I say this is that, while I agree with community bans for cases like this, I feel like the "any account" segment was beyond the existing informal provision for community blocks. I.e. I thought we were going into some scary territory, either way. Geogre 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to go on record as supporting a community ban in this case. (Not an admin, but a long-time user in good standing.) I know that my patience is certainly exhausted, and I haven't done anything but read about it. -Hit bull, win steak 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie responds

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

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

CJCurrie 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You seem confused on a fundamental point. The fact that Gehockteh leber is HotR is acknowledged, and is not in dispute. Until yesterday's circus, though, no-one was arguing that he was community-banned. Gehockteh leber isn't a sockpuppet, it's a new account. The Homeontherange account is dormant.

I don't expect you'll respond to these points. CJCurrie 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't believe that Fred undid a community block. CJCurrie 21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn't start it, but you have edited it, by my count, 41 times. You took it upon yourself to do the unblock under circumstances that you knew would invite suspicion and controversy. Now, I am sure you thought that everything you have done was the right thing to do. But I hardly think you are in a position to complain about the "circus-like atmosphere." 6SJ7 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom either way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry Ironduke, but a history check seems to indicate you are wrong: Slimvirgin and FloNight both threatened to quit Misplaced Pages over a matter involving someone named Blu Aardvark. I'm given to believe SV followed through on this, though she's deleted the content of her user page from that time so I can't be sure. I hate when people delete evidence after the fact :( RunedChozo 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move to subpage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I think.... Oh, never mind: everyone can guess what I think. :-) Geogre 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This has gotten absurdly long

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

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

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

• Well, I don't regularly unblock users, either, but I hope that on the rare occasions when I do, someone gives me more of a presumption of good faith than you are giving CJCurrie. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Slim, Jmabel asked for a list of recent issues involving HotR, given that he's acknowledged bad behaviour in the past. You responded by dragging up the old stuff, much of which is based on flawed assumptions. Can you identity any recent issues at all? (Btw, your precis of the blocks leaves out quite a bit.) CJCurrie 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so... there was an ArbCom request against HotR. Before that could precede he requested to be de-sysoped and indef blocked because he was leaving. Then he used some IP addresses and self-identified accounts to refute statements made about him... saying that he would remain around to respond to the ArbCom case, but was otherwise gone. The ArbCom case was closed down largely on the grounds that it was moot (he was leaving). Then HotR changed his mind and 'came back'... using some of the IPs/accounts he had used when refuting comments related to the ArbCom case to edit and then other not identified accounts to resume normal editing. Some of these accounts then got into disputes on the same pages/topics that HotR had been involved in, the connection became obvious... and here we are. There is apparently also alot of 'off-Misplaced Pages' anmosity and accusations involved, charges of anti-semitism in various directions, et cetera.

That about cover it? If so, there was never an ArbCom decision here and none of the subsequent actions (that I know of) on their own seem to be grounds for a community ban. Two accounts created by the same person getting into disputes on the same topic at different times doesn't seem like abuse of multiple accounts to me. So long as there was no co-ordinated activity or ban on the first account it isn't significantly different from continuing the same argument under a single account. That said, this seems to be a clearly contentious user and many of the issues cited in the ArbCom case above seem significant to me. I haven't been involved to know how 'patience exhausting' he has been, but judging by most of the reactions here he's been doing a good job in that department. That said, the behaviour of many of the respondents has also been less than stellar. An ArbCom decision would be nice, but failing that I don't see cause to oppose this 'banning' effort, but haven't really seen a case for actively 'supporting' it either. Seems mostly a content dispute between two groups of users being escalated to absurd heights and questionable behaviour all around. Also, the sudden 'redefinition' of 'community ban' to make what CJCurrie did 'improper' is disturbing. The standard has always been 'if even one admin objects'... one admin objected. Accusing him of malfeasance in such case is unjustified. If you don't like the standard you work to get it changed... but don't blame someone for following a well established and repeatedly stated precedent. The claims of, 'but he is biased', ring incredibly hollow given the obvious 'impartiality' of the blocking admins. :] --CBD 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You have missed some key points I think. The details of Homey's situation are very complex to explain. But there has been wide ranging use of abusive sockpuppets for 6 months. There have been uninvolved admins that looked at the situation like myself. The last arb case was one that Homey started last July/Aug. At that time there were strong charges of abusive sockpuppetry made and documented against him. I blocked at least 3 or 4 accounts myself and stated I would continue blocking them all as Thatcher131 proposed a community ban and there was broad community support. Homey had one account unblocked to participate in the RFAr that he started. Then he disappeared supposedly, and here we are now with more documented uses of sockpuppets after denials. An apology and promise, yet again. I support a commuinty ban and think a RFAr case would counterproductive because it will continue the disruption and give him another platform. FloNight 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the standard has never been "if one admin objects"; why did you think it was? Jayjg 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it had something to do with the content of the Misplaced Pages:Banning Policy page prior to an arbitrary change on 15 August. CJCurrie 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) modified 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the policy prior to 15 August would suggest that as a standard. Are you confusing "consensus" with "unanimity"? Jayjg 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Misplaced Pages community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Misplaced Pages would ever want to unblock them." (emphasis added) CJCurrie 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and some are that odious, and others are merely banned based on community consensus; the policy allowed for either condition. I see over 30 people (including about 2 dozen admins) supporting a ban here, and only one, you, not supporting it. That might have the record for the strongest consensus for a ban ever on Misplaced Pages. Jayjg 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want review your numbers again. I'm not the only one opposed to a ban. You may also wish to review the policy language a second time. CJCurrie 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think CBD's remarks probably do the best job of summarizing what seems relevant. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Homeontherange; why should he be "community-banned"???

There is really no reason to ban Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - he's one of our favourite contributors here at school, and all the students liked his antics.... one also thought he was, in his words, a "gem to Misplaced Pages"!!

Why you want to "community-ban", or blackball him, is a mystery. Taking him to arbitration would be a kangaroo court or a circus, so what's the point??

Ive just sent a circular email round the class asking people to oppose this "community-ban", now, please let him edit. Ok, so we're all Brits, but hey??

no reason to ban him; just like you did with Jake Remington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); a reformed character now. Allow Homeontherange to edit peacefully; he promises to edit uncontroversial articles now! (no, I'm not a meatpuppet, I just know he posted this on wikiquote!)

Well, that's all I have to say... --TheIFLKid (on Internet for Learning IPs) 12:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See q:User:Homey4 for more info. --TheIFLKid (on Internet for Learning IPs) 12:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to remove this rather trollish post. If this is another Homeontherange sockpuppet then I too fully support a community ban (counter to my earlier lack of support). (→Netscott) 12:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The above new user seems to only have edited this page and the HotR user page - which was removing a sockpuppet notice. I would be willing to bet that this is another sock.-Localzuk 13:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just community ban him already. This is a waste of our time, and unnecessarily long. Yanksox 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So let's see now, right here in this little section it looks like we have 2 new Homey socks and/or not-so-secret admirers, "TheIFLKid" and "Homey4". While the idea of the supposedly-school-age "TheIFLKid" and his fellows "here at school" forming a Homeontherange Fan Club is amusing and entertaining, it hardly seems likely that someone with five edits to his name has spent all of them talking about another user. Or that such a new user knows what happened in an unrelated case involving another user. Or that such a new user is reading Wikiquote to find out what banned Misplaced Pages editors are saying. Need I go on? 6SJ7 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, it is entirely possible that someone supporting the idea of a community ban created a sockpuppet to look like it was User:Homeontherange and made these edits to in a sense help "clinch" the decision. CheckUser'd need to verify whether these are indeed socks of Homeontherange or not. (→Netscott) 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anything's possible. I assume the appropriate persons will make the appropriate checks in the course of their duties. It is beyond doubt, however, that Homey has created numerous sock puppets, alternative accounts, whatever. As someone (I think it may have been Fred) said, when you do that, you invite suspicion that you did it "this" time, too, even if you actually didn't. 6SJ7 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me, based on the above, that we have little to lose by saying that he is banned for now, but actively encouraging him to come to ArbCom to appeal that and work out explicit terms under which the ban can be lifted. And that it is made clear that any sockpuppet activity during the appeal will be strongly held against him. - Jmabel | Talk 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the past experience, the caveat should be that "any sockpuppet activity during the appeal will result in an immediate appeal dismissal". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you people thinking?? Blocking Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is stupid.... you should never block this dude. Well, our class is getting accounts on wikipedia and we are showing our support. --A kid on Internet for Learning IPs.... Jason C 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the above accounts HilRerbb, and TheIFLKid aren't Homeontherange sockpuppets, they're meatpuppets using Internet for Learning IP address computers, I can see all these student's Internet activity - I'm a computer technician at their school.

--RaximusLother1 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. Stop the shit! -- Kim van der Linde 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

From ArmchairVexillologistDon: In my opinion "Homeontherange" has earned a lifetime ban

I, ArmchairVexillologistDon, in my opinion believe that "Homeontherange" has earned a community-wide lifetime ban. The damage that he single-handed inflicted on the Misplaced Pages community was extensive, and far-reaching. This "person" has single-handedly driven away countless newcomers. He does not deserve to be able to post on Misplaced Pages under any name.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• It should be noted that AVD has a long-standing petty grievance against HotR, relating to a discussion about flags from two years ago. Take his words with a grain silo of salt. CJCurrie 04:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello CJCurrie. I see you are still your "polite-self" eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Setting the record straight

I want to set the record straight about some statements I made concerning you, specifically "Homey and CJCurrie campaign for this Canadian political candidate Marcell Rodden", further implying you edited the article on Rodden as part of that campaign. Let me qualify what I have said with the following.

That Homey and CJCurrie have personal connections through university is certain (whether they are close friends is unknown to me). That Homey and Marcell Rodden have personal connections through activist groups is certain. That Marcell Rodden edits his own page is certain as he even states himself (of course that is a separate issue irrelevant to anything associated with Homey). That CJCurrie and Marcell Rodden even know each other is *not* certain. That CJCurrie and Homey have violated Misplaced Pages policy by editing the Marcell Rodden page as part of some political machine is an unsubstantiated overstatement that I wish to retract.

The above allegation I made was a side issue I brought up in the context of a discussion about long-term disruption caused by Homey leading to a community ban. I think the merits of a community ban for Homey based on all the other evidence regarding exhausting the community's patience with months of disruption are solid enough. However, I do not like that I made smearing comments, so to Homey and CJCurrie I apologize for any allegations I made which appear to me now to be false. --MPerel 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be wise nevertheless if CJCurrie would not edit the Marcell Rodden article again, and the same obviously goes for Rodden himself. Some of the edits CJC made to the article involved removing the name of at least one person that he knows in real life who was charged with a criminal offense. That's the kind of editing that WP:COI specifically warns against. SlimVirgin 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was removing information that had been added to harrass someone. But you knew that. CJCurrie 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, the name I removed was not actually mentioned in the source article. I said as much at the time. Look it up if you don't believe me. CJCurrie 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no indication that the names were added to harass anyone, and no I didn't know it. Please don't tell me what I know. The point is that the information is accurate, you could have found a better source, and it involves a personal friend of yours. It would therefore be best if you would refrain from making that type of edit in future; if you feel something like that is wrong or irrelevant, you could ask an uninvolved editor to make the change. See WP:COI. SlimVirgin 06:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim, you're mistaken on the fundamental point. I did remove the name of someone I know/knew from the Marcell Rodden article, and I freely acknowledge having done so. I did this, however, on the grounds that his/her name did not appear in the source material which was used to justify the initial reference. (Have you actually reviewed the source material? The person's name is nowhere to be found). I said as much at the time, although I chose not to provide details. There's no prohibition against removing an unsourced accusation against someone I know/knew. COI does not apply. CJCurrie 06:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, COI applies. You removed material that you knew to be true. The material amounted to criticism of a friend of yours. If COI doesn't apply to that, it applies to nothing. Your argument that it wasn't in the source material is irrelevant; you knew it was true and that it had been published by reliable sources. Therefore you could have found a better source.

Whether the material was relevant or the names were added gratuitously is another matter, of course. All I'm saying is that it's better to let an uninvolved editor decide that kind of thing. SlimVirgin 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please step back from each other for a few hours. I know that you are admins and I am not, so I have no place to lecture you. However a third party view seems useful. WP:BLP gives wide latitude when information is unsourced, even though sources, as yet uncited, say it is true. From my point of view, that means that even though it would have been both easy and wiser for CJCurrie to find a third party editor to make the edits, CJC was still acting reasonably to skip that step and edit himself. In other words, you are both right. Hope that helps—if not pretend I said nothing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not as simple as you make it out to be, CJCurrie knew the information was actually true and that it would be relatively easy to add a different source, at the very least CJ could add a fact tag, instead s/he completely removed it. Not only is this indicative of a conflict of interest but it is also quite dishonest.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in drafting a detailed response to this. Suffice to say that (i) Misplaced Pages's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not accuracy, (ii) my associate was not mentioned by name in the article, (iii) the material was both irrelevant and prejudicial to all concerned, including Mr. Rodden, (iv) I was fully within my rights to remove it, and (v) I have nothing to apologize for. CJCurrie 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's standard for inclusion is verifi*ability*. Not "has it been verifi*ed*". If you know very well that something is true, then you also know very well it's verifiable. If you know something is verifiable, even if nobody has verified it yet at the moment, deleting it is inappropriate. Ken Arromdee 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Unless it's irrelevant and prejudicial to all concerned (see above). In any event, I wasn't involved in the situation and my direct knowledge of events was very limited. CJCurrie 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello CJCurrie. Thank you very much for confirmng that you do have some direct knowledge of the real-life events regarding Homeontherange. This has helped to explain your dogged-defense of your friend (flying-in-the-face of the established transgressions on Misplaced Pages that your friend has grieviously commmited).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake

For the sake of archiving this discussion, move this discussion to an appropriate venue instead of this noticeboard. This discussion is getting way too long and complicated for a consensus to occur right now. Take to RFC or RFAr instead of furthur clogging up this noticeboard. semper fi — Moe 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus occurred long ago. Now it's just bickering in the aftermath. Jayjg 03:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well bickering aftermath can take place on your talk pages rather than the Incidents noticeboard. semper fi — Moe 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to topic drift I'm slapping the closed sign on this debate. OK? There are plenty of places to debate potential conflicts of interest; the bottom of a 144kb thread about another editor is one of the least optimal places. Thatcher131 05:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

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

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

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

I would support a possible Arb, though I'd have to see the evidence to really see if it was possible. It's annoying how he comes along every few weeks to attempt to whitewash the Adolf Hitler article, then disappears with nary a word. However, the block log is poor evidence for a community ban, as he hasn't been blocked in four months. --Golbez 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I support an Arbcom. He recently twice deleted part of the Yigal Amir article (second time even using the edit summary rv trolling! ) even though there was a consensus to keep that part. I did not have time, energy and interest in reporting him so no further action were taken. I want to enjoy myself more while I am here. He also keeps watering down articles on Hitler and the Holocaust. In general he pays no respect to community decisions and consensus. gidonb 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, the talk page of that article contains a lot of information about the user. gidonb 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So, now that it seems that the consensus is to go to arbitration, who's going to officially file the request? Scobell302 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI.. again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• October 12-13 he edits with SQUIDWARD summaries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A short block with the intention if we can bait a user into sockpuppeting is not something I could ever support. However, a permanent community ban for SPUI, who has committed many, many times more infractions and disruptions than plenty of other permabanned users, has ignored countless requests, decisions and judgements, and is bizarrely and inexplicably supported by some admins (is he nice to them on IRC?), and has driven good editors away from Misplaced Pages, is something I would get behind. This needs to go to ArbCom, and this needs to be resolved. Proto::type 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose any community ban through ANI. This better be taken through an RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, it's been taken through RfC before... He's exhausted all of our patience, and its senseless to keep taking it to ANI, RfC, etc. if the outcome is going to be the same: status quo. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a short block would solve either. While I've given SPUI blocks in the past to try to get him to stop being disruptive, maybe those just don't work with him. On the other hand I DO think he adds value and would hate to see him permanently banned. Is there nothing else? No other way to reach him and get at whatever the root issue is? I guess I am more willing than some to keep trying with SPUI. But in the end Misplaced Pages is not... a lot of things, including a selfhelp org for those that don't want to change, or a babysitting service, or a group therapy session, or a twelve step program, among others. If there is no change possible then, so be it. One more chance maybe but, really, no more. (as an aside, I totally reject the notion Badlydrawnjeff advances above, that "even the best editors go into 3RR sometimes" I've never, ever, ever done that...) ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I longer short block than before would accomplish something in the fact that it would actually prevent him from doing something, whereas the previous blocks of a few minutes/hours it has been suggested he may not have even noticed (I did not mean to 'draw out' sockpuppets as suggested above; I merely meant that a preventative block must actually prevent something to be effective). --InShaneee 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. He needs to be banned. Now. ANYONE who has the mentality that they can do whatever the hell want, like SPUI clearly does, should be blocked. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so when the huge edit war over road names he was involved with wound up with a decision he opposed being forced through in unusual circumstances despite a lack of true consensus (again, there were reasons this had to be done and as one of the people who backed it I am here criticizing myself) the 'massively disruptive' reaction he had was to continue making valid contributions, but using the edit summary "SQUIDWARD". For this heinous crime he was blocked... twice. Then, when asked to stop using such summaries... he did! Dastardly. Instead, he went and explained that he was making changes to a new page to remove original research... some sort of theory about how the 'V' in 'V for Vendetta' was probably a reference to the roman numeral for five. That looks like original research to me. Removing it with explanatory edit summaries was therefor... proper. Edit warring when it was re-inserted was not, but seems hardly grounds for a community ban. It seems to me that SPUI is giving his detractors thin pretexts to demonstrate their bias and animosity towards him... and they are happily obliging. SPUI is not being a model Wikipedian, but as reactions to brow-beating and tossing consensus out the window go this isn't exactly the end of the world. --CBD 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree CBD. We shouldn't be simply community ban someone for a 3RR or for a few mild edit summaries, but when is enough, enough? His edits aren't as much as the problem as the attitude and straight-fowardness of his edits. It's not that his edits are wrong, but he pushes the issue until his opposition either gives up or a third party gets involved or blocks him. Really how many things has he done that has gotten himself blocked over his time on Misplaced Pages. Just to name a few:

• Moving Highway articles a lot
• Move warring
• 3RR violations
• Incivilty
• POINT violations
• Blatant vandalism
• Disruption
• personal attacks
• Copyright violations
• Testing Misplaced Pages's browser blocking code on User:SPUI/jajaja
• per ArbCom decisions for putting pro-pedophile userboxes on his userpage
• Probation violations
• SQUIDWARD! edit summaries

Again, he may not be wrong, but the way he edits is disruptive and non-helpful. It's not a question anymore of how useful or correct he was a year ago or a few months ago as some people agrue. We have community banned former administrators before. SPUI has made several useful contributions before, no question, but so have other banned editors. How far do we push each ourselves with SPUI? How far before we say 'enough'? semper fi — Moe 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You ask 'how far'. My standard is quite simple... 'has it reached the point where it seems clear this user will never be a positive contributor'? I look at 'squidward', a 3RR violation in pursuit of 'no original research', and ducks in a pram and see 'silly git'... not 'irrational monster beyond all hope of redemption'. Everything else you list up there is what, months old? And many of them seemed, to me, as much over-reactions and misrepresentations as the accusations of 'blatant vandalism' which accompanied his silly 'squidward' edit summaries (despite no vandalism actually being involved). To put it another way... SPUI made positive contributions, but put a silly 'squidward' edit summary on them. He was then falsely accused of vandalism and a community ban called for. His reaction? He issued no personal attacks, made no disruptive edits, and stopped using the silly edit summary. Where I come from that's called a phenomenal improvement in behaviour compared to the SPUI from months back you describe above. So where the indication that he is a bad bad man who will never do any good? --CBD 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I rephrase my question. It's been over one month since he has contributed without getting blocked. How long do we put up with his nonsense before he becomes a 'positive' contributor again? semper fi — Moe 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your framing assumes that blocks for 'squidward' edit summaries were valid. I don't believe they were. 'How long without being blocked' isn't much of a standard when blocks are placed for things which represent no real 'damage' or 'disruption' to Misplaced Pages at all. To my way of thinking, SPUI has made exactly ONE block-worthy edit in that time period... his fourth revert on the 'V' original research. --CBD 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the blocks for the squidward edit summaries may not have been valid is because he was never warned about it. After sternly warned, yes, he stopped. But does that excuse him from copying the well-known vandal edit-summary? If I suddenly started using those edit summaries and continued after a block (and yes SPUI did), would that not be disruption? semper fi — Moe 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The other concern is that he has chased many users away from Misplaced Pages (names can be provided on request) directly or indirectly because of his actions. And made the highways area an unpleasant place to work. Also, SPUI has not made any uncontroversial mainspace edits in over two months (uncontroversial excluding SQUIDWARD or the 3RR). Not that that necessarily mounts to anything however.... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And in the realm of the truly bizzare...its either a sockpuppet or a fanboy here. Though why be either, I haven't a clue. pschemp | talk 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Bushcarrot (talk · contribs). —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, then. Are we going to continue to argue or actually do something here? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we vote? Have a more formal discussion? There is no clear-cut answer here, unless we send this to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is here. It is really quite easy to not be disruptive. He has had more than 50 chances to do it over the course of a year and a half. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then who will hit the block button if it is to be done? Discussing it and doing nothing else doesn't help. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who will block him, because someone like CBD will come along and unblock him. Look at his block log; just a series of blocks and unblocks. I'm not going to be the one to start a wheel-war with people who look at his attitude and say, "Eh, it's not THAT bad. Why, 50% of his contributions are completely uncontroversial! What are you all complaining about?" Until someone like Jimbo puts his foot down, SPUI will continue to act like he does, half of you will continue waste your time to undo his shenanigans and argue for his permablock, and the other half will waste their time arguing why he should stay and unblocking any errant blocks. Don't you think all this wasted time could be spent better elsewhere? --Kbdank71 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is...if someone's going to inappropriately wheel war...then we can't block appropriately. --InShaneee 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is I'm not going to waste my time blocking SPUI just to see someone unblock him. You can wheel war over him until the cows come home if you think it'll do some good. --Kbdank71 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone wheel wars, it should be dealt with. In the meantime, that shouldn't prevent us from making legitimate blocks. It's like saying, "Why bother writing articles, they'll just be vandalized." --InShaneee 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So our options at this point are to a) block or b) send this to RFC or ArbCom. Meanwhile, nothing is getting done. As I was involved in the ArbCom stuff it would be conflict of interest to block so in reality I can't. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, and will say again, to make the message clear... ban ban ban ban ban ban ban. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we might as well take it back to ArbCom. It should not be "300 strikes and you're out", and he's been blocked enough times to make anyone realize that he isn't going to do much of anything that's actually constructive. I'm not 100% sure ArbCom would be able to solve the problem, because they've dealt with him before, and he doesn't seem to have any respect for their decisions. It could still be worth trying, since ArbCom could just decide to indefblock/ban him. An ArbCom block/ban would be less likely to result in a wheel war. --Coredesat 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this matter can be handled without involving ArbCom. The terms are simple: I think we are all agreed that his behavior needs to improve, that he needs to make a serious & sincere effort at playing by the rules; the disagreement appears to be whether he can be convinced to improve or that he is beyond all hope & we have no choice other than to ban him from Misplaced Pages. As constructive as he might be (I haven't followed his edits, but for the sake of argument let's say he is), if SPUI -- or any Wikipedian -- is being disruptive to the point that he has received multiple blocks yet no one cares enough to intervene & save him from a permanent ban, then the community has made its decision & clearly wants him gone. So is there anyone who is working with SPUI offline from Misplaced Pages with the aim of improving his behavior & avoid having him banned from this project & losing his constructive contributions? If there is, I hope that would be enough to convince the "Ban SPUI" faction to have some patience & give him one more -- even if it is only his last -- chance. If there is not, & no one is willing to volunteer to help SPUI from being banned, then it's hard not to conclude that the proper solution is a Community Ban. All it would take is for one person to volunteer to work with him to keep him; otherwise, silence is consent & it's clear, despite what some may say, everyone wants him gone. -- llywrch 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am more than willing to assist SPUI in becoming a constructive editor here again as long as he doesn't continue with his extreme forms of silliness. As long as he is willing to be a positive contributor, we can always use another hand on Misplaced Pages. But this my only offer to help the guy, if he continues being disruptive, I'm not going to be as helpful the next go-around. semper fi — Moe 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI can be banned by any administrator from any area he disrupts. If he does not comply with the ban he may be blocked. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Any administrator may do this. Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. We still have the option of banning rather than blocking. Banning being "you can't edit this article anymore because you've disrupted it." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that CBD's summary of the cause of the current situation is very apt. The 'highways' situation became extremely unpleasant -- SPUI was basically at one point being told that not only would he be sanctioned for not abiding by a non-consensus decision, but that he'd be sanctioned for pointing out that it was a non-consensus decision. (Admittedly he was pointing it out rather frequently, but when a bare majority is repeatedly mischaracterised as a "consensus", a certain feeling of frustration is somewhat understandable.) There's been lots of nonsense and silliness from SPUI before (I've been on the end of a small portion of it myself), but this seems to me to be different. This is sheer surmise and speculation, take it for what it's worth, but it appears to me more that he essentially quit the project over that issue, but due to on-going wikidiction and/or wishing to express residual resentment, isn't quite able to go "cold turkey", and so is making periodic forays back. I'm not especially hopeful this will end well, and in the circumstances, I doubt that "area bans" will be at all useful (since if I'm correct, it'll just force him to find other ways to vent, which he'll rise to the challenge of). I'd urge the community not to take any far-reaching steps just at the moment, but if he doesn't knock it on the head immediately, I'd be in favour of a "medium length" block (a week to a month or two, say) to stop him digging himself in yet deeper in the meantime. Alai 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would have thought mentorship would be a solution, in a way. --SunStar Net 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to ban SPUI

I have made a motion to ban SPUI for a year at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#SPUI Fred Bauder 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this. If I had to "learn" to behave myself then so should he have. He's had his 1,000 chances and now should cool his heels for a bit. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37

I would like help to sort out a problem which has arisen at CFD. (I am an admin myself, but cannot act as an admin in this instance, because I am actively involved).

My editing focuses on Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and on their constituencies. After some category restructuring (see Category talk:British MPs#Restructuring_again.2C_now_largely_done), I thought that some category renaming would be appropriate, and made a series of suggestions at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. I made the suggestions there rather than launch straight into a CFD, because my experience of CFD is that it can easily become conflictual and unwieldy if the range of options for consideration has not been discussed beforehand. My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that before CFD rather than after).

That proposal was made on 4 November 2006, and I drew its existence to the attention of some editors who I know to be active in the area. My intention was to let the discssion run for a week or two, to help maximise consusus, before proceeding to CFD. (At time of writing 4 replies, all supporting my proposals)

On November 5th, one of those categories was nominated for CFD (see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 5#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies) by User:Smerus, who was evidently unaware of the discussion at category talk. This CFD was brought to my attention on 6th November (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Jumping_the_gun), and it nominated only one of the categories, with a rename different to those discussed in category talk. (Smerus proposed renaming Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament representing English constituencies; my proposal was a rename to Category:UK MPs for English constituencies).

At 10:04, I responded at the CFD by pointing out the earlier discusson, and asking the nominator to withdraw the proposal so that we coukd create a new CFD including both options. Smerus kindly agreed to this at 16:21 UTC, and I created the new CFD tonight (see WP:CFD#National sub-categories of Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament). I would like to stress that I have no complaint at all against Smerus, who has been civil and helpful and sought to resolve problems to seek a consensus, and who actions all show good faith.

However, in the meantime, at 11:13, User:Jc37 nominated the remaining categories, but proposed only the format offered by . When I returned, I accepted Smerus's offer to withdraw, and created the new CFD at WP:CFD#National_sub-categories_of_Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament.

However, user Jc37 objects to the withdrawal, and at 00:42, 7 November 2006 says he/she wants only Smerus's proposal to be considered; only if it fails, should the earlier proposal be considered. (see Smerus's CFD and my new CFD, 00:32, 7 November 2006).

This seems to be to be silly at best, and destuctive at worst: the nominator has agreed to a new CFD to consider both options. That CFD has been created. The best-considered discussion is surely likely to be reached when all relevant options are on the table, from the outset.

Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.

However, it didn't end there :(

Having been notified of the earlier discussion at Category talk:British MPs, Jc37 then listed the three other categories for renaming, without listing the proposal originally discussed: see British female MPs, Current British MPs.

In subsequent comments at 00:46, 7 November 2006 and 00:42, 7 November 2006, Jc37 has refused requests to withdraw these nominations and called for another admin to be involved.

Jc37 has stated repeatedly that he/she opposes the use of abbreviations in the category names, and whatever its merits that is an entirely legitimate objection. However, the way in which these nominations have been made appears to have been designed to prevent or hinder consideration of all the options, and subsequent unwillingness to resove the situation reinforces that view.

I assumed good faith, but since Jc37 has insisted that it is preferable to run a CFD without including the earlier options, I can only conclude that the aim in the second batch of discussions was to bypass ongoing discussions about the names of these categories, by using the CFD process to trump attempts to explore the issue and seek consensus. JC37 refuses to continue discussion, and has suggested admin intervention (see comment at 00:42, 7 November 2006). I would have prefrred to continue discussion, but that has apparently been refused. In other circumstances I would Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes#Second_step:_Disengage_for_a_while, but since a CFD process is underway, disengagement is a poor option.

Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.

I feel strongly that it would set a very bad precedent for these nominations to continue: if CFD can be used used as a mechanism to disrupt and bypass consensus-seeking discussions, then there ill be a clear disincentive to discuss category changes before moving to CFD. That will only make for more confrontational CFDs, poorer decision-making, and a much harder job for the admins who monitor and close CFDs.

While I await admin response, I will go ahead and make counter-proposals to these CFDs. However, even after making the counter-proposals, I would still prefer the CFDs to be closed. Some participants have already made their recommendations without

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a totally unacceptable request and I suggest it is made in bad faith simply because BrownHairedGirl is worried that she will lose the debate on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion. There has recently been strong interest in removing gender categories for politicians on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion. BrownHairGirl seems to feel that when the proper forum for discussing categories (guess why it is called "categories for discussion"?) is not getting the results she wants the proper procedures should be voided in favour of a forum where she feels more confident of getting her way. I suggest that she should be reprimanded for making false allegations of bad faith. Piccadilly 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly, that is utter nonsense, as would be abundantly clear to anyone who does some minimal reading. I have no objection to anyone nominating a category for deletion, and while I would query the usefulness of a CFD on the female MP categories when there was a previous unsuccesful proposal only three months ago. I have not objected in these CFDs to the nomination to delete the categories (I recommend against, but I have not objected to that aspect of the nomination).

BrownHairedGirl that is utter nonsense. You have objected to use use of cfd and are continuing to do so. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read my complaint above before launching into a personal atatck, or botgered to to read the discussion at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, or to read my contributions to the CFDs, you will see that I am not calling for an abandonment of the CFD, simply for a CFD which does not try to exclude options on which a consensus had been developed at category talk.

Drawing attention to your bad faith actions and attempts to intimidate other users, which have since got worse with the deletion of my comments on cfd, is not a personal attack, it is a public duty. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly, your allegation was based on the assunption that I did not want a CD to trakr place. That is false, as you can see from reading the CFDs. Your new allegation of intimidation is thefefore just more nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not try, and have not tried, to void one forum in favour of another: if you read what I wrote above, I said "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that before CFD rather than after)."

When you have tried to stitch up cfd, saying "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD" does not make you innocent. Just the same as when one has robbed a bank saying, "My aim was not to rob the bank" does not make one innocent. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I have not tried to stich it up! How on earth is a stitch up to ask that all options be presented from the outset, and that an editot should not attempt to bounce an existing discussion by taking part of it and rushing off with a different CFD which excludes the option to have achieved coinsensus so far? --BrownHairedGirl 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All I want is a CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is identifiable support, rather one lodged. Do you oppose that? A discussion at category talk cannot make a decision, and it cannot replace CFD. However, it can help to clarify the issues, and to allow users to define which options are useful to bring to CFD.

The proposals you present are too complex. If one wanted to be cynical one might suggest that you are trying to make things so hard to follow that few people will have the time to choose any option other than nodding them through or ignoring the discussion. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

These categories are complex: there are a bundle of related categories involved. Why do you want editors to vite without being aware of all the issues? --BrownHairedGirl 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your motive is, Piccadilly, but your comment here is is either gravely mistaken or thoroughly malicious. --BrownHairedGirl 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been caught out misbehaving grievously. I came here solely to defend an innocent user with whom I have no connection who has been maligned by you. You need to read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:Civility and stop acting like you own Misplaced Pages's coverage of British MPs. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion for some time and am AMAZED by the consistent patience, forbearance and industry of User:BrownHairedGirl. - Kittybrewster 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed at the unscrupulous methods she is prepared to use to impose her will. She has had the gall to delete my comments on cfd, which is about as clear-cut as bad faith can get. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is unscrupulous about asking for a CFD which includes from the outset all the options which editors want to discuss, in partiular those which had achieved support in a live discussion at category talk before th nomination was made? --BrownHairedGirl 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"All the options" is an interesting statement. It sounds like you feel that you won't be "heard". What was stopping you from joining in the CfD discussions, rather than rather petulently (I apologise, but I'm having a hard time seeing it any other way atm) disregarding the noms except to dismiss them as unwanted? The mere fact that after several hours "away from your computer", you still chose to not join in the discussion, and start your counter nomination (pointing out that the previous nom was on the 5th, my additional noms were on the 6th, and her counter noms was on the 7th). And I have to admit, I'm starting to find the continued use of "bad-faith nomination" a bit irksome, especially when I consider the circumstances of your attempt at a separate duplicate/subsequent/alternative nomination. Anyway, I'll continue my thoughts below. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what needs to be done in three sentences or less? --Kbdank71 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes!

• Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.
• Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's that "bad-faith nomination" comment again. I even split the nomination at the request of another user. I feel I've been amenable, helpful and communicative. So I feel such an attack is unwarranted. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

General response

Well, wow. This is apparently what I get for being away from Misplaced Pages for a couple days?

I'm rather stunned at BrownHairedGirl's accusations, I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am nonetheless.

I think the easiest way to respond would be to show a "timeline", and go from there.

First, take a moment and read: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#CFD for MPs from English constituencies. (I'll be referring to it, but for space reasons, am deciding to not repaste it all here. If diffs are still requested, I suppose I can build a list.) I pasted her initial post from my talk page, and my response, to her talk page.

• Her post time: 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• My response: 10:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Her response: 10:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• My next response resulted in an edit conflict with Mai Oui!, whose response was at: 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ; while mine was at: 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• And then I responded to Mai Oui's comment at: 11:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice the immediacy of the discussion to that point. After that point, no responses whatsoever. I offered to list the rest of the nominations (since "someone else" had already listed a couple of categories that apparently she had made a plan for). I did so, and finished the nominations, though, as I mentioned, I didn't agree with the MP abbreviation, and noted the already existing nominations used "representing" rather than for or from, and so I nominated the rest based on the previsous nom's precedent.

(interjection) But you didn't menton that the discussion at catehory talk was entirely in suppot of the abbbgreviations, and you didn't mention the abbreviations as an option, and you didn't include a link to the discussions at category talk. Basically, you were pointed to an existing discussion n a naming structure, saw that there was agreement for a particular format, and instead of exploring whay that structure was preferred, decided that you liked a different one, so set out to bypass the existing discussin by making a CFD which excluded the opotion prefered by other editors. --BrownHairedGirl 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(continued interjection) And you didn't mention that the discussion consisted of you and one or two other people. The concern by Mai Oui! was length of the name, and I never saw a support of MP as accurate. So I think a concern about Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (precision) is a valid concern. While Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (abbreviations) suggests that such abbreviations are fine in article text (though MP is not one of those listed), Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Prefer spelled-out phrases to acronyms says rather clearly that abbreviations should not be used in names. See also the even more specific Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (acronyms). In order to cite WP:IAR, one needs a reason, and name length is not a valid reason from what I have read. All that aside, What I also did was link to all relevant discussions in my nominations. There was full transparency to my actions. (Continuing on below.) - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First: there were four contributors to that discussion, not "one or two".

OK, you had a concern about abbreviations. But did first you looked at the wrong guidelines: those guidelines are about naming articles, but what we are discussing here is categories. The relevant one guideline is Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories), which depreactes abbreviations, but also says "Avoid names that are too long or too short. Short, simple names are preferred for categories"

Did you raise that concern in the discussion? No. You ignored the discussion and the long history behind it which coukd have been shown if you had asked, and went straight to CFD.

And you didn't link o the discussion. You linked to the talk page, rather than to the discussion. (It's a long talk page, and readers are unlikely to raed through all of it to find he relevant bit) --BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And now we begin with a question of what's "true" in accusatory statements. sigh.

Please take a moment and go look at the links. First, I did link to the discussion , not to your talk page. Second, when I did link to your talk page, I actually linked to exactly where the discussion was on your talk page (through the use of "#") See my comments atthis CfR. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only didn't I receive a response about them, but I didn't receive a response at all, for quite some time.

(interjection) Indeed. Because I was not a my computer, as you see from my contribs log. --BrownHairedGirl 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, your first action, after 11+ hours of being away from your computer, rather than continue the discussion on your talk page, which above you've stated was where you feel that the current consensus was, instead was to immediately start a CfD draft in your sandbox , then to comment to others that you were drafting such a proposal, and then to propose it. If you were acting in such good faith, I would have presumed that you might have at least done as I did, and commented on your talk page about it. That you didn't, and that you rushed to pursue your counter nomination... Well, considering how loudly you've called my nominations "bad-faith noms", I wonder if actually your counter nomination was such a one. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

JC37, the nominator of that CFD had already kindly agreed to withdraw in favour of a new joint nomination. The longer I let that new nomination, the more likely it was that more people would spend time to a CD that was going. That's why the new CFD hads to be the first step. --BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The way that reads to me is that you felt that you had to rush your counter nomination because you felt that the people commenting at the existing CfDs needed the guidance of your new CfD? I would presume that's what comments in an existing CfD are for, which, again, you were welcome to do. FYI, as far as I can tell, you just stated that your nomination was a POV nomination. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was not until after BrownHairedGirl had nominated a separate set of nominations on the following day, and my subsequent responses to them, that she said anything at all.

(interjection) Jc37, that's a neatly incomplete summary, isn't it?

If you read the CFD, you'll see that

• The nomination was made by Smerus at 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• At 10:04, 6 November 2006 , I posted to opoose the nomination and note an earlier discussion, and asked the nominator to withdraw
• At 10:20, 6 November 2006, I added a further comment, noting the need to include the other categs, and the support for a "shorter consistent naming structure" (the nomination would increase the length of already over-long category names).

I then posted a message to each of the contributors to the CFD, pointing out the existence of an ongoing discussion at category talk.

• Jc37 replied, noting that while the agreement at category talk was for shorter names, Jc37 disagreed. I replied, noting the need for consistency;
• Shortly afterwrds, I left my computer for the day (last contrib 11:01), and did not return until to wkipedia until late in the evening: see my contribs.

• I saw that there was more discussion on my talk, but finding nothing from Smerus, my first priority was to go to the CFD to see if Smerus had agreed to withdraw the CFD. He had, so I created the new CFD and thanked him. --BrownHairedGirl 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that you were uninterested in any other discussion except the hope that someone had withdrawn their nomination so that you could go forth with yours, and ignored entirely that not all nominations had been withdrawn? Wow. Also, AFAIK, once nominated, the nominator can attempt to withdraw the nomination, but the CfD remains open until an uninvolved admin decides that there is consensus to close. (For example, if the nominator had suggested rename, and the commentors all said delete, and the nominator attempts to withdraw the nom to avoid deletion, the closing admin has the discernment to note that, and choose to close or leave open based on that.) I don't believe that Smerus's nomination was clear-cut at that point, and so closing as a withdraw would seem to me to be pre-mature. (And an excuse to post the counter nomination.)- jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that it is in the right of a nominator to withdraw their nomination, and that had been done. Your addition of subsequent categories didn't alter that. -BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to try to cast a pe-existing proposal as a counter-nomination, and to steadfastly oppose any attempt to discuss it. Wjy this insistence on jumping in on a existing discission, rushing the ategories concerbed to CFD, and then ejecting efforts to having the original categories propsal discussed too?

I have not any point suggested that your noninatons should not be duscussed, simply that you should place them alongside the other options. --BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one "rushing" was you. I actually was discussing with you and Mai Oui, and nominated the cats out of that discussion. I don't see that you did so as well. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How on earth was I rsuhing? You nominated Category:British female MPs, Category:Current British MPs etc, without posting anything to the discussion at category talk, ithout aiting to hear why the shorter anmes were favoured, and you even nominated one category for a new title which would clearly be factually wrong. :( --BrownHairedGirl 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

At that point, I started to try to discuss with her, but after seeing the situation, I decided that the best idea would be to suggest that a non-involved admin sort it all out.

Since then, I've not been on Misplaced Pages (for unrelated RL reasons). And apparently she's attempted to "clarify" / "modify" the previous nominations. I am still not certain why she has such a problem with allowing the nominations as listed, and suggesting her changes once they were finished, if she feels so stongly about it.

Anyway, At this point, I'm not going to presume what to think about this. What I'd like to see is the original nominations be "un-modified", and run their course, and the "duplicate" nomination re-listed once they are done. However, this is now a mess, since several people have already voted in the duplicate nomination, and with her "modifications", the existing noms would seem to be a mess now as well.

I wish whoever deals with this a lot of luck and discernment : ) - jc37 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: As far as I can tell, all the categories in question were tagged either by the original nomination, or by me. I don't believe that BrownHairedGirl updated any of the tags for her duplicate/subsequent nomination. - jc37 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the easiest thing to do would be close ALL of the nominations right now as duplicates of each other, and the two of you can get together and nominate them again, without any other nominations getting in the way and confusing me. Would either of you have a problem with that? --Kbdank71 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kbdank71, that's fine by me, as long as there is some discussion first to ensure that the nominations start off by all offering the various options for which there is obviously some support, and that they include the relevant sub-categories (I'm not sure that any of the existing nominations are complete). I suggest that rather than discuss it in user space, that the discussions should take place at Category talk:British MPs. I hope that's acceptable to everyone.

I should stress that I'm not suggesting any sort of stitch-up or attempt to exclude anything beforehand, just a bit of work to ensure that participants in a CFD are presented with some clear and concise options so that the CFD discussion is less likely to get confused by more options being added in after it has started. I know that folks are entitled to add options, but a bit of preparation should help to reduce the need for that. --BrownHairedGirl 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

oops! by "some discussion first" I meant discussions before renomination. --BrownHairedGirl 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that's exactly what she wants, and has apparently striven for through her disruptive counter-nomination, I am sure you can imagine that I am hesitant to agree to that. I would not oppose the current noms all being re-listed adjacent (but not combined) with BHG's counter nomination (something that has been done previously with similar/related nominations), with BrownHairedGirl's unhelpful modifications of the previous noms removed as "confusing" (As Kbdank called them) except that her nominations, as duplicate, were not "complete", since they weren't tagged (simply because previous nominations were already underway). So I would think that her counter nomination should be removed, since it was not tagged. The thing is, nominations are "timed". And while this discussion continues, time is counting down. No matter what happens, I think it would be fair to list them for an additional day or two, due to BHG's intervention. I'd like to hear Kbdank's further opinion on all of this, and once the discussion is done, I have no problem deferring to his judgement. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Jc37, you were pointed to existing discussion, saw the propsals being discussed there, and had some probems with them (as you are entitled tob do: that's why they were being duscussed!). Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. It's a real pity that you didn't discuss your concerns before making a nomination, but since your proposals postdate theose at category talk, and since yours arose directly out of the category talk proposals, you can hardly call the earlier ones counter-proposals.

That's unfortunate, but to ask that the earlier proposals which you ignored should be removed is simply a stitch-up. If you ideas are good, why not let them be tested alongside those the earlier proposals which you decided not to discuss? --BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. " - That's an outright misrepresentation of the truth (I will refrain from calling it an outright lie, for civility reasons). As your talk page rather clearly shows. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

jc37, if you extract part of a sentence and quote it out of context, it's easy to cast it as a a misrepresentation. You did indeed respond on my talk page. But what I refered to into the comment you selectively quoted from was that you did clearly read the discussion at category talk, but did not participate there, where you could have explained to other editors why you disagreed with them; nor did you wait for a response from me before making your nominations. You simply decided that you wanted a different proposal, and went ahead and nominated yours, and now you object to any other propoisal being on the table at the same time. --BrownHairedGirl 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not take any action I am having massive problems with BrownHairedGirl's conduct on another discussion, where once again she is interfering with the normal course of discussion and making things incredibly complicated. I can see no justification to give her what she wants, and doing so will just encourage her to disrupt more discussions in the future. Nonomy 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And I am having massive problems there too, Nomony. I have never before seen a noninator set to remove all the keep votes from a CFD by sploitting them off to another CFD. Nice try, though. --BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I've noted, I'm becoming rather troubled by BrownHairedGirl's actions, which I feel have been rather disruptive in CfD in several places. But those aside, here's the simplest procedural point: Her nominations aren't tagged, and cannot be tagged, because there are existing nominations underway. If the tags of existing discussions were removed, I would presume that that would be even more of a disruption. So based on that, I suggest that the non-tagged nom be closed, or at the very least relisted once the others have completed, per existing CfD process. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all a red herring, because as you know, they can't be separately tagged. The available procedures in such cases are either to withdraw the nominations in favour of a new CFD which will need new tags (which you rejected), or to make a counter-proposal in an existing CFD, which I did (and which doesn't need new tags). It's one thing to try to pre-empt an existing discussion by pre-emptively launching an alternative CFD, but it's a bit rich to then try to block the original proposal from being considered as an alternative. Running two CFDs in parallel on the same issue is an obvious no-no: both could pass, in which case we'd have a conflict. Running them back-to-back makes litte sense either, because them we could have two renames in rapid succession. --BrownHairedGirl 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of prods without reason

User:Kappa has been removing prods from hundreds of articles and giving no explanation, and making other changes that appears to be vandalism, I started reverting a few, and he just reverts back, I don;t have time for an edit war. He has had a number of previous warnings reagrding this. I reported him at ] - but removing prods may not be considered vandalism. If I'm right there is a lot of change to be reverted ASAP. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kappa does this quite often. Once a PROD is contested, you take it straight to AfD. Yanksox 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot be serious, that's hundreds of articles that would have to be done. Why is that not vandalsim and why is he not banned? --ArmadilloFromHell 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Because there's nothing wrong with removing prod tags? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? Yikes. It's only vandalism if it's made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's not at all clear that removing Prods is done with that intention, even if it's done repeatedly and without explanation. A contested Prod is a contested Prod, and goes to AfD or it stays. They're not made to be put back after removal. If you don't know why Kappa removed a Prod in a particular case, asking would be better than reverting. -GTBacchus 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would really be nice if he (and anyone else) would give a coherent reason when de-prodding. Unless the nomination was truly bad... I've seen ones where the rational is just "notability" or "nn". But in a lot of these he's de-prodding for rather technical reasons but giving no explanation, that just leads to confusion. --W.marsh 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanations are good; communication is good. Has somebody asked Kappa why he's doing what he's doing? What's a "technical" reason for de-prodding? -GTBacchus 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well one example of a technical de-prodding was removing it from an article that had been listed as not being in English for 14 days, for some reason the page says they have to go to AfD to be deleted, not PROD, presumably Kappa was de-prodding for that technicality. --W.marsh 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if it makes an assertion of notability ... could be a technicality, anyway. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user is entitled to remove prod tags if they don't think the article should be deleted, for whatever reason, and doing so is certainly not vandalism. However it would be simple to give a reason in the edit summary, even if the reason is simply disagreeing with the opinion of the original tagger, and Kappa ought to do so, if only to avoid further confusion.

Also note that revert warring over prod tags leaves you open to WP:3RR. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While an unexplained deprodding can make me pull my hair out, it doesn't matter. A deprod counts as an objection to an uncontested deletion. That's been there since prod was created. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the lack of edit summaries that is the main issue here. Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion says : Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. and there are several warnings regarding summaries in Template:TestTemplates. I've had many prods removed by other editors - but always got an explanation in the summary. (BTW, none of the prods in this matter were put there by me) --ArmadilloFromHell 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See this section. I know it can be grating, but thems the apples. Maybe we should have this conversation over there, but as it stands now, you will likely only find admins and experienced users that are sympathetic, but still support Kappa and anyone else's right to remove prods w/o a reason. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If Kappa is the one removing hundreds of tags, I think it should be him creating these AFD's not us. If he has a reason to believe it is notable, then fine. But why does he get off by just removing the things and not even having to deal with the after effects of a hundred AFD's? semper fi — Moe 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing a prod is simply taking down the Sword of Damocles to allow a discussion about the article. No one need state a reason for removal, since "don't delete this without a debate" is obvious in the act of removal. Whether the editor wants to state an opinion, or simply wants a debate to take place is up to the individual editor. If in the process, he doesn't want the article deleted, then he simply doesn't bring it to AfD. Prod is a shortcut to deletion. Sometimes you get to take it, other times you're stuck taking the long way around. Deprodding should be enough to convince the prodder to have a second de novo look and occasionally find their reasoning was off. Unfocused 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't do "technical" deprods. Roberto Bravo was a legit stub in English with some extra Spanish which I thought the folks at PNT might like to see. Kappa 04:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: nobody said that the debate prompted by deprodding has to take place on AfD, it could also be handled on article or user talk pages first. If consensus isn't found there, then AfD is still an option. Unfocused 04:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like this is good material for an RFC, about how, when, and why to deprod; I think there's some reasonable displeasure with how Kappa goes about doing something unusual, which is somewhat overlapping with the usual someone-disagrees-with-me-argh displeasure. Can we take this to User talk:Kappa or an RFC page or something instead of ANI now? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• One of the suspected potential problems with WP:PROD was "that a single user can simply "veto" all proposed deletions without giving a reason or improving anything. Of course, that would be disruption to make a point. If this proves to be a problem, we will likely create some rule to prevent it".
• Now I would like to see some statistics on this before jumping to a conclusion, but if Kappa is deprodding lots of articles and those articles have a strong tendency of being deleted on AFD, then Kappa is creating lots of extra work for other people for no good reason, and he should stop that. Anyone who is experienced with AFD should have a feeling which kinds of articles tend to be uncontroversial deletes, and should respect that consensus even if personally disagreeing with it. >Radiant< 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started the RfC. Kavadi carrier 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• A simple count shows that of Kappa's last 1000 edits to article space, 298 were deprods, or about 29%. This spans roughly the last two months. A quick glance over the deprods seems to indicate that nearly none of them made any changes to the article text; someone with a bot can make a more careful analysis if they want.
• As corollary to what I said above, if Kappa is not deprodding all that many articles and/or those articles don't tend to get deleted on AFD, there wouldn't be much of a problem (and indeed, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem here). Judged by his talk page, certain users are nevertheless unhappy with Kappa's conduct; perhaps mediation may alleviate this. >Radiant< 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)

I am not sure if this is the right place to report this, but this user has been adding some rather questionable edits which seem in violation of WP:POINT, especially in light of his recent FAC and peer review. From his recent contribution history:

• - Redirected Point-of-view to Obvious
• - Redirected Apparently to Obvious (see the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Peer_review/Betrayal_at_Krondor)
• - Reliable Source (see User_talk:Scientizzle#What_is_wrong_with_saying_that_Rolling_Stone_is_full_of_-----.3F)

EDIT: Additional edits:

• - Created and redirected False virtue to Virtues of Ultima
• - Created and redirected Humilated to Humility
• - Edited Misplaced Pages:The Motivation of a Vandal to prove a point.
• - Another WP:POINT violation
• - Vandalized Science page
• - Created Homogay to redirect to homosexuality

Gzkn 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And this entire thread is questionable. And if you look at his talk page (and those of editors who have been calling him on his crap), he's said 'sorry, I understand better now and I won't do it again' about a dozen times in half as many days. Personally, I think he's a reincarnation of User:Courtney_Akins. But whoever he is, he's clearly a troll, taking the (long, slow) piss out of well-meaning editors. And what's with all his edits? He's edited his own talk page about 100 times in less than a week (half of which he was blocked for), and a couple of articles another 100 or so times. Anchoress 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's me. Do you have any questions? I've been autoblocked once now, and I'd prefer to avoid such a thing in the future. I may or may not be well meaning, I'm sure you'll be able to judge for yourselves. Chris 04:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we will. Why did you create Cuntbucket exactly? I reverted some of your nonsense, and deleted that one, and when you e-mailed me yesterday asking to be unblocked I looked at your contribs and thought -- troll. Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia, or for some other reason? Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or choice. That said, I am definitely in support of improving Misplaced Pages. However, sometimes one can only do that by challenging the existing Establishment. You may wish to read Misplaced Pages:The Motivation of a Vandal. Chris

You mean this bit? : "The motivation of a vandal ranges, but their purpose is the same; to get attention. " Regards, Ben Aveling 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly getting it now. Chris

Chris had vandalized Misplaced Pages:The Motivation of a Vandal (see above list) in hopes of making a point. I have since reverted his vandalism. Gzkn 05:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you're going to want to read WP:POINT REAL soon. --InShaneee 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty pointless to me. Sorry. Chris 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway -- I'm sensing a lot of hate here. I'm gonna go cool off outside. Cheers Chris

And, despite being extremely prolific over the past year, this editor was completely silent during the time Courtney was editing, and made few or no edits on the days that USC Cheerleader was editing. Anchoress 05:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is him too 70.70.200.149 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Shawcable, Surrey, BC, CA. Do we know where the Courtney troll was from? Note that there is some clear vandalism in this history (example )

And Chris, it's not hate your sensing, it's that trolling wastes our time, and yours. I can see from some of your edits that you are knowledgeable about a lot of things and are capable of being a good editor. Some of us aren't kids any more, and we'd much rather be writing articles than cleaning up after mischievous kids. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And, the IP edits started just hours after Courtney was blocked. Anchoress 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user has already been blocked twice in the past week. Once by myself, another on his IP address (). The insults have been fun , and I put up an ANI thread five days ago , though it garnered only one reply. Considering the IP block, this is essentially his third chance in the last week and it looks like he's for some reason already burned it. I'd suggest a longer block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a last warning on his talk page. Shortly afterwards, he made this edit. I request that he be blocked by an administrator. I'm getting tired of tracking down and reverting his edits. Gzkn 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given him an indefinite block. I'm tired of this nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that was definitely the right thing to do. --Masamage 07:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance. -- Scientizzle 07:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast, pardners. User:ChrisWright1979. Anchoress 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Block log. InShaneee nailed him, thankfully. I knew that wasn't that last we'd see of him, and wouldn't be surprised if he continues (though more subtly). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well he's got a lot of pit stops before he gets to subtle. ;-) Anchoress 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to User:ChrisWright1979, "this is the third new account I've created over the past week". Cjwright79 (talk · contribs) & ChrisWright1979 (talk · contribs)...What's the other one? -- Scientizzle 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could just be the classic, "Release four pigs in the school and number them 1,2,3, and 5" prank. --InShaneee 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like ChrisWright79 (talk · contribs) & ChrisW (talk · contribs) are other socks of this user... -- Scientizzle 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be another one: Bradleybittinger (talk · contribs) (check out the vandalism then quick reversion, and also the weird note to UtherSRG). Anchoress 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it isn't this same user, Bradleybittinger's edits have been all vandalism (may have been involved in the creation of Nelson Wu) and may warrant a block if the user (or his sock) continues... -- Scientizzle 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I dealt the block, anyone else want to deal with the unblock request? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, has anyone gone through the contributions made under Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)? I tried going through some of them the other day, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience to sort through the few legitimate edits he made and the vandalism/trolling... Gzkn 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through a bunch of them, but not all; like you I ran out of patience. I'll have another look. Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris just emailed me and told me the names of (supposedly all) his accounts:

• cjwright79 cjwright79 (talk · contribs)
• ChrisWright79 ChrisWright79 (talk · contribs)
• ChrisWright1979 ChrisWright1979 (talk · contribs)
• Lordofring Lordofring (talk · contribs)
• MegaManEx MegaManEx (talk · contribs)

And he had some lovely things to say to me too. Oh boy! My first abusive email thru WP!! I'm so excited! Anchoress 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me, too, very politely asking me to unblock him. He says that he wants to come back to Misplaced Pages and work for "consensus and sanity." I told him I'm not an admin, and that we get a lot of people who "reform" and then continue to wreak havoc. However, I also said that if he's really serious about becoming a positive influence, perhaps he should request arbitration and have some limits put on him. I think following those limits for a while would be excellent proof of good intentions, but I pointed out that I can't promise anything even if he does that. Extreme humility would be required, and a lot of you are so tired with dealing with this mess that it may not be a possibility. It's a thought, anyway. --Masamage 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I respectfully submit that he's a pathological liar and a chronic manipulative unrepentant incorrigible troll. This is what he sent to me (I know it's bad netiquette to post private email, but I didn't ask to be contacted privately, so I don't feel a need to keep it private):

Lawful Good? What a sham. It's also a shame that I have to live in the same country as you.

I suggest you remove your head from your ass and kindly resolve the matter of my being banned in a sensible and just manner. I see that virtually every administrator of Misplaced Pages is corrupt and intellectually lazy. You see the rules as being able to be molded into whatever you want them to be. Of course, this works perfectly. Except I'm sick of this bullshit.

Regardless, I have no interest in continuing this silly escapade.

The individual who said that I was taking the 'long, slow piss' out of everyone is quite right. I'm sending you fine folk this message: your sham reign is over. I will not go away. Your illegitimate and entirely evil ways will not be ignored. I haven't attempted to talk to Jimbo yet, but that's definitely becoming an option.

His MO is that he trolls and trolls until people get fed up, then he makes nice and sucks up and acts repentant until he gets unblocked. Then he starts trolling again. I'm not bugged by his communication, but I am absolutely convinced that this editor has no intention of reforming. He's just yanking our chains. Anchoress 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I got an email as well — apparently 70.70.200.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I put a 24-hour block on last week for trolling and vandalism, was him, and he's taken the opportunity to blame me on some of his other user pages. His email asking me to unblock him was polite, but had an air of insincerity about it (he said that based on my user page I appeared to be "a sane and godly fellow", an odd phrasing to say the least). I told him that I saw no reason to unblock him — his vandal/troll edits far outnumber any positive contributions to the encyclopedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had five so far. The final one was the only rude one, the others were polite pleas for unblocking. Not falling for that again. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy did I waste my breath on his talk page trying to help him out. His next message he STILL wouldn't promise NEVER to troll again (which was my recommendation to him). Seems like he thinks he has some sort of right to troll. Anyone want to get in touch with his ISP about this? He needs to be sent a strong message that he's the one that's done the wrong thing, and if he's abusing admins here there's not much point unblocking him. If his ISP gets onto him he just might get the message. Curse of Fenric 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that Shaw's Acceptable Use Policy covers internet trolling. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about the emails on top of the trolling. Falls under harassment doesn't it? Curse of Fenric 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I doubt contacting his ISP would help unless he sent a death threat through those e-mails. If he continues to abuse the "e-mail this user" option, is there a way to block him from using that feature? Gzkn 09:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Three abusive emails today, two with the subject heading "Fucker!". Lovely. One of them ended with the rather baffling sentiment, "Have fun in Penn. State, you penitent bitch." Unfortunately, vocabulary confusion isn't sufficient cause to complain to his ISP... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird. I got another one, but it still wasn't rude. All it did was thank me for being "sane" and inform me that, just for my info, the word 'vandal' might be considered highly racist to some people. :) --Masamage 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to all who are getting these emails. If you haven't done so already, make them bounce if you can. You can program Outlook Express to bounce emails you don't want. I don't know about others. If you have access to your email like I have (a domain host including email servers) you can program them to bounce this sort of thing. If this user persists with different email addys, that's spamming and that CAN be reported to an ISP. Even if they are using providers like Hotmail for example. Curse of Fenric 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my latest one has a general message: "Please relay to the group at the Incidents desk that I give up, and will simply wait this one out. If they want to keep me blocked me for a year, five years, ten years, fifty years; so be it. It's not the end of the world, and besides which, chances are good that I actually do need to suffer the consequences of my behaviour for a while." So, I guess that's that? --Masamage 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz/Thekohser) attempting to run for ArbCom

It appears that Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz) is attempting to run for arbcom, based on the argument that he had over 1000 edits under several accounts. He is also harassing people who delete his statements, including me and Centrx. I've noticed that he edits from various IPs in the 72.94.*.* range, which leads me to think that a range block might be necessary. Scobell302 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the pages that need to be monitored at this moment are Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements and Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation. Scobell302 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I could be totally wrong here, but if one of his accounts is subject to a ban by Jimbo doesn't that make him inelligable by default. - Mgm| 11:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Any attempt to run for ArbCom by this user is blatant trolling. There is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of their passing, even if they were not permabanned and below the edit count limit. I vote we deny recognition and just nuke any further attempts. Guy 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• sounds sensible. "AGF" doesn't mean "prance around ad libitum". dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• A block for disruption may be in order as well... ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx blocked him as an abusive sock hours before you woke up. Which, is the proper course of action seeing that it is an abusive sock of a banned user. pschemp | talk 14:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth semiprotecting the candidate statement page, which only the candidates and election officials should be editing anyway. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

74.129.234.170

This user really needs monitoring. When he was reverted by Crossmr, he added insults to Crossmr's userpage. When I reverted and warned him, he did the same to my userpage as well. Can someone watch over him and, if necessary, block him? Scobell302 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:UNFanatic

User:UNFanatic has uploaded this image 3 times after it has been deleted 4 times for G10. A big X through a national flag should not be tolerated

Image:800px-Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus2.png

Please take action --MCMLXXI 07:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the page, and protected it so that it can't be uploaded again. Thanks. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

article Jim Clark

Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is undergoing a low level revert war initiated by Pflanzgarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). At RFI we were recommended to report this ongoing incident here at AN/I.

• this diff by an indef blocked sock is similar to this diff by Pflanzgarten. this diff shows that sock BT44 is reverting version of the article that is very similar to the old version favoured by Pflanzgarten.
• Hunserug's contribs demonstrates that it is a single purpose account
• The date on Hunzerug's user log demonstrates that it was a sleeper account
• All known socks/impersonators have been dealt with at WP:SPP (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Pflanzgarten (5th)) or WP:RFI.
• Is there a way to retain the Wikiway and lift protection on Jim Clark while preventing the disruptive edits? Perhaps an IP range block or adding Jim Clark to watchlists of many more volunteers? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense bios redux - checkuser needed?

I just noticed some extremely interesting history behind the articles mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nelson Wu (second nomination). An admin may want to review the deleted histories of Smegmer Kennington, Richard Carney (previous AfD), Brad Noland and Larry Fish (previous AfD) to determine if there is a case for checkuser. This was previously mentioned on ANI in July; see also Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nonsense bios. Kavadi carrier 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• The user that created the articles abovementioned except Brad Noland has been blocked already. Unless it has any use for existing ArbCom case, Checkuser would probably reject/tell you it's fishing. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly spurious RfC opened regarding Sarah Ewart by Methodology/Ottawaman

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Sarah_Ewart in which possible socks (Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ottawaman) Ottawaman (talk · contribs) and Methodology (talk · contribs) protest against actions taken by Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), one of our most upstanding admins.

This is an FYI only, really, as if the checkuser comes out as people think it will, the RfC wasn't certified and can be speedy closed. But that's not to say that moral support might not be welcomed (perhaps at the "Outside view by pschemp" might be where to hang it.) ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. What a farce, actually. If I didn't have selfpreservation in mind (I don't like these types of trolling sockpuppets - I don't think anyone does, for that matter...), I'd close it right now as a bad faith RfC. Sarah is one of our best, and trolls like this only achieve loss to Misplaced Pages. Daniel.Bryant 11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just been across - even a cursory glance at the contributions of Methodology (talk · contribs) tell you pretty much everything you need to know. Quack quack it's a duck!. It's a shame we don't have a quicker process to deal with such nonsense rather than the endless games we all get dragged into. --Charlesknight 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a quicker process, WP:IAR. I'm going to delete the RFC and indef block Methodology as an obvious abusive sockpuppet. With 10+ admins endorsing the idea that this is a sockpuppet, there is no point in continuing. Thatcher131 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Please keep an eye on the WP:RFC/U page, admins - Ottawaman has repeatedly blanked a portion of the page, removing two RFCs, to readd the Sarah RFC (in three different places!) – Chacor 13:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also support, let's go duck-hunting. KillerChihuahua 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done Thatcher 131! That was some awesome support there guys, I appreciate it. --Guinnog 14:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou everyone for your wonderful support...to say it is appreciated would be a massive understatement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect example of DefendEachOther and can't think of many folk more worthy, Sarah. Support deletion, support indef block. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call! -- Samir धर्म 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. I saw this in passing a couple of days ago and was hoping that people with more time would do the right thing to it. It seemed to have been completely without reasonable justification or criticism. Keep up the good work, Sarah. Georgewilliamherbert 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IP talk page warnings

74.93.44.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) engaged in a spree of attacks on the 3rd Nov. 5 days later the IP becomes active again but his only edit is to blank his talk page. The point is raised in IRC that he's broken some 'policy' and should have known he may only archive warnings (ridiculous!). I plead with User:Editor at Large not to take any action unless the IP returns to vandalism. It could be a different user - and WP:BITE applies. Despite that Editor at large replaces the warnings and adds a big nasty threatening template. (didn't somone nuke those things?). I ask him to stop, it and revert his template. But without further ado, I am reverted by User:Shreshth91. I'm no going to editwar on this, so I'm bringing it here.

It is one thing replacing warnings on the page of an active vandal, but, after 5 days and no further vandalism, we need to uphold WP:BITE and also consider that it may be an innocent user on the same IP. We get confused innocents on OTRS all the time asking about nasty warnings. I made these points on IRC but was told that the IP broken policy and it needed enforced. Let's have a discussion here.--Doc 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc, the thing is that it makes it easier for editors using anti-vandal RC tools, who are warning editors on the fly. Some editors may not have the time or inclination or knowledge to check the history of the talk page for warnings, and this may create misconceptions for punitive action. If you weigh in the pros and cons, while removal of warnings may create some problems, keeping them there will facilitate transparency, and easily let people know about past activities of the user without going into the history/contribs. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you stumble across a blank but created IP usertalk page, then check its history before warning or blocking. If you've not time to do that - then I respectfully suggest that you haven't time to do RCP properly. Don't invent policies and then enforce them with nasty warnings because that is convenient for RC people.--Doc 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now really, if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself, and this doesn't really look that threatening to constitute WP:BITE. Archiving pages only means more trouble for blocking administrators, so this should not be supported in any form. Any such policy on archiving pages / removing warnings would only cause more process problems. I have welcomed the user, by the way. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

" ... if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself ... ". Absolutely ;not;. There is no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that forces users to acquire an account. IP users should not be dealt with any differently to registered users. Proto::type 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not creating a new policy here. As I have said above, it is my job to make it easier for users to work here. Kindly do not accuse me of biting newbies, or of making up "nasty warnings", without rationale. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, someone nuked those things, but they're presently on DRV. The question is whether making the job slightly easier for recent change patrol warrants being incivil to newbies and revert warring to keep old warning templates on their talk page. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of either of this, but it has happened. Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, neither should warnings supposed to be (semi-) permanent black marks. The idea that you may only 'archive' your talk page in a certain way would be instruction creep. >Radiant< 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shreshth, Doc did not accuse you of biting newbies. He suggested that you should bear WP:BITE in mind before leaping to punish an IP user when the IP address was used five days earlier for vandalism. I don't know if you're aware of this, but IP addresses are not necessarily static. Proto::type 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shreshth91, forget what is 'easy' for you for a moment and focus on what you are doing here. User gets a warning. They read it and remove it because they don't like it. You then restore the warning. You've just edit warred. To re-insert something you know the user doesn't want to see. On their talk page. I'm sorry, but I can't see the benefits of 'easy' in not having to click on a 'history' link outweighing the 'bad' of actions which serve to greatly annoy users. Even when this is used 'correctly' (as opposed to all the times 'User A' puts a questionable or outright false warning on the page of 'User B' and then harasses them to keep it there) it is a net negative. --CBD 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay - I get it. Let's not make a big deal of a samll thing. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here's the AN discussion, and here's the DRV. --bainer (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:24.47.198.164

Has repeatedly removed non-harassing comments from their Talk page without discussion and without addressing the behavior in question, such as breaking infobox syntax over personal stylistic concerns, adding future information to articles before events have actually occurred, adding false information to articles, removing user comments from their talk, and adding information without proper citation. Since the anon refuses to leave warnings on his talk page unless threatened, other editors do not escalate their warnings as necessary. Was warned to stop the behavior or a report questioning the behavior would be filed--user promptly deleted it. Here are the most recent diffs:

Maybe I'm being harsh, but seems like a long pattern of uncivil behavior by the same user here to try to keep a "clean" image. - Debuskjt 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned users asking trolling questions at ArbCom elections

See , where an IP - which freely admits to be a banned user - repeatedly asks a question that can be seen as trolling. Same user has targetted other noms too. IIRC, banned users are not allowed to edit at all. Why should we, if we do, make an exception now? – Chacor 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For further info, see Avraham's candidacy. This IP is a troll from the war that broke out over circumcision. – Chacor 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The protection of the page after only two reverts was inappropiate, though. - 152.91.9.144

I saw more than two, there were some added earlier and reverted (around Nov 6 or Nov 7). User:Zscout370 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it doesn't quite match the stated protection policy, does it? - 152.91.9.144

Percy "Nobby" Norton

Why the f*** do people think this is a hoax?? are you mad??? --Cotnress 15:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask for undeleting an article. The correct place is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Kavadi carrier 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like our new user created PERCYNOBBYNORTON with the infamous briefs picture. Block Cotnress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please. Kavadi carrier 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And Bexy3-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well - both trolling DRV . Kavadi carrier 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of the above are indefblocked. Also, User:Bpazolli promoted himself to admin this morning by adding the admin template to his user page and adding himself to the admin list, and is now indefblocked as well. Based on the IPs, all the Nobby vandals appear to be the same person. I suggest a Misplaced Pages:Revert, block, ignore approach if any more get created, in accordance with WP:DENY. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bexy3-2 was blocked for 6 months, not indefinitely. Aecis 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being undeleted. How many more times will this be re-created under new titles. I'm not going to mention them, lest WP:BEANS coming into play. --SunStar Net 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also indefblocked an impersonator account of User:Starblind (who was the blocking admin of cotnress). Syrthiss 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fys breaching probation, breaking article ban, edit warring again

User:Fys was blocked for 3RR (see Fys 3RR report, and subsequently banned for a week from editing the article:

"In accordance with the terms of your probation, you are hereby banned from editing Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all pages which redirect to it for the period of one week." --Slowking Man 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The notice of the ban has now been removed by Fys from his talk page (see diff]), and he is back making the same disputed changes to the articles from which he is banned: see Fys contribs

The disputed changes were being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square, where Fys has just blamed everyone else for blocking him. (see diff): "A useful step to resolving the dispute might have been to unblock me earlier. A useful step to not making the dispute worse might have been to realise that I never broke the 3RR in the first place. A useful step to never having the dispute in the first place might have been to read what I wrote in this edit nearly a month ago."

Plase can someone take action to stop these disputed changes being made unilaterally?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't edited that article, or a redirect to it, that I can see. Can you provide a diff? Morwen - Talk 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake: he did not edit the redirects. Fys's edits have been to articles which link to that one, by editing the constituency names in those articles to point to the one he wants to split: see, for example , , ,

Whilst formally keeping within the terms of the article ban, the purpose of these edits is to remove direct links, replacing hem instead with links to a redirect. I can see no purpose in this other than as preparation for a split. Fys has refused to continue the discussion on the merits of that split. (see ).

These edits seem to me to be a form of wikilawyering: keeping with the strict terms of the ban, but not the spirit of it. --BrownHairedGirl 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could another admin perhaps comment on this? Is it acceptable in this sort of situation for the banned user to do preparatory work for the article split which led to the ban being imposed? As above, that series of edits seems to me to be either WP:Wikilawyering or disruption to make a point, but maybe an admin who has considered this sort of thing before could clarify? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like he hasn't edited that article yet, but he posted a spurious "no personal attacks" warning on my talk page. The article ban notice has been restored on his talk page and I invite any administrator to block this user in case he removes it again. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Spurious" is it? Do you really want me to point to the edits and emails where you made personal attacks on me? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of baloney! May I remind you that it was you who spammed my inbox with unblock demands? Provide the diffs for you shalt find none. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, looky. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Fys for twenty-four hours for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Comments and suggestions invited. Tom Harrison 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think this situation sucks and Brownhairedgirl is not entirely free from responsibility. Fys' recent edits are related to the issue for which he was article-banned; the issue of naming/merging/splitting St George's Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency) and Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency). However, I'm not sure why changing the name in the MP's article is wrong. It seems common sense to me that in an article about an MP, his constituency should be called whatever it was at the time the MP served, even if the name was later changed, and irrespective of what the Misplaced Pages article is currently called—that's one reason we have redirects. (For example, Dean P. Taylor is listed as a congressman for New York's 29th, 33rd and 31st congressional districts, even though all those districts are now obsolete and their territory is part of the 27th.)

The issue for which Fys was originally blocked and article-banned was over how to deal with a district that either was renamed or altered so significantly that is should have a separate article. Listing MP's in their proper contemporaneous districts does not seem like a problem to me and Brownhairedgirl should not have reverted them (unless they were incorrect contemporaneous names).

I suppose if he apologized to Nick and calmed down, the civility block could be lifted early. I would not lift the article ban, but I would caution Brownhairedgirl not to revert Fys on other articles unless he makes factually incorrect edits. Listing MP's according to their contemporaneous districts is not necessarily a precursor to another edit war over the district's article. Thatcher131 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure; observe that mistakes were made, shake hands all around. If there is no reason to think there will be any more disruption, there is not need for the block. Tom Harrison 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher 131, I think that you may have misunderstood the situation. Maybe it would be clearer, if I highlighted the changes in this diff of Fys's edit to Lord Algernon Percy:

old link

• ]
  (looks like this: St George's, Hanover Square)

Fys's replacement

• ]
  (looks like this: St George, Hanover Square)

As you will see, in each case the name of the constituency is displayed as "St George, Hanover Square" (Fys removed an 's suffix, not sure if that was correct).

The substance of the dispute is that Fys claims that Westminster St George's is so significantly changed from St George, Hanover Square that it should not be in the same article; no other editor agrees, but all have agreed that Fys might be right and have sked Fys for more evidence. In the meantime, the consenus is to treat the 1918 change as a renaming rather than a new constituency, and therefore to keep the two constituencies in one article.

The current effect of Fys' edits was to repkace a link to an article with a link to a redirect. What was the purpose of that, if not as precursor to a split? The constituency name was displayed correctly before and after.

I will as you ask desist from reverting further such changes, but it does seem to me to contrary to good practice to replace a direct piped link with a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what he did, and your description is correct. I would hesitate to label it as intentional disruption; perhaps he plans to provide the necessary sources for his version and is getting ready. In the short run I would leave them alone per assuming good faith. Thatcher131 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There were originally two articles, but BrownHairedGirl merged them. Rather than characterising Fys as wanting to split the article into two, I think it would be more accurate to say that he wants to revert the merge.

In my view, two constituencies with different names and different boundaries are prima facie different constituencies, and should be considered so unless there is a compelling case to believe otherwise. One could make such a compelling case by going to the library and having a look at the Representation of the People Act 1918, but (as usual on Misplaced Pages it would seem) people on both sides of the dispute would rather argue than do research.

Hesperian 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem if Fys is unblocked, provided that he ceases with his disruptive acts. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shuppiluliuma being abusive, combative, not making good faith edits, etc

User:Shuppiluliuma has been doing numerous things, including reverting over and over, removing city names that have been discussed already, and making threats/offensive attacks such as "(do we have to kill you greeks one by one?)" in an edit summary, marking major changes as minor, and after I warned him with the 3rr template, "Well, I don't care. You people have Crusader mentality. But don't worry: Within a few centuries, we'll be back in Vienna (Never mind Greece)... So sweet dreams with the Greek names of Turkish cities." He is clearly out of control. --AW 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now he's adding nonsense to Izmir --AW 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

His unilateral re-kindling of the Greek-Turkish placenames WP:LAMEness is certainly not helpful, and much of it is "editing against consensus". I've already reverted him myself on one or two and consider myself sort of involved, otherwise I'd come myself and keep a very strict watch over editwarring on those articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just happened to see this. One of his edit summaries is extremely worrying: "do we have to kill you greeks one by one?" Death threats are really not acceptable. Jakew 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on that I blocked him for 31 hours. Tom Harrison 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, in the context of Byzantine Ottoman Balkanian Greco-Turkish rhetorics I doubt any of his addressees would have been likely to take that one even remotely at face value, but sure, if nothing else we must take it as a sign of a deeply unconstructive attitude to this editing dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another reminder about reversions

This has been mentioned before, but I'd like to remind everyone to be careful when reverting edits to make sure something beforehand isn't missed. When I reverted this edit on 31 May, I missed the one immediately preceding (by the same editor; I did not know at the time that popups reversions and rollback are not identical), and this person's Commission Junction link has been active for over five months! Thanks to Poetxpress (talk · contribs) for finally catching it today... :( RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, further to that, I posted a warning on the AIV talk page re a phenomenon I've seen recently, with tag team vandalism between a registered and anon user; often, the anon vandalism will be rolled back to the last registered edit, which is also vandalism. Anchoress 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a lot of vandalism on the GMF page. Please take it out.

Thanx.

Tyson Moore es 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)