Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:58, 8 July 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

Provocative epitaph to Blu Aardvark as Wikipedian

Blu Aardvark started off, as many of us do, as a good earnest newbie Wikipedian. He did a few questionable things and got a taste of some of the Misplaced Pages community's officiousness. He did not handle it well and flamed out in a puerile fashion. He then co-founded a criticism site, quite likely with good intentions, but just stood by when it got out of hand and other members launched some vicious attacks. He had a change of heart and tried to come back to Misplaced Pages, but the community was unforgiving and reacted with anger. This time he left with class and maturity, trapping us in our own officiousness in a nice coup de grace. It sounds as if he has matured and learned from the debacle; let us hope that, in time, the Misplaced Pages community will as well. Martinp 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, his final actions were nothing more than an attempt to sow confusion by playing the "Ohh look at me, I'm making good edits but you're blocking me anyway!" card. That is to say, he wasn't editing because he truly cared about making the encyclopedia better, only to try to make us look bad. --Cyde↔Weys 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We really should avoid talking about other user's motivations, since it is complete supposition. - brenneman 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm always up for a lecture from Cyde Weys about how good Wikipedians should behave. Herostratus 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always found anti-semitic insinuations the work of good, earnest Wikipedians myself; I'm glad we all see eye-to-eye on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't sarcasm fun? Let's please stop sniping at each other and let this mess be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL vandal

Some vandal has been repeatedly vandalizing carrot from AOL (using multiple IP addresses). I don't know exactly what to do about it (they have persisted despite multiple warnings, and from the edit descriptions it is obviously vandalism and not some newbie's tests). Mo-Al 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is s-protected. (So now I suppose the AOLuser will simply indulge his squalid little masturbation fantasies elsewhere.) Hoary 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they've started on my talk page. (see User_talk:Mo-Al#Quick question!) Mo-Al 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page can be s-protected too. Do you want that? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Not neccessarily. Can I post a warning on their talk page for that? Mo-Al 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the vandal edits (and the associated reverts) from the history of Carrot, since some of the vandalism was in the edit summaries (which were also quite long and typed in ALL CAPS). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to again. Looks like there's some more vandalism. Mo-Al 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Fixed it again. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

I strongly suggest that this IP be banned. They have recieved multiple final warnings, and recently vandalized Today's Featured Article by blanking it and replacing it with hundreds of lines of nonsense. False Prophet 15:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think maybe my userpage should be protected. It has been vandalized twice now. Mo-Al 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No more often than mine has. Though "vandalized" seems to aggrandize the relevant, er, contributions of this birdbrain, who seems to be under the delusion that various people here (you, me, whoever) are proctologists. Your user page is on my watchlist. -- Hoary 05:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not like the guy's blanking my userpage or anything, but I do think posting obscene comments counts as "vandalism". Mo-Al 05:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

IP adress 64.12.116.14 needs to be banned. It has recieved 29 warnings, 2 blocks, and 10 final warnings. It blanked yesterday's FA and replaced it with obsene comments. False Prophet 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AOL doesn't work that way. The vandal would continue and hundreds of other AOL users would be inconvenienced when their IP hopped through that number. (ESkog) 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, he's vandalized from multiple AOL IP addresses (so, for all I know, all AOL users would be blocked). Mo-Al 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the way Ip adresses work on AOL, but still, This adress repeatedly blanks pages, and I have yet to see a constructive edit. If someone has a problem with it, they can create an account. If there was a reason to believe that this IP was helping Misplaced Pages, I wouldnt request this, but within an hour yesterday, they blanked the same page 5 times, in 2 waves. Once 3 times in 30 minnutes, then waited a few minnutes, then continued to blank it. False Prophet 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem - they can't just create an account :) Logged in users will still be hit by AOL IP blocks (at least under the current blocking system, see WP:BPP). We can't say that IP isn't "helping Misplaced Pages" because that IP changes ownership every few minutes. That's the big problem with AOL and their proxy system - no one can be held accountable for their edits (even more so than regular anon edits). --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Mo-Al should have to put up with that, so I've semiprotected his talk. Mo-Al, please let me know if the person migrates to your userpage (very common move in my experience), then I'll protect that as well. I don't care about most kinds of vandalism to my pages—least of all a blanking—but if some particular kind of idiocy starts to get to me, then I sprotect for a few days. (That reminds me, time to unprotect my pages.) Admins can do that, and a regular user should get to make the same call. (A la lanterne les aristos!) Bishonen | talk 02:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks! I'd appreciate it if you unprotect it in about a week; I figure the guy wil have forgotten about it/given up by then. I'll report if he moves to my userpage. Mo-Al 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was refering in general to the users of the IP adress. All of their edits have since been reverted. I have all ready voiced my opinion on WP:BPP. It isnt like this editor is trying to hide the fact their vandalizing. Their recent edits have listed the text they replaced the article with. I am just sick of tracking down vandals only to find out it's an AOL IP and I cant do anything that will change their editing habits. False Prophet 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bazzajf

I wonder if someone could look into the behaviour of Bazzajf . I am particularly concerned about this threat. I have been working with SP-KP to attempt to get a factual verifiable article and this is the response I get from a POV warrior trying to wreck the verifiability of teh article. Robertsteadman 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a month - looking over his talk page and his contributions, this sort of abuse and harassment has been going on for far too long. --ajn (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Robertsteadman 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to communicate rationally with the user, but Bazzajf seemed determined to continue to insult people despite the fact that the user has just been blocked for a month for it. I've not intention of letting Bazzajf continue to insult people, including myself. Usertalk page fully protected. --Lord Deskana 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bazzajf is relevant here - IP 62.77.181.16 (an Irish government address, apparently) seems to be only used by Bazzajf, and I suspect he'll pop up on his favourite articles again, so it may be necessary to block that too. --ajn (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this makes the connection quite clear - less the edit but the edit summary comment... As does the fact the anon has added stuff to Bazzajf's user page.... If it was me I'd block both - indefinitely!!!!Robertsteadman 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block is uncalled for, although it's fairly obvious he's evading the block right now. Frankly, I thought a month was too much, too, but that's within reason. Bazzajf has shown a complete inability to remain civil, but I don't believe he's beyond help yet, and he does have some value to the encyclopedia. Powers 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we pussy-foot around far too much with people who are consistently and unrepentantly grossly offensive to others. I've blocked the IP address for a month too, since it only ever seems to have been used by him. This is his sixth or seventh block for edit warring or personal abuse (depending on whether you count the penultimate one) in the month he's been here. The last time he was blocked for personal attacks it was for a week, I don't see that a month is at all excessive as a further step. --ajn (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IP address seems to be on a shared computer with several users, including one other registered Misplaced Pages user, so the address can't be blocked. --ajn (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits of Starsweep, created the day after I blocked Bazzajf, I'm convinced they are the same person. There's now a permanent block on Starsweep, and two months on Bazzajf and the IP address. --ajn (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A User:Bazza 7 has just emerged on British Isles. While they seem to be different from User:Bazzajf, looking at their contribution history and userpages, it is a little bit of a coincidence. Vashti 18:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ackoz blocked

I have blocked User:Ackoz for 3 days for personal attacks and offensive behaviour (mocking users' IQs) on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Trampikey, and for disruptive behaviour in starting an RfC on a completely unrelated administrator whose only involvement was to place warnings for the above behaviour on his/her user page (which this user promptly removed). I have advised this user of ways he can seek to have this block overturned, and if another administrator feels that this block should be overturned, I will respect that. - Mark 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He needed to be in the time out corner, and 3 days is probably good. I endorse the block, although I do think this was a peevish person stamping his foot and might have been neutralized by ignoring. A short block is at least as valid an approach though. (I hate it when people try to be clever and just miss. The belly flop they make is much more noticeable than someone just jumping feet first into the pool.) Geogre 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey George, I was pleased to see you talking about me like this. Now that my block is up, I just want to tell you, that you are the most civil admin, an example for all editors, calling me "peevish person", and I wanted to say I am sorry I tried to be clever. Using the same way of argumenting like Mark used when he blocked me (check yourself) you are telling that I am stupid, right? I shouldn't have tried to be clever, my bad, I will never try again. And.. yup.. many thanks for the belly flop story, that also made me happy. How is that that you can be uncivil and call people "trying to be clever" and you don't get blocked?

PS: My user and talkpages were deleted on my request, and I am not willing to return to wikipedia, I have spent too much time in last month creating and editing articles, but once I stepped into discussion with people around wikipedia, I am not keen on contributing anymore. Wish you luck 85.70.5.66 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Block of Alienus by Will Beback for 3 days

We've had issues in the past with blocks of Alienus being lifted without sufficient consensus first. Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three days for recurring personal attacks. Although there was a particular incident that caused Will to review, Will states on Alienus's talk page that the block is for a pattern evident in his interactions, not a specific incident. In response to an {{unblock}} I have reviewed and I concur with the block. Some back and forth has occurred in which I'm accused of not being impartial, along with some possible mischaracterisation of past events surrounding previous blocks. I think further review by other editors may be warranted. I would ask again that consensus be reached here before any blocks are overturned. (note use of the vandal template here is just because it gives the blocklog easily and I don't recall another one off hand, no assertion of vandalism is specifically intended in this case) Lar 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for this block not to remain in place. Looking at the history, there certainly seems to be a pattern of incivil behaviour. Alienus, please take some time out, and come back with a new resolve to get along with other editors. -- sannse (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. We've been down this road before, and there's no reason Alienus can't try to be a little more polite. --InShaneee 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Alienus has continued to abuse his user talk page to propagate his personal attacks even while blocked, I've requested that the page be protected. .

The unblock-en-l mailing list is operational and he can argue his case there. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the block is ridiculous. Calling someone an "edit warrior" gets you blocked for three days? Bizarre. He is being held to impossibly high standards, and is practically being stalked by some, who appear ready and eager to pounce at the slightest infraction. ^^James^^ 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You sound just like Alienus. Will made it quite clear that it is the pattern of incivility, not that one incident that resulted in the block. Alienus's constant pattern of incivility and then claims that the rest of the project just isn't assuming good faith at his behavior was likely to exhaust the patience of the community sooner or later. As for the conspiracy against him, yes, there is a conspiracy here against uncivil users, and he is one of them. pschemp | talk 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That one incident is what resulted in the block. Yes, context was also cited, but not explicitly - it's all rather vague. There are a number of warnings and overturned blocks for trivial or nonexistant offences on his talk page. Not much substance there, just a lot of hot air.

I sound just like Alienus? What's that supposed to mean? Is that a passive aggresive personal attack?

Considering you and Lar were recently involved in an altercation with Alienus, no wonder this appears to be personal. Your posting here to vehemently defend a ridiculous block certainly affirms such an impression.

You say you are against users whom you consider uncivil (rather than incivility itself), and that Alienus is one of those users. Therefore any infraction, no matter how slight, should be used to get rid of him. That is what is happening here. ^^James^^ 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just keep breathing that paranoia gas. You'll be fine. pschemp | talk 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that one its true it wasn't constructive so let me rephrase: No. Also, I never said, "users whom I consider uncivil." I said, "uncivil users", which has nothing to do with my personal opinion, nor does it imply that it does, or that the slightest infraction should be used to get rid of him. Those are your words, not mine.pschemp | talk 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Case in point. That's quite insulting. And you are an admin, no? ^^James^^ 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't like my behavior? You are welcome to lodge a complaint. pschemp | talk 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with the original block... Al seems to be inducing other editors and admins to behave badly in response, which is not constructive. WP:CIVIL applies all the time. Take a deep breath and don't respond if that's your first reflex... Georgewilliamherbert 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note: Template:Vandal redirects to Template:Userlinks. People should really start using the latter to avoid that kinds of conflict. --Avillia 20:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've posted this here as well as Al's talk page as it summarizes how I feel about the current situation.

I have had worse said to me by others and have put it down to a learning experience. I also have been effectively bullied by other editors who seemed invisible to the admins. The warnings by Tony Sidaway are worthless as he has nothing short of wikistalked Al and made it his personal task to sort him out. He also called Al an "edit warrior" without getting so much as a slap on the wrist. I hate to go down the same route as Al but I have not been impressed with the conduct of any of the the admins that have so far commented on the block. From previous experience none of them have shown the impartiality or clear thinking necessary to fullfil this role in a just manner. They exacerbate situations also - but this is much more worrying as they should be examples of conduct as admins. Al is an easy target as he does say the wrong thing sometimes and has upset some powerful admins by disagreeing with them on their pet topics. I avoid conflict where I possibly can but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is just giving in to the "playground bullies" and a bit of digging my heels in on controversial subjects would help to remove some of the systemic bias that is so prevalent. Al works on the sort of subjects that get heated and to be honest the level of comment I've seen is nicer than your average political party spat. As long as it doesn't get completly out of hand a bit of "growing up" on the part of some editors wouldn't go amiss. We make a big thing of the fact that Misplaced Pages isn't censored for minors and then get all squeamish about words like "edit warrior". Sophia 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about an editor here whose favourite thing is to point out how people are hypocrites, yet he is one himself. Its the hypocrrite calling the hypocrite a hypocrite, which is not terribly original. Admins are not perfect, and nowhere is that a requirement of the job or is that claimed, however, they have been around long enough to show that they make logical decisions most of the time. If they don't, so what? If their judgement is terribly off, the community will correct it and that is the exact same for regular editors. I am really sick of the us vs. them mentality being shown here. Of course the inmates in a prison claim they are all innocent and the victims of a conspiracy and that the guards are abusing them. Never mind most of them are guilty as sin. As for "I have not been impressed with the conduct of any of the the admins that have so far commented on the block." Please show me where User:sannse has done anything questionable.pschemp | talk 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could have said it better than Sophia. There is a pattern of incivility here, that's true. But that pattern appears to be that Admins can say whatever they want and nothing is done. When an outspoken editor says one little thing that an Admin (who already has something against the editor) doesn't like, wham! Slapped with a big ol' BLOCK. This has been going on long enough, and it is about time that people start to speak up! Until recently, I, like Sophia, tried to avoid conflict. But right now, I just can't imagine letting this go. If Misplaced Pages is going to be worth anything in another few months, trigger-happy Admins must be curbed. We need more people to tell it like it is, and Alienus is being punished repeatedly for doing just that. In the past couple of weeks, my impression of Misplaced Pages's Administrators has been going seriously downhill. I really wish that someone could show me that it doesn't have to be this way, but this has not happened yet. And I am beginning to think that it never will. There are serious problems here, and one editor who sometimes gets himself into heated situations is nothing compared to the bigger picture. These problems really need to be addressed, before we lose our best editors. Please, get off your high horses and start acting like we are all equal human beings. romarin 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And, Pschemp, thank you so much for proving our point. Comparing lowly editors to prison inmates is just fabulous. romarin 21:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My analogy is quite obvious for editors who don't follow the rules repeatedly, not the ones who behave. Oh noes! trigger happy admins! Oh the horror! I'm sorry but wikipedia will be the sum of human knowledge, which means that somewhere, someone else has the same knowledge as you, so I don't buy the "we are going to run off our best editors" shtick. If only one person knows something, it isn't verifiable anyway, and certainly not published. We shouldn't run off good editors, but no one here is irreplacable. pschemp | talk 21:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp's apparent lack of concern for editors is somewhat disturbing. We are all volunteers here. We give our time freely to help build a great encyclopedia, and without us, there would be no Misplaced Pages. Abusing us is, in the end, only going to hurt the project. Exhibiting a disregard for issues of justice, as well as viewing editors as nothing more than knowledge-producing machines is quite troubling as well, especially coming from an Administrator who is supposed to be setting an example that the rest of us can follow. Editors, especially good ones, are valuable because they make decisions, they use their judgement to decide what knowledge should go into an article, and what should be left out. They avoid inserting POV, and they attempt to curb POV pushers who would only twist or censor an article. It seems to be these editors who often are most heavily targeted by Admins, particularly the trigger-happy, apathetic ones. I find it sad that certain Admins would exhibit inflamatory, uncivil, rude, and unsympathetic tendancies when their motives are questioned. It's true that we all make mistakes. It is a virtue, however, to be able to admit to such errors in a civil manner. I simply don't see this happening here. romarin 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out to me for which of Alienus's most recent 9 blocks he admitted making an error? I can't seem to find that. Nandesuka 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out to me where I said that he had? I can't seem to find it, nor do I remember having typed it. romarin 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the logic of Nandesuka's comment seems to have escaped you, let me spell it out. I'm quite sure he is refering to your suggestion that "It is a virtue, however, to be able to admit to such errors in a civil manner." and pointing out that Alienus has never done this.pschemp | talk 22:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment was made in reference to certain Admins; I wasn't talking about Alienus and thus Nandesuka's statement was irrelevant. But, since you are all so quick to point your fingers, let me show you one instance in which he has admitted error and offered an apology . Would you like more, or are you done with the baiting and hypocritical finger-pointing? romarin 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i'm quite sure he hasn't apologized for any of the latest incidents. If you were referring to me, i was simply interpreting a comment for you, not making any accusations, so calling me a hypocrite is a bit much.pschemp | talk 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Section break (1)

Misplaced Pages is loosing good people all the time - they leave or disengage from particular articles because of an increasingly uncivil enviornment, or they determine to stay and "fight it out," adopting a hostile approach, and reinforcing the vicious cycle. Constant low-grade incivility is corrosive, and it is disruptive. If we let it continue, we end up with an enviornment where it is the norm. Tom Harrison 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. As leaders, I think Admins should be the first to be cited for incivility, even if that means that their powers get taken away. They are supposed to be setting an example, and they so far seem to be setting a bad one. romarin 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us why Alienus's behaviour doesn't deserve a block instead of screaming about admin abuse? His behaviour is the real topic here, and I've yet to see it defended. pschemp | talk 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So if Alienus were an admin you'd say he needed to be blocked? or just de-sysoped? I support the block, if that wasn't clear. Tom Harrison 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that if Alienus were an admin he would not be blocked. Admins seem to be given cart blanche for being uncivil with impunity. The double standard is most clear in this case since all Al did was refer to someone as an "edit warrior?!" I have see countless times where even admins refer to "regular" editors in exactly that manner with not a peep out of anyone about its not being civil. Clearly Al is being singled out, targeted in a manner that is not based upon equal standards. This is another example of admin abuse having the effect of driving out the critical editors, who are among the best and brightest. Many admins seem to have formed something of a club, like some corrupt police unit. The prison vs. guard analogy is a particularly disturbing insight into the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. My opinion of admins has been going down fast (there are a few good ones), and this is just another nail on the coffin of the admin system. Why are so many admins of such low quality? If this perpetuates itself, Misplaced Pages is in trouble unless it gets rid of admins, or seriously checks their abusive pratices, throws out those who have shown to be terrible examples of the ideals of an ideal wikipedian.64.121.40.153 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That post comes from Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a clear block evasion, while blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry. See here. AnnH ♫ 03:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a block that was never valid in the first place, based on a false and unproven claim. That my comment above, a single edit not in an article, while I abided by the the falseblock--to be used to justify another week block is such an ugly blotch on any notion of justice that my unblock notice was answered affirmatively and reversed. Your obsession with me, motivated by your POV disputes is quite transparent, even if you manage to convince others to do your dirty work to prevent me from editing, or undermining my contributions to important issues such as the above. Attacking the editor never will the the same as attacking their argument as much as you try to confuse the two objectives.Giovanni33 10:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that those people concerned with Alienus' approach to editing open an RfC or ArbCom case. This block/unblock cycle is neither fair to the user nor helpful to the project. Jkelly 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with trigger happy admins is that they are more likely to pull the trigger on people they disagree with, or have personal issues with. This block is such a case. ^^James^^ 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

fiddlesticks. Alienus has been warned about behaviour like this User_talk:Alienus#Glad_you_are_not_me and this User_talk:Alienus#To what do I owe... neither of which, I note, involve any of the admins involved in warning him in the past, in fact GTBacchus was one of his defenders in the past. You're being quite disingenious trying to paint this as some sort of big bad admin conspiracy. The guy is uncivil, he's been warned, he's not stopping and I think it's time that you all (James and Romarin) stopped too because you're way off the mark. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Come now Lar, admin-baiting is a delightful sport for the whole family! Seriously, though, we've got to stop acting as though there's ever an excuse for incivility. I support Will's block. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lar, regarding the posts you cite, the first is obviously a joke. And in the second, GTBacchus calls Alienus a dick! And you have the nerve to call me disingenious (see WP:NPA). It seems any accusation will do, no matter how insubstantial. Throw enough mud and some of it is sure to stick. And please refrain from invoking the word conspiracy, as it is usually used pejoratively to tar opponents as tin foil hat wearing loons. Ie: It's a personal attack. ^^James^^ 23:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy! Paranoia! Admin Abuse! Personal attack! pschemp | talk 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Voice of All removed this as not constructive and he's probably right. Its true, I am not perfect. I apologize. pschemp | talk 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, pschemp. This is precisely what I'm talking about. Admins can't even control themselves while discussing a case of alleged incivility! And yet Alienus gets blocked for three days for referring to someone as an "edit warrior"?! It's ridiculous. But it goes to show: editors that are disliked are held to impossibly high standards, while admins can hurl insults with immunity.

Case in point: pschemp insults me above, then dares me to try to do something about it. Not a pretty picture I'm afraid. ^^James^^ 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense begets nonsense. pschemp | talk 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What is nonesense is that a user got blocked for three days for calling someone an "edit warrior". ^^James^^ 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Red beams go quietly to visa giant LEGO cats. pschemp | talk 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the blocks in question, I'd like to again encourage all administrators to attempt to set an example of civil behavior. --brenneman 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let sensation lewis beauty check design in fan spray. pschemp | talk 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, you have seemed reasonable to me in the past, but you are losing me here.Timothy Usher 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my way of saying I've given up trying to explain things logically, as it doesn't seem to matter. Random strings of nonsense are being considered incivil now and that's a bit absurd. pschemp | talk 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, pschemp, but that's just not going to fly. You state above "nonsense begets nonsense". Thus, you are implying that every time you start spouting nonsense, it is because someone else did first. And calling the concerns of editors "nonsense" is not exactly civil. Just because you don't agree with these concerns does not make them nonsense, and it is quite disingenuous to suggest that those of us who question you are being absurd. If you have actually "given up trying to explain things logically", maybe you should let this one go and allow other editors and admins to take over. No one said you have to contribute here, and frankly, your incivility is not helping. romarin 20:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think I was so uncivil, please file an RFC. That's what the community is here for. Of course you are free to interpret my comments however you wish, whether that interpretation is correct or not.pschemp | talk 00:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Section break (2)

Al and I have clashed in the past — like others he disageed with I was accused of having a bias for trying to achieve NPOV. (One of Al's inabilities is to understand that his edits are can be less neutral than he himself thinks. But then we all have that failing in some form or other. It can be a particular problem with Al.) I agreed with him however (much to Al's shock!) that Tony's behaviour towards him was prevocative and unnecessarily confrontational. Al can be tactless, while believing that he is being tactful, and provocative while believing that he is being the exact opposite. In this case, having read the comments that led to the block, my reaction is to think that, taken in isolation, they would not warrant a block. However taken in the context of numerous other comments over a long period, and past warnings to stop, a block is understandable. He does push it a bit and a block, unfortunately, was in my opinion only a matter of time. I would hope that Al might get the message and reign in his tendency to preach and judge. We all do it from time to time (I'm waving both hands in the air at this stage. I know I do it). Al tends to be his own worst enemy. There is however a distinction between someone trying to provoke and offend for negative reasons, and those who do it out of a genuine and well motivated belief that they are doing the "right thing". Al is IMHO one of the latter. He needs to ease off on the attack comments. If he does this block, I hope, will be a once-off and not something constantly to be repeated. FearÉIREANN 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 04:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is much too late for this to be a "once-off". This is the user's tenth block, the previous blocks having been caused by personal attacks, incivility, or edit warring. -Will Beback 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the scale of that. That puts a different complexion in things. I created a template recently that covers a user with multiple blocks called {{blocknumbers}}. In it admins can fill out details of the number of past blocks and warnings a user has, the length of the most recent block and an explanation of the general context if required. It can be placed on the page of someone who is being blocked regularly so that other admins, in dealing with their behaviour, knows at a glance the stats, rather than having to go through their talk page and archives to see what their past behaviour was like. Perhaps you should put the template on Al's talk page so that the context is clear for everyone to see. It also has had the benefit of bringing home to perpetual offenders who may be in denial as to their behaviour just how many warnings and blocks they have received. FearÉIREANN 04:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review Al's blocks and you will see that the case is not as clear as Will Beback would have it. Also pschemp's prison analogy is far more worrying that he realises - see read the Stanford Prison Experiment to see how the situation we have here can go very very wrong. The truth is that admins are very reluctant to block each other and unpopular editors get blocks for the same actions that admins cheerfully get away with (see my previous post). If you protest your block you are a labeled a trouble maker or accused of making PA's by effectively calling the admins incompetent and I have seen Al's blocks increased in this way. Too much trouble comes from people being "trigger happy" about what is written. One person's offense is anothers wierd sense of humour/reaction to stress. This is an international project and all the time I see underestimated how cultural differences affect the way we approach situations. I'm British so I'm very good at being polite and queuing for my turn to edit 8-). I personally find some US editors "full on" and almost aggressively direct but I have also met many Americans in person who come across the same way. However it is just their manner, their hearts are in the right place and as long as you stick to the facts and sources you should be able to work together. If the integrity of the encyclopedia is most important what we should be looking at here is whether Al was adding to it when he was accused of "edit warring" or whether he was disrupting it. I have not agreed with him on everything but I have never had a problem with him. In fact I'm able to work with several "problem" editors just by not rising to the bait and sticking to what the verifiable sources have to say on a subject.

Now his talk page is protected which is ridiculous especially as it looks from the history as if one admin added a comment by bypassing the protection giving Al no chance to respond . If you repeatedly treat someone unfairly you are going to see a "pattern" of them resisting the system. I have been fully convinced that the last few blocks were intended to create an impressive history so as to work towards removing him and have seen nothing here yet to disuade me of that position. As for the juvenile comments by some admins above - what can I say other than that they no show empathy or understanding of the current situation and should be given LEGO blocks instead of admin tools. Sophia

I agree with Sophia. This might all be moot since we seem to have already lost now both Sophia and Al--both excellent editors, and certainly much better than many others, including admins, despite their weaknesses. Sophia's point bout the Stanford prison experiment was as pertinent and astute observation as it was obvious given the setting here. The fact her poignant observation is just ignored is telling, as it the irony that it was an admin himself who used the prison/prisoner analogy in the firt place. To Sophia's study refence, I add the equally famous Milgram experiment as also relevant for some of the social dynamics that are taking place, in particular in the reliance on authority here, i.e. the tendency to assume that if someone is an admin what they say is true and correct, and those who are accused are to be mostly ignored. What follows is that the strength or logic of an argument doesn't matter: AL is guilty and bad, and the accusing admins are good and right, case closed.Giovanni33 10:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I appreciate your concerns. Certainly some people are odd. Heck, all of us have our eccentricities. I think that Misplaced Pages is extremely tolerant of different points of view, and of different behaviors. However we have a project: to create an encyclopedia by consensus. We've determined that civility is a necessity for this project to succeed, and so it has become one of our policies. Civility isn't an option, it's a requirement. Boorish behavior is not part of the expected norm. You are exactly right, we should focus on the edits, not the editors. Unfortunately, Alienus does not do that. He calls editors names. He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". Because he attacks editors he's been chastened repeatedly by a variety of editors. Personally, I think that Alienus makes some positive contributions to the project. But we cannot and do not tolerate incivility. Lastly, Misplaced Pages works by consensus. Eight different admins have now blocked Alienus. I'm sure it isn't a record, but it is a large number. At this rate he is in danger of exhausting the community's patience. If you appreciate his involvement in the project, then I suggest you counsel him to avoid behavior that could lead to a future, and perhaps indefinite, block. -Will Beback 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There can be no good faith extended to Alienus. He engages in the defense and avocation of trolls being let loose upon our fair wiki. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not take part in a rehabilitation project for disruptive people. One must really question Alienus's devotion to the encyclopedia when he/she speaks so freely of supporting that which would harm wikipedia. He's a openly admitted supporter of trolls. He, and the trolls he supports that would bring harm to this project, must be silenced and denied access to our website. -Zero 09:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, Misplaced Pages isn't some sort of fortress of civilisation that must be defended against barbarians. Once you start thinking like that, you've bought into the "battle" paradigm that is the root of about 85% or all conflict. And as to the number of editor who've blocked someone, there is an undeniable "pile on" effect where every block gets easier to justify, and people stop counting the number of unblocks. This is not a commentary on this case in particular, just that it's a terrible metric to use in judging how much of a "problem" an editor is. --brenneman 09:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Alienus has been unblocked four times. Two were to remove blocks, one was to lengthen a block and another was to change the blocking admin. I note that one of those unblocking admins has now posted to Alienus's page endorsing this block, if for nothing else the attacks that Alienus has written on his talk page. -Will Beback 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, consider that one of the unblocking administrators did so in the face of three administrators (beside the blocking admin) who supported the block, and afterwards expressed regret for going against consensus on the block. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When an editor supports that which harms the project, I think it a valid reason to project the encyclopedia indeed. There is no battles and punishments on wikipedia. That's not the point of this website. When an editor is percieved as disruptive, they are blocked. And if they continue they are blocked longer. As editors of a project to freely distribute knowledge and assist those who seek it, there is no leeway for nonsense. To say wikipedia is not to be protected agaisnt this sort of stuff is entirely inapropriate. -Zero 10:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Context

Re: He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". That's not the context at all. Alienus was discussing ideas on how to reduce edit warring on the 3RR policy talk page.

Since nobody appears to have examined the context, and since the context is being misrepresented by the blocking admin, here are the relevant bits:

Alienus:

Jossi, if edit-warring is, as you say, a bad thing, then you should lead by example. Start by walking away from your edit war to hide all mention of the view that Objectivism is a cult. Show us that admins are better than the editors they ban, please.

Jossi:

This talk page is to discuss policy, not to discuss content disputes.

Alienus:

Yes, and this policy is about averting edit wars, so the fact that you're an edit warrior is relevant.

Jossi:

Before you call anyone "edit warrior", look at the mirror.

Alienus:

Anyone taking a look at your contributions as of late will see a much clearer picture of an edit warrior. You seem eager to strike the word 'cult' from every article you touch, including the one about your Maharaji.

Anyhow, my point remains. You're here arguing about how well the rules stop edit-warring, yet you're edit-warring yourself and no rules stop you. You're an admin, so you should be an exemplar of proper behavior. Instead, you're a role model for how to succeed as an edit warrior without getting caught. This is distressing.

So we have a user and an admin, who are both admittedly engaged in a content dispute, calling each other edit warriors. One user is blocked for three days, while the admin doesn't hear even a whisper of a complaint for engaging in the very same behaviour. It appears that the admins are held to lower standards that the inmates.

And is this even a personal attack? The fact is, if you are engaged in an edit war, you are a de facto edit warrior. In libel cases, "statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory". ^^James^^ 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between saying, "That edit is incorrect" and "You're a liar!". One addresses the problem edit, the other is a personal attack. This is not a libel court. A personal attack may be true and still be offensive. As for Jossi's remark, I don't see it on the page as it was apparently removed. If Alienus had been as diligent about removing personal attacks then his comment wouldn't have come to my attention. Instead of withdrawing his attack, he repeated it. I don't see how I've misrepresented the matter. As I've said, the context of the block is the continuing incivility of Alienus. I'm not sure what content dispute you are referring to - the discussion was over a policy proposal. -Will Beback 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you now claiming Alienus called someone a liar? This just muddies the waters. Please stick to the relevant facts. You misrepresented the matter when you wrote: He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". That was not the situation at all. They were having a discussion about reducing edit wars, and it had nothing to do with a POV edit. No, this isn't a libel court. But to simply state a fact, even if it reflects poorly on someone, is not a personal attack. You haven't made a case, and now you apppear to be relying wholly on some vague and unspecified "context", which could be used to justify anything. ^^James^^ 18:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus has repeatedly, both before and since his block, stated that jossi, an administrator who presumably practises TM, is a member of a cult. This is an unacceptable personal attack, at any time, on Misplaced Pages. After his block, I observed, catalogued and cited about half a dozen personal attacks made by Alienus even while blocked for personal attacks . It was for that reason that his talk page has been protected. And this was by no means uncharacteristic behavior for Alienus. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep silent, as Alienus is not able to respond until his/her block expire, so I would only suggest to read my interactions with Alienus in Talk:Ayn_Rand#Cult_censorship, as well as the non-so-veiled attacks on his talk page after the block was enacted. Also note, that due to the toxicity of these attacks, I have decided not to edit any longer any of the articles related to Ayn Rand, with which I only got involved after a fellow editor made a request on one of the policy talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony: So now it's a shell game. If one charge doesn't stand up, simply level another... as long as Alienus gets blocked. When you treat someone blatantly unfairly, you are sure to provoke an unpleasant reaction. To then use his reaction as a new justification for the block seems disingenuous. Perhaps Alienus will wise up to this possibility. But I do think it's difficult for him to have good faith in the process when administrators are ganging up on him so vehemently on the basis of such a flimsy charge. It's only human to get a little upset.

As for the "cult" charge, Jossi states very clearly that he is a proud student of Maharaji. Here are some relevant tidbits from the wiki article:

• "a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control"
• "In the aftermath of Jonestown, Mishler and Hand felt compelled to warn of similarities between Guru Maharaj Ji and Jim Jones. They claimed the potential for another Jonestown existed in the Divine Light Mission because the most fanatic followers of Maharaj Ji would not question even the craziest commands..."

If wikipedia describes this religious movement as a cult, if reputable sources describe it as a cult, why is it wrong for Alienus describe it as a cult? This is what their edit war was about apparently: Jossi removing or hiding "cult" references. ^^James^^ 19:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

James, there is no dispute that some critical ex-followers have leveled accusations of cultism agaist Maharaji. But that is very different from a fellow editor calling you one. It is unnecessary. It creates animosity and it is by all measures a personal attack: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse). Do you believe that it is OK to use pejoratively your sexual, religious, sexual preference or any other personal affiliation, as a way to make your point in content disputes? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I agree with you in principle, but looking at the diff Tony cites, it appears to me he was simply trying to show partisanship on your part. That happens all the time on wikipedia. You happen to be a student of Maharaji, a cult leader according to some. And the edit war you were involved in had to do with you removing "cult" references. So his statement is both arguably accurate, and relevant. Yeah, Alienus can make snarky comments at times. But the point is that he is being held to impossibly high standards, standards not even expected of admins, who merely get a mild "that's not helpful" in response to far more blatant and mean spirited ridicule, here in this very thread! The fact is, admins are now left splitting hairs in an effort to maintain some semblance of justification for this block. Remove it, show some good faith, and perhaps Alienus will be less snarky in the future. ^^James^^ 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages. from WP:NPA' policy in a nutshell. Also note that I cannot remove the block, as there is no consensus amongst sysops to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On James' "shell game" suspicions I must say that I've followed this block from almost the first few hours, and did read what Will Beback said about his reasons for imposing this block.

Will first warned Alienus about calling circumcised men or advocates of circumcision "snippies", saying: "Terms like that make editing a hostile activity. You have been blocked for it before repeatedly, and I will block you again if necessary." . Alienus' response was not promising .

Two weeks later, Will remarked that he had spotted this personal attack on another editor but looking at the talk page he found a long series of warnings for attacks, and so he had decided to block for three days . Alienus' attack quoted by Will was an accusation of duplicity, "you're a role model for how to succeed as an edit warrior without getting caught". --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a question that several editors have asked that has so far gone un-answered. Alienus and jossi both called the other an edit warrior. Alienus has been blocked; nothing has happened to jossi. It appears as though jossi is trying to help at this point, and I am sure that is greatly appreciated by many. However, the point remains that there was incivility attributed to both parties, and only one is being punished. Please, please will someone just answer the simple question of why? I understand that Alienus is also being charged with multiple incivilities; fine, but that's not the point here, so please don't just come back (like many have so far) with that statement. This is about one instance, and there is one legitimate question that (unless I missed it, in which case I am sorry) has not been answered by anyone. Thank you, romarin 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question: 1) Jossi's remark seems to be saying that the ad hominem argument of Alienus is invalid and hypocritical. 2) He seems to have realized that it was unnecessary and removed it promptly. 3) Jossi does not have a talk page full of complaints, unlike Alienus. 4) Jossi has never been blocked for anything before, unlike Alienus. 5) I sent a private note to Jossi regarding his remark, so it did generate an admin response. 6) As I explained to Alienus, the block is not a punishment. Instead it is an enforced break from Misplaced Pages, a "time-out" or "cooling-off period", so that Alienus can calm down. -Will Beback 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your straight-forward answers. romarin 21:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Would this be acceptable to sysops?

1. Removing protection of Alienus's talk page;
2. Requesting from Alienus a unambiguous statement that he/she commits to not engage in personal attacks follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL;
3. If such statement is made, remove the NPA block, with the caveat that additional personal attacks and uncivility will result in an extended block ;
4. Starting a user conduct RfC on Alienus, so that the community can give him feedback about his behavior.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @

That's generally acceptable to me. However, since I believe that he doesn't thinks he has committed any personal attacks, a promise not to make anymore is perhaps empty. Perhaps a better request would be a committment to follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I appreciate the generous spirit of Jossi, a subject of some attacks. -Will Beback 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed proposal as per Will's suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is already a request for arbitration underway although not accepted at this time. --Lar 23:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Amended proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that editors blocked for making personal attacks can always be unblocked as soon as they agree, wholeheartedly, to comply with policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

How many times does that hold true, though? Simply apologizing after every personal attack does nothing to resolve the issue as far as the targets of those attacks are concerned. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we don't use blocks as punishment. Persistent recidivism is ultimately grounds for banning. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will then unprotect Alienus talk page, as per my proposal above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Accepting Alienus committment to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as per proposal above, I have removed his block. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The above unblock works for me, subject of course to Alienus abiding by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. It should be noted that the judgement of whether he is abiding or not is not his to make but rather the community's, so he should do his level best to abide, as even if he thought he was before, segments of the community think he was not. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My reblock

Pending an email discussion with Alienus, I have undone the original block as I do not fully agree with the reasons. From the talk page, the original reasoning for the block is that he called jossi an edit warrior which can be personal attack, but to be fair, jossi responded by suggesting he was also an edit warrior. I feel there is some major inconsistency there. However, because Alienus did call jossi a "long-time cult member", along with the consistent attacks on other admins on his talk page, something absolutely insulting and not to be tolerated, I have reblocked him for 48 hours. I realise the undoing may not sit well with some of you but I feel this is much more justified. However, if any of you think this is not reasonable, feel free to undo it. I will not argue. Sasquatch t|c 00:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how to assess this new block - the language used above is couched in lovely PC terms but the net effect is Al has yet block in his list and is also now blocked for even longer. Can Sasquatch please confirm whether this was his intention and why he thinks any admin may be uncomfortable with him adding to Al's "crime list" and blocking him for longer than he was? Is this at all motivated by the impending Arbcom case and can I ask what happened to the RfC that should precede this move? Are we skipping the "trial" phase and fast forwarding to sentence (and execution no doubt)? Sophia 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask, but you'd be trolling if you did. Are you calling the ArbCom a mere rubber stamp? A preparatory RFC is not obligatory, where did that come from? Bishonen | talk 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Sasquatch (since you are now the "blocking admin"), do you agree with Jossi's proposal, posted above, for unblocking Alienus? -Will Beback 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Lukas Podolski page, moved here at other users advice

Note moved here per

Matyldalondyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 87.227.28.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Users, who are likely the same person persistently re-add deleted dubious trivia from the Lukas Podolski after being asked for sources to verify a trivia piece about the subjects singing of national anthem before game. Said users edits are seen here.

Other users have identified said trivia as dubious as well and have deleted. Only to have it re-added by the said users. Other deletions are seen here.

Users have been asked for sources to verify information, neither have provided, leaving me to believe that they're only editing for the sake of inserting vandalism. Their contribution history clearly affirms this. , . I thank you in advance for helping to deal with this persistent inclusion of dubious and unsourced vandalism. Batman2005 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked already. Sasquatch t|c 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, blocked after violating 3RR, which took place after I posted my complaint here. Batman2005 23:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced changes are not vandalism. Repeatedly reverting to remove or restore unsourced changes is edit warring. I blocked Batman2005 for violating 3RR himself in this matter. --CBD 10:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so...a person with an obvious vandalism/nonsense only account is able to just add unsourced statements to pages because he wants to, yet when a well meaning editor removes those after repeatedly asking for sources, the well meaning editor is blocked. And, adding unsourced information that's clearly false isn't vandalism? It's the very definition of vandalism, in the real world its called bullshit. Batman2005 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Being totally ignorant of the actual facts involved in the article, I don't see how you can assert either of those are "vandalism only accounts". They've only got one contribution (repeatedly, of course) between them, and it's a content dispute, not vandalism. What's "clearly false" about what's being added? Of course, it makes sense for me to defer to you -- I assume you are knowledgeable about football players, and I am not; but I can't see how asserting that a player refuses to sing the German national anthem is "clearly false". I don't want to argue it -- I'm just talking from the point of view of an observer. The edits violate 3RR, and seem to be against consensus judging by the talk page -- are they defamatory? Are they provably wrong? If either of those, sure, they could be vandalism. Anyway, most editors deal with situations like this by asking for help rather than risk violating 3RR themselves; article RFC's and AN/I can be useful to get the attention of unbiased third parties. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to the ongoing complaints and swearing I looked into it. Turns out the "clearly false" "vandalism" about a soccer player not singing the national anthem was actually correct. Mind you, I didn't know that when I blocked Batman2005, but I didn't need to... there was a clear edit war with 3RR violations on both sides, no discusion on the article talk page, and no obvious proof that the information was false (which, in fact, it wasn't). --CBD 11:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the information is false, if you'd watch the world cup games you'd see that the player NEVER sings the national anthem, whether playing against Poland, Ecuador, Argentina, etc. And I had asked for assistance and none was given, thus...the two users....who in all actuality were probably the same one (again, a violation that they were not punished for) continued...after being proven wrong by an entirely different editor, to insert the dubious information...thus....inserting nonsense and misinformation into the article....which is vandalism. Batman2005 15:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Aylesbury Grammar School

Same old story, students from the school are adding nicknames of the headteacher, photographs of penises drawn in snow outside the school and other nonsense to the article, claiming they have a right seeing as they go to the school. It's in my watchlist so reverting vandalism isn't a problem however I have a personal interest in keeping the article clear of rubbish aside from the norm. Would a couple of others mind watchlisting it for future vandalism please? -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 00:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to mine. Iolakana| 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeb berkeley

There's a vandal going around named Jeb berkeley, or some variation of that. Here are some of his sockpuppets:

Jeb berkeley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
That Jeb Berkeley guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jeb Berkeley on wheels! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's more in the IP Block list. If someone could do something, that would be appreciated, since he seems to be targeting me and my subpages. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I believe they all stem from banned user Jeb Berkeley (talk · contribs). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. See also:

Jeb Berkeley on the railway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jeb Berkeleys next move (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Others with similar tendencies (pages after, and mentions of Jeb Berkeley). DVD+ R/W 02:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lsyv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rocos Rorrhum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've notice that Tetleys (talk · contribs) has placed tags on many suspected Jeb Berkeley socks. Tetleys contribs lists about 15 of them and might be a valuable reference in proceeding with this case further. DVD+ R/W 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the "North Carolina Vandal". Jeb Berkeley = Jake Remington, etc., ad nauseam. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You think this guy's the North Carolina Vandal? Jeb Berkeley's attack pattern doesn't seem to match the NCV's, as far as I know. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm as close to 100% sure as I can get without actually watching him at his computer. Look at the five edits attributed to Jeb berkeley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Single-line breathless POV statements on Beer, vandalism of articles on small towns in North Carolina, all-caps edit summaries that are invented words, an obsession with southernness and rednecks, -- I've been following this kid for more than a year now and he hasn't changed a bit. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow banned from article

As his mentor, I've just banned T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) from List of Justice League episodes for two weeks as part of his probation. He has been trying to railroad changes that have generated significant opposition from other editors, ignoring their concerns and being generally incivil. Further disruption will terminate his mentorship and will trigger the six-month ban clause of the Arbitration case between him and Dyslexic Agnostic. Titoxd 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A friend of mine was messing around on wikipedia from my computer after i showed him my two edits and that "anyone can do it". if you look at my ip address, you will notice precisely two edits done to wiki articles that were "serious" changes. i did not defame anyone.

Fidel Castro and Teemu Ruskeepä

User:Teemu Ruskeepää has ignored many, many requests that he cease promoting an extremely unpopular "talk page restructuring" on various Cuba related pages, notably Fidel Castro. Despite warnings from myself, other users and admins that his behaviour is potentially disruptive and may lead to a block, he has continued unabashed, adding confusing lengthy polls to each talkpage addition. He is materially obstructing much needed work on the page, which is a view held by all, and I believe the patience of the many has just worn out. May I suggest an editing embargo on Teemu, or even an exploding cigar?--Zleitzen 09:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving other users comments violates policy, but apperently there's one article where the rules don't apply. El_C 10:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on his talk page, and will ask him nicely to desist. Note that he is continuing to restructure the talk page into an extremely counterintuitive format, despite having 7 editors opposed to the restruturing, and not one (other than Teemu) in favour. He's being disruptive, knowingly now, and if he continues, the next step is a short block. I don't want to do that as he's plainly a good editor, and well-intentioned, but continually and unilaterally going against the wishes of his editors because 'I am right' is not acceptable. However, note that editing (not moving) other user's comments violates policy/guidelines. Refactoring of talk pages (when done with approval, either explicit or tacit) is not the same as editing someone's comments. But continuing to do it when he has been expressly asked to stop is disruptive. Proto///type 10:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Teemu previously about this situation after being informed, and now see that there is little change, and hs has instead been adding a poll to each discussion section. Proto apppears to have already left him a message, so we'll see how he responds to that.--MONGO 10:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the only real consensus that's ever been reached on the Castro page. --TJive 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've initiated a request for comment relating to Teemu's activities on the Fidel Castro talk page, here at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää. Teemu has been given many opportunities to acknowledge that both his talk page restructuring and additional lengthy polls do not have consensus. Each request seems to expand the resistance. The talk page is now dominated by his activity - and related fluff - to the detriment of any progress. On my talk page a user has stated that she would rather not want further involvment with the page, referring to Teemu: "he targets me. He had done damage to me in the past. His remarks about me recently have been minor but still he singles me out. I'll admit that I am intimidated". .--Zleitzen 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All that really needs to be seen to know what his intentions are is this. --TJive 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On that entry Teemu states "Misplaced Pages should be transformed entirely according to my plan, because the debate doesn't work otherwise. Do you agree?". That these comments appear on the Fidel Castro talk page should be beyond irony.--Zleitzen 11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to sound extreme here - but if this user continues (since so many messages have been left there), a short block (24 hours) for disruption would probably not be misplaced. Ian¹³/t 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Editingoprah (talk · contribs)

I am currently involved in a quasi-revert war with this user over several pages (they make POV edits, blank sourced work, etc. and I revert). Could someone please review their edits (eg. ) and block the user for a time so that I may clean up this mess? Please just leave a quick note on my talk page when this is done so that I can get to the cleanup. Thanks. Harro5 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please someone address this revert war. Harro5 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the user for 15 minutes to stop the madness for a bit. Look at the Oprah Winfrey history. This is a user who has been here for two days, and hasn't done anything but tear up solid articles. Harro5 09:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am still investigating these things now. I am not convinced that the edits to Oprah Winfrey constitute simple vandalism, although the edits to gay icon look dubious at best. I have protected both articles (at the m:wrong version of course) until the dispute can be settled. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Editingoprah has been blocked for 24 hours by Francs2000 for the 3RR violation. If I am to levy criticism against Harro5, it would be that this rollback does not seem quite necessary. Also, I don't know if it was such a good idea to block someone who you were edit warring with. Even so, Editingoprah has been rather uncooperative, with edit summaries such as "you've contributed nothing to this article. Why are you even here?", so the situation is quite borderline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I know the block was a bad move, but I'd been doing a mad run to get an admin to act and all the while the editor continued to revert changes to bad versions. As for the revert you cite, that's a more than legitimate edit, but maybe not rollback-worthy. Sjakkalle, with the user now blocked for 24 hours, do the articles still need to be protected? The revert war only existed between him and me, and I'm not going to make any changes other than to restore the correct version on Oprah and hope this dies away. Harro5 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I had noticed the edits too. I don't know if the user was responsible for the huge pictures, as for the gay icon thing, even though heavily unsourced, I had just gone ahead and put it as "impact on gay culture" and redirected the section to the gay icon page.

TechsMechs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I blocked indef. as a sock of Amorrow. Please review. FloNight 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

a) Where's the message on his talk page (a la User:OlympiaDiego, User:Pinktulip, and his other socks)?

b) Where's the proof he's Amorrow? Proto///type 09:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This past week Amorrow has been evading his ban with IP accounts in 75.24, 75.23 range.

Looks like Elizabeth Morgan article is being written by a group of Amorrow socks. Can someone else sort this out. FloNight 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any proof that TechsMechs is a sock of Amorrow - you didn't answer either of my questions. Proto///type 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking for someone else to review the situation. Plently of admin are aware of his pattern.

Looks like he just confessed on WillBebacks's talk page. FloNight 10:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not so much a confession. But yep, that's Amorrow (you should have provided that in the first place!) Block endorsed. Please leave the necessary messages on the sock's talk page. I think Elizabeth Morgan needs semiprotecting again. Proto///type 10:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that his ISP, AT&T, changed their operations on his circuit in Palo Alto. He is now active on IP addresses other than just

• 71.139.176.0 - 71.139.191.255 (16 Class C's)
• 71.139.192.0 - 71.139.207.255 (216 Class C's - I only got a subset)
• 71.141.0.0 - 71.141.31.255 (32 Class C's)

To even being to attack the problem, you would have to start with

http://www.scconsult.com/sbclist.shtml

but even this information is a year old and getting more and more out-of-date. The current round of admin actions against him have adversely effected other users in Silicon Valley, including the inventor of Nagle's algorithm, John Nagle. You could argue that this vital conribution to the TCP/IP protocol stack helped to create the Internet. See User talk:Nagle/Archive 2006-05-30#Excessive block by User:SlimVirgin . How is this obsession about this one person who comes in as anon user (so you cannot even argue that he is trying to build up some kind of personal credit for himself) helping the encyclopedia? -- 64.175.42.196 11:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because he is disruptive, sneaky, amends articles subtly using a multitude of sock puppets to adhere to his POV, and then, when he doesn't get his own way, descends into tirades of hysterical abuse in language that would make a pimp blush. He has been particularly vile when 'communicating' with female editors. Amorrow is a poisonous troll. And keeping him at arm's length - which is all we can do until someone has a real word with AT&T to get him kicked from their service - benefits the encyclopaedia by making participation a lot less painful and frustrating for everyone else. Good enough reason? Proto///type 12:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• He's also been editing Bill of attainder and Terri Schiavo. I've semi-protected Elizabeth Morgan, which is Amorrow's main focus. —tregoweth (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's just look at that last little update that happened:

67.121.147.25 (talk · contribs)

Go to the talk page and click on the RWHOIS America link:

http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=67.121.147.25

Fairly small range:

• 64.175.40.0 - 64.175.43.255

BUT, it seems that my circuit is also being served undocumented subnets. The only info that ARIN has about some of my previous IP's are this very course information. Note: these ranges do have some documented subsets, especially at the beginning of these ranges, but those are not the IP's that I have been served These new numbers tend to cluster at about the sizes I had before with those 71.* addresses, but now the starting numbers are all over the place:.

• 67.112.0.0 - 67.127.255.255 (16 class B's)
• 67.182.0.0 - 67.182.63.255 (64 class C's)
• 75.0.0.0 - 75.47.255.255 (48 class B's)

So maybe you can complain to AT&T that they are not updating the ARIN database with every little subnetting that they are internally doing with these huge ranges they own. Those three ranges above are all huge and I am probably only being served small subsets of them, but only AT&T knows the details. Maybe you should complain that they are not updating the ARIN database to your satisfaction. That is not about me, that is about AT&T. If you just tell that the info is vital for your tracking needs, then they will probably do something about it. I am sure it does not really take a lot of work to update the ARIN database and, since the change was in the past month or so, maybe they have just not gotten around to doing so yet. Really, I did not change anything on my end. I am simply not being served that narrow range of 71.* addresses anymore. This is just FYI. It is about ANYBODY in the USA that uses AT&T whom you might need to track. -- 75.25.183.52 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and remember to specify PPPoX in the San Francisco area, SNFC21 and PLTN13. Those are the ranges you want finer-grain and up-to-date data on at ARIN. -- 75.25.183.52 23:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Irpen

One user keep inserting a new section to his summary already endorsed by some other users. Other users are moving the new section to the talk page. I cannot act as I am involved in this RfC (he keeps inserting his comment on my summary). Please, somebody make a look. abakharev 11:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100

I'm not sure exactly what he believes, but Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) is moving articles about Catholicism despite the fact most, if not all, other editors who edit the subject disagree with him.

Vaquero100 has changed references to the Roman Catholic Church to drop the Roman part and generalize things when the article in question didn't include any other Catholic devotions. Apparently, they want to remove mention of "Roman" Catholicism from Misplaced Pages. While the Roman Catholic Church is commonly referred to as just "Catholic Church", we need the Roman prefix to distinguish ot from other varieties of Catholicism. If both names are valid, things shouldn't get moved (just as with variety English spellings)

And just today, he has been making moves like redirecting Consecrated life to Consecrated life (Catholic Church) or Catholic spirituality to Spirituality (Catholic Church). The last one is particularly annoying for a naming conventions nut like me (so I undid the move). While it indeed discusses several different Catholic denominations, titles should generally not contain modifiers in brackets wherever possible.

This user is basically annoying others to further their own POV. Can someone please talk to him?

Disclaimer: I don't usually edit religion related articles and I don't plan to in the future. - Mgm| 12:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is going on for some days, including remarks that the "Roman" designation is a Anglican/Lutheran/X slander of The Catholic Church. --Pjacobi 12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heavens! If he thinks that the Anglicans are out to get him, he should talk to members of the Greek Orthodox Church, which might well have a thing or two to say about the RCC being "the Catholic Church." (The "Roman" distinguishes from Greek, Syrian, Russian, inter al.) And that's not even to get into the question of "the" Catholic Church, which is tantamount to saying, "the one true church." Very nasty, there. Geogre 13:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have given a polite warning. Let's hope it is heeded. Geogre 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuing pattern. Last month he moved most of the articles in Category:Roman Catholic Church in Europe. Septentrionalis 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's (Roman Catholic) POV-pushing. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself the Orthodox Catholic Church, and believes that the 'Church of Rome' (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) is not the legitimate Catholic Church. Anyway, all other encyclopedias use the terminology 'Roman Catholic' to refer to that church, so how bad can it be? --Tēlex 19:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That was the point I tried to make to him: we need to use the terms our readers expect. True and false are beside the point: useful and unuseful matter more. (And I pointed out to him that I, as an Anglican, consider my church catholic but absolutely not Roman Catholic.) Geogre 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not to defend Vaquero's actions, but POV pushing can go both ways. Isn't it POV not to allow a self-naming, on the basis of disputing a religious claim implicit in that name? Note that RCs would argue that the Orthodox are not in fact orthodox. The claim is disputed, not the self-identifying name Orthodox. The reasonable approach would seem to me to allow both, with or without Roman. Gimmetrow 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very old argument. Every time it's been discussed, as far as I recall, there has been strong consensus for the status quo. The qualifier Roman Catholic is not, to my knowledge, offensive to Romans, and the assertion that only Romans are "The Catholic Church" is offensive to many outside the Roman tradition (I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church to, y'know). But this is probably not the place for this argument. To quote the great philosopher Obelix: ils sont foux, ces Romains ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Appearing to dismiss my statement as "very old" is not helpful. I actually want what appears to be the status quo to remain - there are articles titled both ways. People (on both sides) trying to upset that balance. Gimmetrow 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How can one recall a strong consensus where there has been none? A majority vote does not constitute a consensus! And be advised, there are Catholics who do take offense at being qualified as Romans. You apparently also don't understand that many Catholics take offence at being called "Papists." Recognize also that there are Anglicans who are not offended by Vaquero's use of "Catholic Church" (as evidenced by several citations of such use on Anglican documents). Plenty of evidence has been given to show Vaquero's use of "Catholic Church" to be in compliance with published Misplaced Pages naming conventions. The opposition thus far has always been POV or unsupported. It is not ambiguous just because you said so. A less commonly-used alternative name should not be used just because you prefer it. If you make a claim in opposition to this, back it up with facts that are relevant to the naming conventions! If you do this, perhaps a true consensus can be achieved. SynKobiety 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cozzlewood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked the user as a page move vandal. Please revert his changes to Penis as this would be an inappropriate page to open at the office. I took care of everything else.--Kungfu Adam 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This one looks to be related to User:Havenstone and User:Sunwood, who are all sockpuppets of banned user Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Armando (blogger) - courtesy blanking

The AFD for Armando (blogger) was recently closed as redirect, in substantial part due to serious WP:BLP concerns. The entirety of the information that was possibly in violation of WP:BLP remains in two locations - the talk page of the article in question and at this user talk page. I have asked the user to request their user space page be deleted, and expect they will do so, and I attempted to blank the talk page in question as a courtesy to the individual whose privacy was allegedly repeatedly violated. The courtesy blanking has been repeteatedly undone without comment. I could, again, use more admistrative eyes on the situation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Evading block?

Please take a look at Dmolloy36. This account was activated today while Owwmykneecap was on a 24 hour block and is continuing the Dutch Gold edit dispute. The only other edit Dmolloy36 has made has been to the user page of Owwmykneecap! BlueValour 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi

I'm posting this here so the community can review the actions of User:Tobias Conradi since the block has been questioned by a friend of his who is an admin, and I wish to avoid any type of unblocking war. User:Ezhiki has already unprotected his (Tobias's) talk page. pschemp | talk 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I've noticed that you extended Tobias's block and labeled User:Hauke as a sockpuppet. I've been in contact with Tobias, and according to him Hauke is a friend of his. Please file a checkuser request if you have doubts; the results will be negative.

I would also like to reconsider your approach towards Tobias. I will agree any day that he may be stubborn, difficult to deal with, and lose his tempers easily, but he is not here to compromise Misplaced Pages, nor is he sticking to some malicious plan of sorts (please check his contributions history).

I spoke to Tobias last Friday, and promised to investigate what happened myself. From what I found the whole thing looks like a relatively simple misunderstanding, that gradually elevated to the exaggregated mess it is now. Let me outline the things the way I see them. Tobias definitely deserved a portion of his block, but not all of it.

I am crossposting the following summary to the talk pages of all involved parties.

1. The stub about Eisenkappl, which Tobias created, was deleted by User:Jimfbleak on June 30. Jim later explained that the deletion was due to the stub not providing enough information for a reader to understand what the stub's subject was. This is a valid reason, however, it was not explained in the deletion summary.
2. Tobias re-created this article and moved it to Bad Eisenkappel, making an inflammatory edit summary ("fight against admin power abuse...") in the process. While making a summary like this is not constructive, it should be understood that it was made in response to Jim's deletion, for which no reason was given.
3. Tobias later added a "this user is a deletionist" note to Jim's user page. Again, this was not very constructive; Tobias should have requested a reason for the stub's deletion instead of losing temper.
4. The new stub on Bad Eisenkappel was deleted by User:InShaneee. No reason for deletion was given in the edit summary.
5. InShaneee then blocked Tobias for 48 hours for "vandalism, personal attacks". When I asked for details, InShanee explained that Tobias was blocked for "disruption" and "for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages". While the latter is true, the former referred to moving Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel. While I see how such a move can be interpreted as intentional vandalism, the "Bad" portion is actually a part of this village's name, as a google search would attest.
6. At this point of time, the situation from Tobias's perspective looked very much like admin abuse—stubs he created were deleted by two different admins, both of whom gave no reasons for deletion. Tobias himself was blocked for "vandalism/disruption", the meaning of which was also not explained. This edit of Tobias's is a good illustration of the way he felt.
7. A moment later, Tobias was further accused of violating WP:POINT—no details provided.
8. Understandably, Tobias's aggravation grew.
9. InShanee protected Tobias's talk page in order to prevent him from removing the warnings and extended his block for incivility.
10. In response to his talk page being protected and his account being blocked, Tobias launched an anon IP campaign. While this was a direct violation of sockpuppeting guidelines, the user could not contend his block from his account as his talk page was blocked from editing at that point.
11. In response, Tobias's user page was protected from editing by User:Pschemp and his block was extended for sockpuppetry.
12. On July 2, User:Hauke account was created. Soon after it was labeled by Pschemp as a sockpuppet of Tobias and blocked. According to Tobias's email communication to me, Hauke is a friend of his, not a sockpuppet account. I asked Tobias to stop sockpuppetry on June 30, no matter how unfair the situation seemed to him, to which he agreed.

Summarizing the situation: while I in no way want to defend Tobias's less than stellar behavior in response to the accusations against him, I can see the situation from his perspective. Hopefully, this summary will allow you to do the same. I cannot, however, justify the behavior of the administrators involved in this case. Instead of trying to study the situation and finding out the cause of Tobias's aggravated response to the actions against his, the administrators pretty much reacted on emotion, thus complicating and elevating the situation, instead of trying to relieve it. Denying the user his right to contend his block by blocking both his talk and user pages is especially worrisome.

My opinion is that both sides largely ignored WP:AGF, refusing to listen each other. I thus urge the involved parties to shorten Tobias's block from unbelievable six weeks to a total of seven days (three of which he has already served) for not assuming good faith, for refusing to inquire about sanctions against him at the earlier stage of the conflict and resorting to inflammatory edit summaries, and for failure to challenge his block through legitimate means (such as placing an unblock template request at his user/talk page when it was still possible). I ask Tobias to apologize to the people to whom his was incivil. I also urge User:InShaneee, User:Pschemp, and User:Jimfbleak to apologize to Tobias for not providing the reason for their actions and to impose a self-block for refusing to assume good faith, for acting on emotions instead of reason, and for denying the user right to be heard through his talk page.

Being a proud Misplaced Pages administrator myself, I would not ask anyone to do something that I personally would not be ready to do in a similar situation.

Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for my extensions was sockpuppetry which he clearly repeatedly engaged in and he was clearly told that this was the reason. Considering that he used multiple IP's for the the socks, it is quite easy for him to set up a new account with a different IP that would of course not show the same as his on checkuser. The new account also edited tango articles, (Tobias's listed interest) and used the same grammar as Tobias right before requesting that the protection on his talk page be lifted. At the very least that qualifies as a meatpuppet. I'm sorry, but Tobias used up his allotment of good faith quite a while ago with his personal attacks and repeat sock use, and I will not unblock him, nor will I apologize. I see you are his friend, but that doesn't mean his actions were appropriate. You forgot to mention his many other infractions up there, such as removing warnings from his talk page, calling decent editors vandals, and his history of incivil remarks (and prior blocks for this incivility!) and personal attacks in edit summaries. Some examples just from edit summaries:

1. 19:38, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tobias Conradi (→Name calling - delete nonsense again you asshole) <- And how would you assume good faith about this comment?
2. 19:35, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tobias Conradi (→Name calling - delete nonsense)
3. 19:24, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jimfbleak (→James Janderson - jimmy likes deleting)
4. 19:16, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Jimfbleak (This user is a deletionist )
5. 20:18, June 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Samsara (ubuntu vandal) (top)
6. 13:28, June 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) Ubuntu (Linux distribution) (rv vandal rmv of cat) <- note user Samsara is not and never has been a vandal

Also, his blanking without archiving of most of his userpage and some of the civility warnings on it as soon as you unprotected looks very bad. Sorry, but the facts are, when you use sockpuppets to evade your block (which was originally short) your block gets extended. He had plenty of opportunity to use {{tl:unblock}} and has done so in the past, and has not put that up since you unprotected his page, so your accusations of him being not allowed to contest the block are baseless. Email is always possible too, and he seemed to be able to use that just fine to contact you. Also, he admitted to using the socks, so I see no reason to overturn the block. Just because you admit to your bad deeds doesn't mean that it nullifys your action or justifies them. A wiser user would have sat out the orginal short block. Please speak to InShanee about the original block, as I had nothing to do with that. I only dealt with the sockpuppets. pschemp | talk 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry just isn't on nor are incivil edit summaries. Support the initial block and the extensions, InShanee and Pschemp acted correctly here, and I see no reason for apology or self blocking(!). Civility is a fundamental requirement here and block evasion is just not good. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. I would like to reiterate that I am not trying to present the matter at hand in a way that would make Tobias look like an angel. My main point is that the whole mess started as a misunderstanding. When you create an article and it gets deleted without explanation, and so does one that you re-create, and then you get blocked for something you did not do (part of Tobias's block was for "disruption and vandalism" because the title of the new article he re-created happened to start with the word "Bad", which was interpreted as vandalism), you have all the reasons to be angry and confused. It is true, Tobias's choice of the way he decided to convey his anger was largely unacceptable, but that does not change the fact that some of the very early actions against him had been unfair. All I am asking is understanding and apologies for what became a spark for further hostilities by both sides. If the community decides to apply the rules without looking further into the human factor, I will, of course, submit and withdraw, but it will indeed be regrettable. With all Tobias's downsides, he is a valuable editor. Knocking him in the head and kicking him in the groin every time he makes a mistake, harder and harder every time based on his "previous conflicts" history, will not make him a better Wikipedian. Understanding his concerns and helping him out in conflict situations will, although one would be naïve to believe it will happen overnight.

I will welcome any further comments.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no apology or indication on Tobias's part at the moment that he regrets any of his actions or considers them mistaken. He is of course, free to contribute civilly when his block is over.pschemp | talk 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He will not be able to personally apologize for the next five and a half weeks, which is the duration of the remainder of his block. In the meanwhile, you are welcome to contact him directly about his intentions to apologize; I cannot speak for him in these matters, only make suggestions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He is welcome to make an apology on his talk page, and certainly is able to do so as his vast amounts of editing it today have shown. I would consider reducing the block should he show geniune contrition, but I think completely removing it is incorrect. pschemp | talk 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked users can still post to their own talk pages unless there has been egregious vandalism or uncivil behaviour or other abuses, as by practice, we do not protect talk pages of blocked users unless there is a need. So he can comment there, if after reviewing this thread, he wishes to do so. My suggestion is that he consider his actions so far and think about the consequences. If some contrition were shown, some understanding that even if things go badly you still can't be incivil, some agreement to abide by the norms here, I'd be inclined to look more favourably on a request to reduce the length of the block request, should one be made. As yet I've seen little sign of that understanding. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Update - This user has yet to apologize or admit he did anything wrong. I've offered to reduce his block to one week should he do so. pschemp | talk 03:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Leonard23, at it again

Leonard23 is continuing to be a problem user, labeling my edits vandalism, and admitting he is using a sockpuppet, along with making personal attacks and threatening me. He also made parts of a logo in Paint, that I cut off but he continues to revert back. Please take care of him. CFIF (talk to me) 17:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both users for 24 hours for WP:3RR. Both users want "their" version of the TV station logo, both users revert the other's move as "vandalism" (it is not), and neither gives sufficient reason why "theirs" is the preferred version. I welcome review. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Link spam and Solar22

Solar22 (talk · contribs) keeps adding links to a website that offers audio samples of people/tv shows: , , , and . I reverted these edits as I thought that they did not add to the article in any shape or form. I would like to see if other people here agree that these edits to the website could be seen as link spam. I have warned the user about it, but I am having an on-going discussion with the user at my talk page and his/hers. Iolakana| 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The User:Gibraltarian problem

The indefinitely banned User:Gibraltarian is still continuing to cause problems on Gibraltar-related articles, as he's still editing through anonymous dynamic IP addresses. I've just responded to a request for page protection for Algeciras and San Roque, Cádiz. He's also still hitting Gibraltar, so I've semi-protected that article as well.

I see from the protection log that semi-protection has been tried before but hasn't deterred Gibraltarian. I think we need to start thinking about stronger actions given his persistence. Realistically, I think we have two choices: leave the affected articles semi-protected semi-permanently, or block his entire IP range (i.e. 212.120.0.0/16). Any thoughts? -- ChrisO 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• you unfortunately can't block the entire IP address range without a great deal of collateral damage, it's the biggest dialup ISP in Gibraltar. Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse#Blocked_User:Gibraltarian. ~Chris (talk/e@) 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The user(s) of this range have permanently denied involvement!!! This is a hard case! -- Szvest 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Might not be the best thing, but I would block the range. According to Communications in Gibraltar#Internet, Gibraltar only has "severaly thousand users" - which is (in comparison to many other countries, like the States) simply a small number of people. Also, not everyone is using the same ISP. I'd block. Iolakana| 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Singapore has a small number of users, lets block them. Compared to the States Canada has a small number of users, lets block Canada. AOL is a small minority of the States users, lets block them, like you do every night. Innocent users? F em. Hort Graz 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By "you", do you mean me directly? Iolakana| 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean the many block happy admins here who care less about collateral damage. Hort Graz 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your semi-warning on my talk page because I used YOU instead of YOU GUYS is ridiculous. Please do not try to create a personal conflict between us just because you disagree with my opinion on blocking. I do not know you. Hort Graz 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. The developers are working on a solution to the AOL problem. --mboverload@ 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we'd block any range containing vandal edits, just because said range housed a minority of users, soon enough you'd have no users left. Take for example Camebridge University. Last year, I dealt with massive vandalism from one of their IPs. No doubt blocking the entire range would've hit many innocent users. It's simply not worth it. - Mgm| 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  A sensible admin. My guess is that you have been a admin for years, its the new admins who show little regard for innocent victims from what Ive seen. Hort Graz 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, after extensive whois research, I have determined that he has two different IP ranges: 195.244.192.0/19 and 212.120.224.0/19. These are the only two IP ranges that belong to G's ISP, Gibtelecom (formerly Gibraltar Nynex Communications). 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct admin conduct?

A admin leaves a homosexual joke on a talk page and then threatens the user that reverts it with these words:

you seem to have forgotten that I am a sysop. Going around removing sysops' comments on other people's pages, which you have no business "moderating", is a really dumb idea, and you will be blocked for it.

In the interests of completeness, the entire comment was: Just to be clear, somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the idea that it's okay to remove people's comments and call them "trolls". This isn't the case. In addition, you seem to have forgotten that I am a sysop. Going around removing sysops' comments on other people's pages, which you have no business "moderating", is a really dumb idea, and you will be blocked for it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

IS this how our admins should behave? Hort Graz 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used Cyde's words myself, but if you're planning to set yourself up as the morality police on Misplaced Pages I suspect that you'll be in for a rough ride. I see nothing objectionable about Cyde's initial edit. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So you don't mind if I post the LOVE MEN picture on your page? Its not morality, its common decency I ask for. Being a admin doesn't make you a higher life form exempt from common civilty. Hort Graz 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove it, but that's because I like my user page the way it is. Nothing wrong with either edit. Now, making the same edit repeatedly after being reverted...Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

...same edit repeatedly... OK, but you were the one who didnt care about the wheel warring of a few days ago. You confuse me sir. Hort Graz 21:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not fond of his words, either, but half the context is missing from the second edit, and these diffs are comments to two separate editors, not the same one. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He made the threat to the user who reverted him, who was not the user he made the joke to. Hort Graz 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot more context is missing: Cyde later changed his initial message to refer to GeorgeMoney. Not a particularly polite action on his part, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"add awards here"? is this myspace.com now, or is anyone still writing an encycolpedia? dab (ᛏ) 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Awards ensure people feel appreciated and continue working on Misplaced Pages. I know it works for me. - Mgm| 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see no problem with his initial edit, but his second edit is just plain uncivil. He should've asked why he reverted or explain the joke. Threatening with your admin powers is just not acceptable. - Mgm| 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

After a complete read-through, the whole thing looks like WP:BJAODN from several angles... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. El_C 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad joke indeed. But waving the sysop bit around like that is contraindicated....really bad form. It is unacceptable to threaten people with your admin status like that, we seem to be having a problem with that lately. 24.94.192.247 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot state often enough my objection to administrators even thinking that they have "powers," much less threatening with them. We have duties, not "powers," and we serve, not are served. This was not handled well, even if the action is ok. I wouldn't say anything, except that Cyde has been a bit imperious in other contexts. Geogre 04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the joke was in poor taste, and it is okay to remove comments perceived as personal attacks, even if they are made by admins (who should be held to a higher standard of civility). —Quarl 2006-07-04 09:24Z

• Yeah. This is exactly the puerile sort of "joke" that vandal fighters have to waste their time with every day. If a non-admin had done it, they'd be admonished for vandalism (or, at least, breaching WP:CIVIL.) I don't see any reason Cyde should be able to act like a 12-year-old without at least being questioned. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• It sure seems like terrible judgement to me. Grandmasterka 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah, an anonymous user just informed me of this, so here I am ... Yes, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have responded to GeorgeMoney like that, but then again, he could've acted better himself, an edit summary of "rv. troll" isn't appropriate. And as for the homosexual accusations ... lighten up. As a matter of fact, I simply found it absurd that awards were being solicited for a successful RFA, when the real award is actually the new shiny admin buttons, so I went off looking on User:Cyde/Weird pictures to find something surreal to turn into a "personal user award". Considering the other stuff on that page, what I ended up going with was very tame :-D Cyde↔Weys 03:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this matter was already discussed (and resolved?) here. --Cyde↔Weys 03:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example of sailing too close to the wind. Remember, what is funny to you can be insulting, or just make you look immature, to others. You reap what you sow. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of 'Blatant vandalism' please

Would you please remove the 'Blatant vandalism' template from my History. This was placed by Owwmykneecap as part of an edit dispute on Dutch Gold. Using this template in this manner is against WP:Vandalism and his constant, false, accusations of vandalism against WP:CIVIL. He is presently on a 3RR block as is his alter ego Dmolloy36. I should be grateful if you would ask him to stick to the issues and cease this unpleasantness. BlueValour 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Typically, history deletions are only done when personal information has been posted about a user. In this case, just remove it and forget about it. --InShaneee 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• They're still picked up by VandalProof even after reverting, because the program needs to know when a vandal removes such templates. I think I saw such a request from someone earlier. - Mgm| 21:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like rollback material... not sure if rollback policy allows for this type of thing though. Netscott 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• It was the VandalProof concern that I had. I hope something can be done else irresponsible users can permanently damage fellow editors. I also think Owwmykneecap should be warned otherwise this could be a recurring problem. BlueValour 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• yes I have the same problem (as mentioned above). --Charlesknight 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Owwmykneecap and deleted the relevant version per Misplaced Pages:Use common sense. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

So far as I'm aware, VandalProof does not have the ability to retrieve warnings that are not present in the current revision, and I'm not sure how one would go about developing such a "feature" without overwhelming the poor, abused servers and wasting a lot of user time. In other words, simply deleting the text of the warning should suffice, and so in the future there's really no need to request deletions of such revisions from history (in fact, I believe such deletions should be discouraged). AmiDaniel (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

New template for dealing with spammers

Please see {{spamonly}} - this was created by me today.

Using the template, it produces:

This user is a spam-only account, and has been blocked indefinitely.. See block log. Please do not subst this template.

Use this if you see a spammer. Hope it helps. Based on the Willy on Wheels template. --Sunholm(talk) 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirection flood

Something's odd with these contributions, but I can't nail it. -- Omniplex 22:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, following a move from Quebec route 111 to Route 111 (Quebec) with a move from Route 111 (Quebec) to Quebec Route 111 (etc.)... Where have I seen that before? · rodii · 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Armking and socks. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more of the controversy over California road naming conventions.· rodii · 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Juppiter blocked for 24 hours seven days

Juppiter (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been blocked for 24 hours for vandalising User:OrphanBot repeatedly recently and ignoring warnings not to do so, by Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). This user has been warned repeatedly about this, as far back as March of this year. The user also moved OrphanBot to BastardBot, not once but twice, for which he was also warned. Enough is enough, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

24 hours is pretty lenient, considering his history of being warned for doing this same sort of thing. Agree with block. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving a userpage? Particularly of a tool? IMO, 24 hours is very lenient especially given the history. Netscott 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is to be hoped that the user will realise that change in approach is needed and further that incivil edits such as (now deleted, so only admins can see it) this one won't recur. It's the first block after all. I certainly won't wheel war about it though. ++Lar 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that he's now encouraging other users to vandalize, I'm not terribly optimistic. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If he picks up again after the block ends, he can always be re-blocked. I commend Lar for giving him chance, even if it's a bit too optimistic. - Mgm| 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as optimistic any more, I guess. Based on what Mindspillage pointed out and his response to her, Freakofnurture (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has extended the block to 7 days. Which I support. ++Lar 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Let's see, Juppiter, we clean up after you, we make you go to your room and we dont get paid for it—yup, we're your mother... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Let him ponder policy for a while. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

IP adress 65.221.146.3

has been making edits that are obviously vandalism, as you can see here False Prophet 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing should go to WP:AIV. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Murder and rape threats by 205.234.223.167

I'm fairly new around here, but User:205.234.223.167 has been making multiple murder and rape threats against several people today. He's gotten a 2 week block for bad behavior, but still has access to his talk page. I know Misplaced Pages likes to go through a series of escalating sanctions before permanently blocking someone, but do you always have to do that? Can't there be bad enough behavior (as in threatening to drive to someone's house, murder the editor and rape his wife) that admins might be justified in just cutting to the chase and permanently blocking the IP address altogether?

Here's just a sample of his many cheery messages today: 1, 2, 3, 4.

And another question -- Misplaced Pages is very strict about "no legal threats"; editors taking legal action off Misplaced Pages is highly discouraged. Yet threatening rape and murder is a felony in every U.S. jurisdiction (and with good reason). I think this guy should be reported to authorities in his jurisdiction (somewhere near Chicago?) now, rather than later, but I'm concerned this would get me in hot water with Misplaced Pages. Personally, I feel only slightly physically threatened, but I suspect that this guy represents a much more real physical danger to people in his own community. If he's a psychopath, I suspect his antisocial behavior is not confined to Misplaced Pages. I'm happy to report him, but I am concerned that I would have problems with Misplaced Pages.

So what's the next appropriate step here? Where do I take this issue?

--A. B. 01:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about that user here. Garion96 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that at least that IP address has now been permanently blocked. (User talk:205.234.223.167).--A. B. 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have a girlfriend who's ex-boyfriend has just been sent to prison for 3 months (18 months suspended) for making death threats and other threats via email. I suggest that this matter is dealt with in a more serious fashion and this users IP is traced and reported to the relevant authorities (i.e. Police) in his jurisdiction. He sounds like an idiot, but in the USA (for example) any death threat is treated seriously (which it should be). Better safe than sorry. (User Name witheld for obvious reasons!).

Reversion and Protection of HRE RfA

I, Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted, then protected Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4 in order to effect a closure, (the diffs between that protection and the subsequent tagging as an WP:OFFICE closure are here) based on discussion on IRC (#wikipedia-en-admins) that there was a revert war underway, and that Danny was asking for the RfA to be closed pending further investigation. I posted a notice to the talk page, and subsequent discussion can be seen here . suffice it to say that it was not universally accepted that I did the right thing, it was alleged that I violated the protection policy, point 2 by first reverting and then protecting. (I would say I was implementing the desire to have it be closed that Danny expressed) See also this series of exchanges on my talk page. I also reverted the reinsertion of the RfA into the currently active list. stand by my actions but put myself up for review here. ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that what happened, as I see it, was a miscommunication caused by parallel discussions on WT:RFA and IRC — those not on IRC, such as myself, were unaware that Danny was going to use his OFFICE prerrogative. Yes, this shouldn't happen, and this is why we should not be making Misplaced Pages-related decisions on IRC, but this situation was most unusual, and very grave. Danny, Lar and everybody else were only trying to find a smooth resolution to the problem, all the while showing HolyRomanEmperor, his family and, well, the whole situation itself, the due respect. It happens, and it pales in comparison to the possibility that a long-standing Wikipedian might have died. Redux 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to commend you for having the decisiveness and courage to clarify something that was becoming a drawn-out confusion, where nobody knew what was going on and nobody was willing to do anything about it. That is what admins are appointed for—to take such responsibility when necessary. These are extraordinary circumstances, and I have no doubt your actions were with the best interests of wiki in mind. I find that this alone justifies them. The fact that you were acting on instructions from OFFICE means there should be no further debate involving you. Tyrenius 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, and it does appear there is reason to believe so: May I be the first to suggest the typical "memorial effort" idea for this situation? That is, of granting him status as a administrator, blocking him, and subsequently having a developer acting to further prevent a login? While I don't know much at all about MediaWiki, I'd wager that there is a way via database manipulaton (such as ruining the password hash?) and that a developer would do it (or try to) if asked by Danny. --Avillia 05:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a memorial. Sorry but I thinks that's proabably not a good idea.pschemp | talk 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The not memorial policy applies to articles. That said, there should be other ways to honour one besides posthumous adminship, especially given that in life adminship is supposed to be "no big deal." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... How? Throw up a giant statue to him at Wikimania? There are limited avenues to be taken for any kind of memorial effort; Considering the repeated attempts to gain adminship, it seems like a option. If the option to use those administrative powers is removed, it becomes a title. A ceremonial title, and a title which quite likely will be the most fitting thing the Misplaced Pages community can do, whether it is for his memory, for our mourning... Whatever. --Avillia14:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

HRE is not the first Wikipedian to die (although I suspect he is now the best-known simply because of the curious circumstances), and there is no particularily good reason why we should turn his account into some sort of memorial when we've not done the same for others who have predeceased him. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't really know what happened to HolyRomanEmperor as far as I'm aware. Evidently the account has been compromised and should be watched. Nothing would be served by those of us who didn't know him well pretending that we did. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Act in haste, repent at leisure. I suggest not making any hasty decisions with long lasting consequencies, particularly as we have incomplete information. Stephen B Streater 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nod. Which is why I think protecting and temporarily delisting the nomination under WP:OFFICE, pending understanding what is going on is actually a very prudent thing to do, it's the least disruptive and allows for change later. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad username User:Doug E Fresh

Doug E Fresh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This would be a username after a famous person, namely Doug E. Fresh who's an 80s beatboxer. Kevin_b_er 04:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is the possibility that this user is Doug E. Fresh. It may be worth asking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have very good working email at the moment, but info@dougefresh.com is the address to ask such a question from his official site. Kevin_b_er 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. If he later claims to be Mr Fresh then we can arrange confirmation. --Sam Blanning 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this block was way out of line. You have alienated a potential contributor to the encyclopedia and assumed bad faith on his part. The name isn't so unusual that there couldn't possibly be more than one person with the same name. The correct procedure would have been to ask first, as was suggested above. Please remove the block, or I will do so next time I'm on. JYolkowski // talk 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your unblocking would be way out of line. We have a firm policy about not using the names of real celebrities as User names. Don't start a wheel war. User:Zoe| 00:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of wheel warring; my intentions are merely to stand up for well-intentioned new users who have been victimised. JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following... names of well-known living or recently deceased people". From WP:U. Please check policy before you declare your intention to wheel war. --Sam Blanning 12:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked the user with a less biting block summary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How on earth was my block summary biting? I explained the exact reason for the block and left a full explanation on his talk page. A lot of admins just write 'user...' when blocking inappropriate usernames. --Sam Blanning 11:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't think to check the talk page. I agree that the message you left there was perfectly appropriate, and that there was thus no need to give the same information in the block message. Sorry. I guess I've been dealing with AOL anons so much lately that I'm starting to forget that some users can actually be reliably contacted through their talk pages... :( —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and AfD nominations

Please see Gay Nigger Association of America, Tom Biddigan and Matt Spokes. Some new editor by the name of User:Jaunio has no edits other than edits nominating these articles for deletion. Reversion of the articles, adding {{prod}} boilers, or comments on his Talk page have no effect. And now that he has reverted each article exactlly three times, one User:Osieer shows up, doing the exact same thing. Obvious sockpupperty, and blockable offenses in any event. Please, someone, take a look. -- Ec5618 09:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And we're done, thanks to expedient assistance from FireFox. -- Ec5618 10:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Vaquero100 again

see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Vaquero100 above.

I've just blocked Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for continued disruption, disregard of concensus and failure to use proper channels before making changes. After User:Andrew c warned him again yesterday (approximately the fifth person to do so in 2 days) Vaquero100 went and changed Catholic to his preferred version again today. It appears he thinks the Roman Catholic Church should be referred to as the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, but ignoring the fact there's multiple varieties of Catholicism. Anyone who disagrees with him is accused of oppressing "The Catholic Church" and attempting to remove it from Misplaced Pages. I welcome review, but what I really want to know is how to take it from here. - Mgm| 12:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. 24 hours as an attention-getter is appropriate, because argument isn't making any progress, and I also gave a warning and "cease and desist." Geogre 13:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator could use some backup

Bishonen has been politely and patiently trying to persuade a stridently disruptive editor to alter his ways. Unfortunately, that has only made her a target of the editor's venom. She probably could use some backup from other administrators. Askolnick 12:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I'll take a gander. --Woohookitty 13:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thank you for your concern, Askolnick, but I'm cool, the target part doesn't bother me. I've just blocked Peterklutz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three days for disruption of the Talk:Transcendental Meditation page in the form of persistent incivility and personal attacks, and more eyeballs on the block would certainly be appreciated. Feel free to alter the length of it in either direction. Please note that it's difficult to get any overview of the editor's contributions, as he often edits from a variety of IPs without being logged in; see the Transcendental Meditation history for some of these IPs. I think it's essentially the case that any anon contributor in the history is Peterklutz. The subject of the article is controversial, and Peterklutz is apparently at Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of inputting POV in TM-related articles. If he won't learn to work with others--and I can see no sign of it yet--I can foresee stepping up the sanctions to the point where he can no longer interfere with these articles. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I thought it was the least I could do for giving you extra work to do -- having to delete my own inappropriate additions to the TM article. I added them in the smoke and fury of the edit war last night, minutes before you blocked him. Sorry for doing that. I let myself get carried away by my growing frustration.

I haven't the slightest doubt you could handle the problem. But I thought I'd ask for help here anyway, so you wouldn't need to. Peterklutz turned his attack on you, accusing you of being on the side of the "Christian Fundamentalist" anti-TM conspiracy he keeps shouting about. I thought it would be helpful for additional administrators to point out the error in his ways. Askolnick 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well I'll monitor it as best I can. --Woohookitty 14:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I found some of Peter's IPs in this declined CheckUser request (I've no doubt they're his all right)
• 213.112.235.43 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 213.112.235.81 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 213.112.235.53 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.30.186.206 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Bishonen | talk 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Trolling on Talk:Sikhism

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818(http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ARYAN818 see talk]) and user:Elven6 for continual violation of WP:NPA (includes personal, religious and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL and for committing vandalism and WP:TROLL. Their behavior from July 2 till now has played a disruptive effect, and despite warnings from myself,user:Ragib and user:Dbachmann they have heaped a lot of abuse on user:Sukh.

Relevant diffs:,,,,,,

Thanks, This Fire Burns 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am placing a warning on these users' talk pages. At the next personal attack, they will be blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop me a line or send me an email if these persist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

seeing the user's history, I would have considered this a clear case for a block. This user has been skimming a permaban as a troll from the beginning, and has been all bother ever since. I'll not override your warning, but I might issue a permaban in the (likely) case that the trolling continues. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a rather long drawl on User:ARYAN818's talk page... it seems to me like he didn't quite understand what he was doing wrong, but kept getting angrier/more frustrated as people warned him. I'd definitely endorse a 24hr-1 week block if he continues with the trolling past here (and I'd probably endorse a 24hr right now to get his attention). --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps {{TrollWarning}} should be added to said talk page. — Jul. 4, '06 <freak|talk>

818 is code for H.A.H. -- "Heil Adolf Hitler". I'm indef-blocking the user name. Feel free to review. JDoorjam Talk 17:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to point this out. I endorse this block.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Spambot on Jack Abramoff.

What looks like a spambot has been making numerous posts to Jack Abramoff recently, replacing an entire section with links to prescription drugs. Every edit has been from a different IP, but they all share several key features; they try and place html <a href= links instead of Misplaced Pages links, and they generally put something about "great site!" or so forth in front of their additions. I assume that this is a bot intended to post to messageboards and guestbooks that has somehow followed a link to Misplaced Pages. Example edits include: --Aquillion 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another possible spam blacklist addition: seems bot like too. Netscott 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Point, 3RR?, Harassment

Could an admin take a look at User:24.211.192.250 contributions. This user seems to be engaged in harassing User:Karl Meier and violating a number of policies in the process. Thanks. Netscott 18:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Anirudh777 (talk · contribs)

Despite repeated warnings, user continues to spam Hinduism-related articles with links to ambedkar.org, which has had its Alexa ranking increase by 300,000 as a result. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way--user's previous block was, in fact, a mistake and had nothing to do with spamming (or so it appears). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous sockpuppetry and personal attacks

User: Imacomp is now running two sockpuppets; User: Azuredeltascribe and User: Deltascribe following some conflict with users on Freemasonry, leading to an RFC on his conduct.

He is now using the User: Deltascribe account to launch personal attacks using the sock tags on the various accounts.

on User: Azuredeltascribe 4 July 06

on Freemasonry 3 July 06

on User: Deltascribe 4 July 06

on User: Skull 'n' Femurs 4 July 06

Sockpuppetry assessed as likely at this case.

The latter point probably supports the assertion that Imacomp is a sock of USer: Skull 'n' Femurs who was blocked in February by User: David Gerard on the basis of a stated intent and actions to systematically remove information from Misplaced Pages.

Grateful if an admin could deal with the sockpuppetry as appropriate.ALR 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This matter should be taken to suspected sock puppets. Iolakana| 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convincedd that 7 days of talking about it really adds much value, but I can overuse process if required.  :) Thanks anyway.ALR 09:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, given that there appears to be no outcome from the discussion on that page I won't bother wasting my time.ALR 09:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not seven days, some are resolved within minutes. It's just because there is only one admin who goes around the page, me! I have to close every single one of these debates. You just have to have a little patience. Iolakana| 11:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for clarifying, I was struck by the comments on the talk page, and the fact that the previous report on Imacomp hadn't been touched by anyone else since it was raised. Many thanks for dealing. ALR 13:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dyslexic agnostic and User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow banned from comics-related articles

User:Dyslexic agnostic and User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow are banned from comics-related articles for two weeks, the ban expiring at 05:35 17 July (UTC). This ban is in accordance with the terms of their probations at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. The two have recently engaged in edit warring at various articles, including List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes, It's Never Too Late (Batman: The Animated Series) and On Leather Wings (Batman: The Animated Series). I have discussed this with User:Titoxd, a moderator to User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow and we feel that a ban from a few articles for two weeks will simply move the conflict to another article. Note that User:Dyslexic agnostic is currently blocked for a personal attack for 24 hours by myself after this edit, per his probation. Steve block Talk 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Move of Israeli Apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid while Request for Move poll in progress

We have a problem with Israeli Apartheid again. As some may recall, activity on this article has generated considerable controversy. A few weeks ago, the page had to be locked for a time, and one user is banned from editing it.

One of the several controversial issues pending is whether the article should be moved to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. There's a formal request for move poll in progress on this at Misplaced Pages talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa" with a start date of 26 June 2006. The poll hasn't yet been closed, and no consensus has emerged.

Today, we have this action: 20:11, 4 July 2006 Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: NPOV title). This is a unilateral move while a vote on the move is in progress. That is arguably vandalism. Discussion of the matter can be found at Misplaced Pages:Central discussions/Apartheid.

We're going to need some administrator intervention again. Would some uninvolved administrator be willing to take this on? It won't be fun, but somebody has to do it. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The article had this offensive title since May 28. The polls only served as a magnet for certain editors eager to besmirch Israel. No consensus was possible and no compromise was acceptable. Read the article and tell me allegations is incorrect title. ←Humus sapiens 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back. I agree entirely that the move was out of process and improper. I also have to say that I have serious concerns about the way that a number of admins, including Humus sapiens, have been behaving concerning this article. I've already expressed my concerns to Humus on his talk page (see User talk:Humus sapiens#Bantustan again) regarding his conduct on an article linking to this one. As I said on Humus's talk page:

You clearly have a strong POV on the issue but you as an administrator, of all people, should know by now that WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox: "Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind." It's simply not our job to "refute a slanderous accusation" or for that matter to promote it. All we are here to do is to describe neutrally what others say about the issue. WP:NPOV#A simple formulation states it better than I could - "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves".

This is really basic stuff. Frankly I'm surprised and dismayed that I'm finding myself having to explain it to a fellow administrator, even a relatively new one. Misplaced Pages has more than enough partisan editors - as administrators, we should be pushing for objectivity, not pushing our own partisan POVs. If you hold a strong POV on an issue, that's all the more reason for consciously trying to avoid letting it colour your editing.

I think some people need to take a refresher course in what the NPOV policy requires. It's not surprising that some editors might not understand the policy, but if administrators don't understand it (or worse, don't want to follow it) I have to question whether they should be administrators in the first place. If admins don't or won't defend NPOV, who will? -- ChrisO 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that User:Jayjg is now claiming that "there's good enough consensus for this". I count 16 votes in favour and 12 against; that's clearly not a consensus, nor a supermajority (see Misplaced Pages:Consensus). What's the hurry or the harm in letting people discuss it and reach a consensus? -- ChrisO 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I question your neutrality as well. I replied on you talk page back then, remember? . As for process, I do think it is important but in this case the polls and requests were ongoing for many weeks. Conveniently, the offensive title was kept meanwhile. ←Humus sapiens 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Do I also have to remind you that Misplaced Pages is supposed to work by consensus? As for my "neutrality", believe it or not, I am genuinely neutral in this matter - I don't think the move is particularly consistent with other articles on pejorative political terms but I don't much care what the outcome is. What I am concerned about is an apparent attempt to short-circuit an ongoing move poll. I'd be just as concerned if the proposed move was from Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid. You have one POV and other people have another. So work out a compromise with them rather than just imposing your preferred solution before the poll has even been closed. -- ChrisO 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to title it improperly in the first place. Conveniently, the polls were ongoing for weeks. ←Humus sapiens 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This page moving must stop

1. 22:15, 4 July 2006 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: There's good enough consensus for this, and NPOV really demands it.)
2. (cur) (last) 22:13, 4 July 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) m (moved Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid: Out of process move - ongoing move poll is not yet concluded and no decision has been reached)
3. (cur) (last) 22:12, 4 July 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) m (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid)
4. (cur) (last) 21:55, 4 July 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) m (moved Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid: Out of process move - ongoing move poll is not yet concluded and no decision has been reached)

This is embarassing for Misplaced Pages. I never thought I'd need to put this here, but

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Misplaced Pages. However, this is an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write.

--John Nagle 22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank Homey for starting it. BTW, I dislike "Allegations..." but agreed to it a as a compromise. ←Humus sapiens 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you're moving titles and then protecting, and you opposed the move on June 26, so you're an involved editor. This situation is a farce, and has been for weeks, since a series of "apartheid" related articles were created to make a political point against Israel. The allegations of apartheid are widely and hotly disputed, and it's therefore accurate to call the article "allegations of ..." We shouldn't need polls or long drawn-out discussions, because it's a question of common sense, and I have to question the good faith of anyone who argues otherwise. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a propaganda sheet, so please allow the article to be named in a way that allows the article to exist, but with a title those who oppose its existence can at least live with. SlimVirgin 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as I explained in my vote, my opposition to the move was purely because I felt it was inconsistent with the way we treat other pejorative terms, not because I have a particular POV regarding the issue. I genuinely don't have a dog in this fight - I'm a Balkanist, not a Middle Easternist. Of course the issue is widely and hotly disputed, and that's all the more reason for going the extra mile to find a compromise. Consider this: if you short-circuit the ongoing move poll, which has not found a consensus (a 16-12 vote plainly isn't a consensus), you're only going to aggrieve the opposing side and you will end up with months of arguments about "unfairness" (not from me though, because I'm not getting involved). You'd feel exactly the same way if the opposing side did the same thing to you. If you want to get over this hurdle you have to come up with a solution that both sides can accept. Take it to RFM if you wish. Short-circuiting a move poll, especially on such a controversial issue, is just a bad idea. -- ChrisO 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortcircuiting whatever's going on is a very good idea when it's causing as much bad feeling as this. The article must have a title that accurately reflects the situation. There is as a matter of hard, cold fact no apartheid in Israel. There is a situation that some people want to say is similar to some aspects of South African apartheid. It is an allegation, and a highly controversial one. Stop to think: why is one "side" so opposed to calling it an allegation? It seems to me that some people are simply delighted at having caused so much ill-feeling. I'm asking everyone involved in this to step back and reach a compromise: namely that the article exists (and it's not at all clear that it ought to), but that it be given a title that is more accurate and less offensive. SlimVirgin 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's clearly a political agenda behind it - of course there is, it's a political slogan. The term "Israeli apartheid" is used by its proponents as shorthand for "systematic racial/religious discrimination in Israel". Now, there are two separate issues here - one is what the slogan means, who uses it, where it comes from and how it is used (in other words, the nature of the slogan). The other is whether the slogan is in fact justified by the facts (i.e. the substance of the slogan). The substance can be dealt with in an article called Allegations of discrimination in Israel or something like that. The nature of the slogan can be dealt with in the existing Israeli apartheid article - and is in fact already mostly tackled by that article - treated along the same lines as other political slogans (see Category:Political slogans for examples). Any discussion of whether the slogan is justified, other than perhaps the briefest summary of pro and con arguments, should not go in this article but should go to one on the issue of discrimination.

Obviously the slogan will be seen as offensive by some people, but the undeniable fact is that the slogan exists, just like RINO (offensive to moderate Republicans), Axis of weasels (offensive to critics of the Iraq War) or Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet (offensive to, well, reptilian kitten-eaters from other planets, who might be good for all we know). Reading what you and Humus have said about this, I get the very strong feeling that your complaint is that the slogan is offensive. Of course it is, but that's irrelevant - WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not censored to spare readers from "things they may consider objectionable or offensive". We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it was, and we can't deal with offensive political slogans by pretending they don't exist. -- ChrisO 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Thank Homey for starting it." I've never moved the article from its original title. Homey 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

... which was offensive and unencyclopedic. ←Humus sapiens 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg and Humus should to be blocked immediately if they continue. - Xed 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! But not ChrisO, who moved it three times? Jayjg 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

They have continued. - Xed 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please get your facts straight. Jayjg 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"This situation is a farce, and has been for weeks, since a series of "apartheid" related articles were created to make a political point against Israel." Actually, the article gender apartheid is mostly concerned with Muslim states and the term is used by a number of US conservative sources as well as by feminists. Sexual apartheid doesn't deal with Israel nor doesGlobal apartheid which deals with with what used to be called "North/South issues" (or "Third world" underdevelopment).Please AGF. Homey 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you created the other apartheid articles in order to justify the creation of the Israeli one, and it has led to chaos, bad feeling, and irreparable editing relationships. Please reconsider your opposition to this. With a name change, the article exists, but the title at least isn't so galling. It's a fair compromise. SlimVirgin 22:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about why I created the articles. I did so when I noticed that there was no proper article named apartheid and thus no place for articles on modern uses of the term, a number of which I have come across being used with increasing frequency. If you don't like the name of an article, fine, win consensus to change it but don't violate NPA and AGF to justify your support of acting without consensus.Homey 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do when an Arbcomm member participates in a wheel war?Homey 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wheel war? I moved it once. It's ChrisO who moved it three times and protected it. Jayjg 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Open an RfC. I'm seriously considering it - I think Jayjg, Humus and SlimVirgin have gone considerably beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour in attempting to short-circuit the ongoing poll. As administrators, we should surely be held to the same standards as other editors. -- ChrisO 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering an RfC? Perhaps you should consider opening one on an involved admin who moves a page 3 times, and protects it as well. That would be you. Jayjg 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As regards protecting the article against moves (note - not against edits), I've had plenty of experience of POV-driven article moves in Balkans-related articles, especially relating to Kosovo, where even placenames are regarded as expressions of POV. My SOP in such situations is to revert to the status quo ante and tell the would-be movers to reach a consensus (as per WP:CON) through a talk page discussion or move poll. If they continue to move the page without consensus, I revert to the status quo ante and protect the page to force them to discuss the issue. I would do this with almost any article, excepting those which have such problematic titles that the great majority of people would consider them unacceptable (and I've not come across many of these). It's this approach which I've followed in this instance - actively defending WP:CON and WP:NPOV. I'm disappointed that some people apparently don't have the patience to seek a consensus and I'm frankly amazed that an ArbComm member would be so dismissive of Misplaced Pages's policy of consensus. -- ChrisO 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, not exactly the sort of behaviour one would expect from an ArbComm member.Homey 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page one time, which is not even an admin action, and when a majority of people in a poll think the move should be done? Horrifying! Jayjg 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1) a majority is not consensus 2) so does this mean if your action results in the majority tipping in the other action you'll support its reversal? Homey 22:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The defintion of wheel war is dissputed. In any case the answer to the question is not much.Geni 22:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In any event, page moving is not an admin action; anyone can do it. If you want to claim it's a revert war, go ahead, but it's certainly not a wheel war. Jayjg 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay, you're not exactly setting a great example as an ArbComm member, are you? I expect this means you aren't running for re-election this fall?Homey 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, quit it, please. You started this trouble, and did it knowingly, so please help to resolve it rather than fanning the flames. SlimVirgin 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he won't last that long if he carries on with his current behaviour. - Xed 22:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, Homey, or why you think this board has devolved into a forum for discussing me. Please focus on the issues. Jayjg 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey could not decide any better than to use this occasion for soapboxing and ad hom other editors. ←Humus sapiens 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not ad hom to note that an ArbComm member is acting inappropriately. Indeed, one would think ANI is the place to raise such behaviour. Anyway, Jay's ruled himself out of re-election through his actions. He's bascially a lameduck ArbComm member now since anyone whose case he sits on can just point to his behaviour in these articles over the past few months and question his authority to adjudicate. Homey 23:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

most arcom members don't run for a second term anyway so the issue is irrelivant. Campaining for elections will probably start with canaditate staments in november so can it.Geni 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Homey, quit it, please."

I have not participated in this revert war over the article's name, have I?

"You started this trouble, and did it knowingly"

AGF and NPA

"so please help to resolve it rather than fanning the flames."

Perhaps people should wait until the voting has stopped to see if there's a consensus before moving the article? Or perhaps we need a mediator?Homey 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Status?

Where are we now with this? What happens next? Right now, the out-of-process article move seems to have happened. Some of the players are now having a revert war over {{or}} tags.

Probably nothing short of arbitration, and a few more users banned from editing the article, will work at this point. --John Nagle 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me while I redirect Misplaced Pages:Pointless and Endless Streams Of DRAMA which belong in DR to ANI. Seriously. I can't put it in more civil a tone than that. WP:ANI is not where this crap should spill, it should spill in a RfC, or MedCab, or MedCom, or ArbCom. Bloody hell. --Avillia 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This matter has been referred to arbitration. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless. The arbcom is not going to rule against one of its members, whose notion of "consensus" seems, in this case and others, something akin to "my friends agree". Which it does. One can expect his friends on the arbcom also to agree that he can call the article whatever he likes. As I noted, curiously, the notion of "new antisemitism", pushed by a few people of a particular political persuasion but not particularly widely used, has an article titled "new antisemitism", yet this notion, pushed by a few people of a particular political persuasion but not particularly widely used, we are told should not be entitled with the name of the notion but with a more weaselly version. Ho hum. Grace Note 04:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

horrific edit war on Barbara Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both of you, knock it off. This is not the place for childish arguments. Either come to a compromise or take it elsewhere. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both User:Joe Finnes and User:George Walaby for 3 hours. —Quarl 2006-07-04 22:43Z

Both? Looks like they are the same person to me.Geni 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Two new users, who make edits to Barbara Eden within seconds of each other? This seems more like some two-handed variation of an ANI-troll. - David Oberst 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a checkuser is in order. FCYTravis 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(after triple edit conflict!) Hmm, I blocked both for 24 hours, if they are the same user probably should be indef, if they are not might as well keep the 3 hour one from Quarl. Petros471 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why bother is anyone seriously suggesting they are not the same peson? Just extend the blocks to indefinate.Geni 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. —Quarl 2006-07-04 22:53Z

I just had a thought: maybe this is a new variation of Joe job - sully the names of two people by creating trolls in their names? —Quarl 2006-07-04 22:57Z

It certainly looks like either that, or the the ANI troll, so I think probably the suggested indef block is in order. Petros471 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As there's been no objections, I've extended the blocks to indef. Anyone feeling there is a chance that they can contribute usefully is welcome to unblock. Petros471 23:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the original content of this section belongs on BJAODN. User:Zoe| 23:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that, "horrific" in describing an "edit war" is nearly worth such a designation alone. :-) Netscott 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty damn lame attempt at this:

http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Sockpuppets

Ashibaka tock 06:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Look at this USer (or Admins?) behaviour

User:Golbez has made some unruly assumptions which are groundless and uncivil in nature as shown here; ]. When engaged about such behaviour this users response was this; ]. Accusing another user of trying to start a fight is firstly wrong unless it can be proved and obvious. Secondly how can one claim they are neutral when they make such statements as "GM don’t fall for his bait," on a talk page which defames another editors intentions, motivations, and character. I ask that any admin. Scrutinize my edits and work to even see if there is a spec of dubious behaviour or editing on my part. This user/admins. comments were totally uncalled for and the word shut up is definitely not civil in nature. 69.196.164.190

Actually, the discussion between both Grandmaster and you had little to do with the conflict about the content of the article, it was only generated noises, and relevant discussions were being lost from it, Golbez could have gone further by removing them. His implication and his reaction you are reporting, is the sort that is actually giving results. Insteed of having a politically correct administrator who will do nothing other than distributing warnings for few displaced words, he is jumping in the conflict and trying to put some orders. Chasse Golbez out from that article with imsignificances like this, and good morning the unmoderated street fighting. Fad (ix) 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fadix and disagree with 69.196.164.190. Both he and Grandmaster were using inflammatory language, and Golbez' intervention was the only way to stop it getting out of hand. I found Golbez' comments just and moderate. Golbez has demonstrated before his tendency to be a through, proactive, and neutral moderator, so I find this accusation out of place.--TigranTheGreat 00:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Gomez's decisive action. These are two users that have been going at it for some time, and yes, something did need to be said/done about it. --InShaneee 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you all feel that way. I was never uncivil nor have a breached any rules. I do not appreciate being threatened or told to shut up. As for user:Grandmaster, I have nothing against him, but he has made several attacks against me and accusations. So I can not say I appreciate the comments left by user:InShaneee. While I am here I must admit that the pause on the page has been lifted and results are beginning to show on the editing work and I am pleased about that and I personally thank all edits, even user:Golbez. However, I do not appreicate being told I do not like another editors or the term "budding fighting," meaning a fight that is going to develop. This is assumption and uncalled for. As for User:InShaneee I find it unusual that he has voiced his opinion on this as I have no involvement with him/her aside from rebutting some accusations GM has been making to him about me. Once again I have no problem against GM, but he does have some sort of a problem with me and has accused me of trolling, sockpuppeting, being another editor or actually four, being anti-Azari, and etc. I want to edit in peace and have never been inflammatory or uncivil to any user. Thanks all. 69.196.164.190

If you bring a problem here, uninvolved admins are going to comment on it. That's mostly the point of bringing something here. --InShaneee 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Golbez was just trying to ease an editing dispute where these two users had gotten more than a little uncivil (both parties, not just the anon - comments like "You talk about the things you have no idea about" (--User:Grandmaster) are also unacceptable). Golbez is 100% correct in his actions and I commend him for stepping in like this. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This was my reaction to GMs uncivil behaviour;

Please remain civil, we want civil discourse here. I am sorry that you are getting upset, but you do not need to address others in an aggressive tone. Your comments were not civil.Your statment: "You talk about the things you have no idea about," was not civil. Keep your comments directed to material or editing, not to individuals. I do not need to warn you as you already know the guide lines for orderly behaviour. I will overlook your uncivil comment and give you a warning. As for the issue; I am fully aware about the issue at hand, one can be excused for coming to the conclusion that maybe certain editors do not know what they are talking about in Misplaced Pages or maybe they do, but want edits in articles based on POV. In practice NKOA is not a part of the Republic of Azarbaijan (Arran). Once agains, if you want the introduction changed GM, you must demonstate that NKOA is not an independent state (in practice), please. Demonstrate it and the introduction will be changed. And please be civil about it. Thank you.

That is the full text of my reply. I may also draw attention to his other attacks on me and the numerous warnings he has received from me such as this; ] Thank you. 69.196.164.190

While I don't have the time to pick out specific diffs, accusing users of being straight out POV editing is usually seen as uncivil. There is a difference between being incorrect and being POV-pushing. There seems to be a distinct lack of evidence on the article's talk page, so this might be the root of your problems. If you go back to the talk page and lay out your evidence (no, "everyone in the world says this" is not evidence, I mean external websites, books, etc.) without accusing other users of pushing a POV, you might get a better response. If you don't get a good response to that evidence (and you were civil in presenting it), then you're not at fault. This is (probably)) what Golbez is trying to get across. Have a great day! --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 03:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And while I don't think the anon's comments should have been removed by User:Email@domain.net from this page, I'm not willing to get into a revert war and won't readd the comments again. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 03:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally I do not appreciate User:Email@domain.net and his/her mysterious deletion of my validation and proof. Checking this users contributions makes them seem a little sinister. It might be a good idea to do a user check on this user.69.196.164.190

Oprah Winfrey sockpuppets

• Editingoprah (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Cardriver (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Zorklift (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Kittykash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --  Netsnipe    19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

They have all been introducing unsourced images, POV and other stylistic problems into the article. More importantly, the others show up when the previous account was blocked/had received its final warning. He/she/it has violated the 3RR more than once, an offense for which Editingoprah has been blocked. (see #Editingoprah_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29) Can someone please look into this? — getcrunk what?! 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some strange editing in this log of edits from a deleted copyvio image. The users (how often do newbies have revert wars spaced out over hours on an image) fight over the copyright status of an image that they both spend time adding into Oprah's article. Can we get a check user please? Harro5 00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A check user request has been made. Harro5 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Getcrunk, I'm not sure why you are so frustrated with the inexpereinced newbies at the Oprah article for including relevant early-life images you consider unsourced, when you as an experienced editor endorsed the use of this Janet Jackson image http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Janetjacksonnew.jpg The only source info provided is speculation on where the photo came from and the link provided does not even work. It's very difficult for newbies to follow the correct standards and procedures of wikipedia when they are applied so inconsistently by the very people endorsing said standards. I understand that you are acting in good faith and do not mean to be creating double standards or confusion, and thus I offer this as the most constructive of criticism. Cardriver 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Large number of Toronto park stubs being created.

Two users, Stanfordandson (talk • contribs) and Daloonik (talk • contribs), appear to be creating stub articles for many parks listed in List of Toronto parks. The parks they choose seem to be non-notable as far as I can tell (having lived in Toronto all my life and visited a large number of its parks), and the stub articles contain remarkably little useful information. The creation spree seems to be a response to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fairbank Memorial Park. I'm at a loss as to how to respond to this, and so am noting it here.

Based on similar interests, suspicious timing in edit histories, and suspiciously rapid endorsement of User:Stanfordandson by User:Daloonik when the former was rebuked for inappropriate edits, I'm pretty sure User:Daloonik is a sock puppet used to further the aims of User:Stanfordandson. --Christopher Thomas 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also a Daloonik2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've speedily deleted a few of these point-making park substubs for doing nothing but restating the title (Foo park, Toronto is a park in Toronto). Proto///type 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that these should be speedied, since they seem like perfectly reasonable stubs to me. I ran across one on AFD before seeing this note, and expanded it into a full article with no problem. -Hit bull, win steak 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• See also section below: /#User:Proto needs to stop speedily deleting rapid articles--A Y Arktos\ 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx

I'd like some advice. I have noticed a pattern of link-spamming from one or more editors in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx, including:

• User:64.228.225.176, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.156, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.146, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.20, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.111, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.117, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.118, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.29, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.40, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.67, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.96, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.98, Contributions, Talk

I've just spot-checked some of the IP addresses in this block -- there are probably more offenders. There are also a handful of legitimate edits from IP addresses in this block of IP addresses. The block is registered to Bell Canada's large Bell Sympatico operation. I get the feeling that this may be one editor with a dialup connection -- there will be a block of edits on one day from one IP address, then another day's worth of links will come from another IP address. This has been going on for over a year. Many of the links are to angelfire.com or ipfox.com URLs

Some pages linked to are semi-benign, others are pure commercial junk, but all are intertied and contain advertising in what appears to be a Spamdexing scheme. (Particularly annoying is that some of the linked pages are slow to load and have mulitple pop-up ads.)

I have tried to revert some edits, but there are a lot of them. Here are my questions/requests/suggestions:

1. Some way to quickly screen all 256 addresses in this block to see which have been sources of edits.
2. It would be nice to have some sort of bot that would just crawl these users' contributions and delete. There are about 75 left; if I have to, I will go through them manually.
3. Is there a way to monitor user contributions from addresses within this address block on an ongoing basis?

One other observation: There was one edit from User:64.228.225.54 -- this editor cast the lone vote for an article, David Kam, that was viewed by others as a vanity article submitted by User:Canadianartist. The user at 64.228.225.54 manually signed his post "]" (forgetting the "User:"). Most of Canadianartist's edits were links to www.artsmovements.org. There may or may not be a connection between this user and the anonymous users in the 64.228.225.xxx block. These links created some heartburn at the time; see User talk:SimonP/Archive 2#Art Movements. Kam also later resurfaces in Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Thinkism. User:64.228.225.96 made several edits on David Kam's behalf in 2004.

--A. B. 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a list of the affected articles: User:A. B./To do list#Articles spammed

--A. B. 05:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update -- now using Borgengruft?

A new user, Borgengruft, just made his/her first edit -- restoring one of 64.228.225.xxx's spam links to Hank Williams.--A. B. 19:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As I go about deleting these links, I make sure to check each linked site on the off chance that it is truly OK and useful. (Believe it or not, I actually found one, so I spared its link). I've noticed these sites load so slowly partly because they're loading stuff like precisionclick.com code and pop-ups. Precisionclick.com was rated OK (or at least not totally criminal) by McAfee Site Advisor but users on the same McAfee page are saying otherwise.--A. B. 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

After many tedious hours, I have reversed all the bad links I found and put warnings on all the IP numbers I noted above. It still would be useful if someone checked other IP addresses in the 64.228.225.xxx block. (Note that there were useful edits in 2004 relating to French Misplaced Pages links and to Quebec/French culture, so don't reverse those!)

--A. B. 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Our spammer's sites are certainly an imaginatively diverse mix -- most of them fall into one of three categories: World War II, Indian historical and religious figures, and American country music. I doubt many Hank Williams fans are very familiar with the Hindu goddess, Kali. The linked sites all have the same links and ads at the bottom, however, reflecting the spammer's real objective.

--A. B. 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Door safety

The new, most pressing safety issue in the world, brought to you by Davidwikipedia (talk · contribs), who is surely not employed by Fingershield, whose spam has been removed once or twice from Safety. Two articles on door safety (door safety and door guard)? Spammed all over the project? Or am I just being paranoid?

Doors are a big safety hazard and deserve an article! I once crushed a friend's pinky finger with the hinge side of a door, I should have bought a fingershield. But alas, the current edition of the article does not have the links you spoke of and I can't buy them. Lapinmies 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WOW socks, {{unblock}}, & more

A user responsible for a number of blocked WOW socks has been going from one sock's talk page to the next posting the {{unblock}} template with the reason "I wish to write attack pages on the following: ". I noticed it because it triggered the IRC bot that notifies of any use of {{unblock}}; I've cleaned what I've found of it up, and after about the fourth one, I checkusered the accounts, determined them to be all from a single IP, and blocked it for six months. I don't expect any collateral damage (it appears to be fairly static) but just in case, it's 82.42.145.158. I strongly recommend against unblocking it unless a legitimate Wikipedian is affected; this vandal is having fun doing WOW moves and then causing trouble via thier talk pages once blocked. I don't doubt for a second they would try to instigate a wheel war over good-faith unblocking. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't even get this message saved before he was at it: User talk: 82.42.145.158. Strongly urge against unblocking. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the story doth get better! After being denied the unblock via the IP's talk page by User:Bookofjude, he's now attempting to use a doppelganger, User talk:Sunholm1 to deceive someone into unblocking him. Why deceive? Because if he posted it from his actual account, User talk:Sunholm, the unblocking admin might see http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Log/block?page=User:Sunholm and realize who he is and what he's been doing. (As User:Firefox did when denying the unblock).

At this point, I think there it's a good idea to discuss what to do with Sunholm & Sunholm1, as he's proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is the same user that has been doing the WOW vandalism; I held off on saying anything about those accounts because I had a strong feeling he would use them in a manner that would make a public connection between the WOW vandalism and the other accounts. I suggest indefblocks on both, but of course, yield to the judgment of the community. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please block indef. We don't need to deal with repeat vandals like this. Although I see Theresa has asked for an explanation, so I guess we'll wait and see what that is. pschemp | talk 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

. He may be an innocent user, but, at the moment, my hackles are up. But we should AGF for a bit and give him the chance to explain. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

. Theresa knott, Ive just explained about the situation on your talk page. hes a good user. we shouldnt upset him. people can and do use others pcs. and as for his ip being dynamic,

see http://www.by-users.co.uk/forums/?board=networkhelp&action=display&num=1101910618.

I dont like people upsetting users. the writing style of these wow impersonators is difrent too. --KarlaJoanne 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

btw sun holm is not like user:poolguy he seems to be good editor. i am probably what you call 'mete puppet' and think we should not complain. sunholm is not vandal. see notices on talk page for info. btw he is good user. see WP:ER on editor review it is chance to give sun holm some feedback. may be i am right. please try and see positive light of situation rather than try accuse him of being vandal. he is not sock puppet of any one. he has alternate account for if he use public terminals (which he does in frequently). i would hope u could be nice to him. he isnt wow whoever wow might be. oh and as for how he baned wow from his pc. well u just delete user using administrator acount in windows xp. can we try and be nice 2 sunholm? --KarlaJoanne 14:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you take us to be complete idiots! Ditch this sock, come back as your regular account and explain yourself properly. Using a sockpuppet account to back up protestations of innocence w.r.t. creating vandalising socks is just stupid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

but i am not sun holm. check writing style. theres a kn ott i am on diferent ip to sun holm. writing style is completly diferent. i am 'mete puppet' if yu think this of me. it is not protestation of inocence just resoning for why he is the way he is. he is gud contributor. --KarlaJoanne 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm srry bot makeiing multeeple speelng misteaks dows not meen u r a diferrnt preson. Wee ar'e not stupeed. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts WP:PA WP:NPA WP:NOPA

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not the contributors. Users that make ad hominem attacks may face blocking and banning.

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans.

What is considered to be a personal attack?

• WP:NPA#WHATIS
• WP:WIAPA
• WP:ADHOM
• WP:ADHOMINEM

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

• Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, "You're a railfan so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, be aware that speculation regarding the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.
• Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.
• Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
• Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people. (See also Godwin's law.)
• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
• Threats, including, but not limited to:
  • Threats of legal action
  • Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
  • Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other persecution by a government, their employer, or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.
  • Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

Why personal attacks are harmful

Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.

Contributors often wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Through reasoned debate, contributors can synthesize these views into a single article, and this creates a better, more neutral article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community—we are all Wikipedians.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Avoiding personal attacks

• WP:AVOIDYOU

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. However, "The statement..." or "The paragraph inserted..." is less likely to be misinterpreted as a personal attack because it avoids referring to the other editor in the second person. "The paragraph inserted here into the article looks like original research" is especially advantageous because the diff cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).

Editors should be civil and adhere to good etiquette when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)

Responding to personal attacks

First offenses and isolated incidents

Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact. Additionally, because Misplaced Pages discussions are in a text-only medium, nuances and emotions are often conveyed poorly, which can easily lead to misunderstanding (see Emotions in virtual communication). While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others, if it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia.

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although warning templates may be used for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation may be better received. If possible, try to find a compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior.

Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Misplaced Pages noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack.

Recurring attacks

Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required.

Removal of personal attacks

• WP:RPA

Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. However, there is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Misplaced Pages editors (outing), go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be removed for the benefit of the community and the project whether or not they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate.

Off-wiki attacks

Misplaced Pages cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

External links

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, privacy violations, or threats of physical violence against any persons who edit Misplaced Pages, including those who edit for the purpose of attacking another editor, is never acceptable. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. The inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment.

The interpretation of this rule is complex. See Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment for guidance on interpretation.

Consequences of personal attacks

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruptive. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment: a block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

See also

Misplaced Pages policies and information pages

• Attack page
• Casting aspersions
• Dispute resolution § Resolving user conduct disputes
• Harassment
• Libel

Misplaced Pages essays

• Avoid personal remarks
• WikiBullying
• Candor
• Competence is required
• Do not insult the vandals
• On privacy, confidentiality and discretion
• Staying cool when the editing gets hot
• Gravedancing

Related content

• Wikimedia Foundation:Non-discrimination policy

- btw, sun holm is diffrent prson to me. i am on difrent ip. check user me if u wnt prf. --KarlaJoanne 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the personal attack I am supposed to be making and please explain this edit Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

accusing me of being sock puppet. as for edit i made on sun holm talk page it was because i am not new user. i used to edit as invisible anon from various ip addresses. some contribs were gud others wr not. theresa knott thes r the facts. --KarlaJoanne 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So you don't know him personally then? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

i do know sun holm personally. he is gud person. he make good contrbutions relating to car articels on wikipedia. see his mainspce contrbs for mroe info. --KarlaJoanne 15:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case, go tell him to come here himself, as his sockpuppet is just making things worse for him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:ER#User:Sunholm to discus user. --KarlaJoanne 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No i think we'd better discuss him here. He has been accused of being WoW after all, this is a higher profile page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Karla cannot decide whether she should misspell 'good' as 'gud' or not (second paragraph up). She also has prior knowledge of Misplaced Pages (knowing not only about our personal attack policy, but its shortcut, WP:NPA, as well as CheckUser), and her previous edits are very suspcious. I can't decide whether to block now or whether this is worth CheckUser's time. --Sam Blanning 15:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"KarlaJoanne" ain't going to do much more chatting here, I've blocked "her" indefinitely as a transparent sockpuppet. Just look at the history of contribs, including to Sunfazr's RFA. Sunfazr was the old account name of Sunholm, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I thnk we need to block all the other accounts associated with this user, including sunfazer, sunholm and two others i can't remember off the top of my head as being WoW socks. I'll do it in a little while unless anyone objects Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Morven has been involved in multiple blocks of IPs also used by Sunholm which are always coincidentally used by vandals also. There have also been numerous assurances made that the vandalism will stop. (e.g. User:82.42.237.114). It is also interesting to note that it was Sunholm who Cyde blocked as a bot when removing WoW from the list of permenantly banned users... --pgk 18:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked them all Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I apprecaite everyone keeping on top of this while I was asleep. (By the way, I answered Theresa's question on my talk page, if anyone was waiting for an answer to that.) There is an open checkuser request on WOW at RFCU that Mackensen has been dealing with; it just mentioned Blueyonder, the same ISP, so perhaps he may have useful information as well. Something tells me this isn't going to be the end of it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Need help on how to call deletion review for What Really Happened

An article on the website What Really Happened was deleted after an extensive debate in which no consensus was reached. I am seeking assistance in reviewing the deletion debate and potentially restoring the page should administrators agree that the deletion is unwarranted. Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd nomination). Tiamut 10:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take your request to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Although I don't think you will have any luck - my first impression is that the deletion was entirely in process, and correctly ignored the basket of sockpuppets that decended on the discussion. Proto///type 10:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Long IP block, please review

After a 3-month block by Hall Monitor, 195.92.163.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned on June30 and resumed with the childish graffiti. Never a good edit. An unwatched machine in a school, perhaps? (My whois skills won't get it to resolve; it could be all the schools in the Home Counties, I suppose.) Why keep this poop conduit connected to the wiki? On the assumption that HM knew what he was doing, I've blocked for another 3 months. Could somebody please review, check up on who's affected, and unblock if indicated? I'd really appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

• If no one was affected by the initial block, I doubt a new one will cause problems. - Mgm| 11:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Fine by me. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• WHOIS gets that it is a company called Energis, a telecom company. Abuse can go to abuseenergiscom. Three months seems fine. Iolakana| 12:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, thank you all very much. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Linkspam

User:143.167.143.177 has been spamming links to his own personal website. It's about Stanley Kubrick's cinematography, but he's been putting it even on articles of actors in Kubrick films. I warned him and removed the links, but he put them back. CRCulver 12:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Warned the user, using {{spam4}}. Not much action can be taken, and there is the odd good faith edit. I'll keep a look out. Iolakana| 12:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy

If there are no objections I am going to indefinately block User:Mywayyy for consistent block evasion and disruption. He has been warned many times and appears to have no useful contributions. Before I go ahead and do it, I'll give people some option to object. - FrancisTyers · 13:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment from interested party: See background information here. Problem is: He seems to think that he can wear his opponents down by sheer persistence until people get tired and let him have his way. As long as he believes that and he is determined to disrupt, it will be difficult to stop him. In addition to a long-term block/ban, I'd suggest considering:

• Semi-protect the most affected articles (currently Kalymnos, Samothrace, Simi, Tilos, Chios, Mytilene)
• And/or establish a routine of short-term range blocks of range 88.218.32.0/19, in addition to 24-hour blocks of each new block-evading IP as they come in (reports and fast response through WP:AIV).
• Carrot-and-stick: Give him an offer to come back under a strict topic-specific 0-reverts parole, until he has successfully sought dispute resolution and reached a consensus with other editors. Otherwise give him an unmistakable message he will be treated as a banned vandal forever.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i didn'r realise this conversation was here and I've gone and indefinately blocked him. The way i see it it. He has made no attempt whatsoever to even try and work with others, and his blatent evading of blocks cannot be tolerted. I've semiprotected most of the articles concerned to stop the edit warring. I am willing to protect as many as necessary - just let me know of any that I have missed.

If people feel that he can be reigned in then unblock with my blessing, but i feel he should be community banned and be done with it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to go ahead, but looks like you beat me too it :) No complaints here. - FrancisTyers · 11:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think his indefinate block would be a great loss for the community; especially, considering the costant bad faith displayed through his endless block evasions; and even his other edits appear to be of doubtful quality.--Aldux 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also not aware of this discussion here, so i left a comment on his talk page (as i was requested to do, with all the good faith), and also expressed my opinion on the matter in Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. Theresa Knott, i think u exagerrated in permabanning him, but i won't make it seem a big deal... --Hectorian 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Goodandevil/User:136.215.251.179

User:136.215.251.179, a sockpuppet of User:Goodandevil, was checkused and supposedly blocked indefinitely on 4 July 2006, but was somehow able to post on the Ann Coulter discussion page on 5 July 2006. Technical error with the checkuse script? J.R. Hercules 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any trace of his block in his log. -- Grafikm 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the checkuse script automatically block an IP, or does the blocking need to be done manually? Maybe the user accidentally slipped through the "to block" list. J.R. Hercules 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no "to block" list on CheckUser. It is the responsibility of the person who requested the CheckUser to make sure that some sort of action is taken based on the results. Usually it's good enough to contact an active administrator and post a link back to the confirmed results on the CheckUser page. --Cyde↔Weys 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Georgewiliamherbert and Todd Bridges

Georgewiliamherbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Todd Bridges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are currently the subject of a checkuser request for edit warring on Talk:Gorilla. Georgewilliamherbert's very first edit was vandalism against Mystic's userpage, plus the edit warring indicates this is a role account for vandalism and/or trolling. Todd Bridges is obviously a username vio. I suggest both accounts be indef blocked. Thatcher131 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• After looking into the situation further I wonder if they might both be socks for Biff loman9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was indef blocked for using socks and making personal attacks. Thatcher131 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, editorial commentaries fit the pattern. Todd Bridges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s editing pattern/topics edited in particular strongly suggests he's a sockpuppet of Biff loman9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Netscott 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• As a side issue, both are inappropriate user names (famous and infamous people). Geogre 18:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note Georgewiliamherbert (talk · contribs) != Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs); the later is a nice respectable chap. I've blocked as an inappropriate username. Shimgray | talk | 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, our eyes play tricks that the vandals design upon us. George William Herbert doesn't have to be the GWH, after all. As for Todd Bridges, I imagine it's like Michael Bolton in Office Space: anyone with the actual name is being encouraged not to use it anymore. Geogre 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm baffled - who is the GWH? GWH is the GWH I knew of from Usenet, as far as I can tell, but calling him (in)famous seems a bit unexpected... Shimgray | talk | 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm the same George from Usenet. I am a decendant of the poet, but not he (and certainly neither 414 years old nor usefully poetic...). I am most certainly enthusiastically not this User:Georgewiliamherbert one-L impostor account, and I greatly appreciate Shimgray's having blocked them for the obvious impostor username. I am sort of curious as to which kook was scattered out of the woodwork enough to do these two sock accounts and start attacking people. I wonder if this was related to my posts on unblock-en-l.

I strenuously object to any assertion that I can't use a WP editor name of my real name, even if one of my ancestors has a WP article. Georgewilliamherbert 02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • As an additional point of information, 70.53.111.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vandalized my homepage, and complained about User:ThuranX last night, and reverted a warning on User talk:Todd Bridges. Looks sorta suspicious. Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with more than one person having their own account on a single computer - it certainly does not mean they're all the same person. I also do not believe it is true that any attacking of people has gone on. Certainly not by me, certainly not by the others. The name Georgewiliamherbert was actually taken from some guy on Amazon who made a list. I don't know if it's the same guy as here, he says he's from Oakland, CA. The vandalism that was done in his name, as he told the person vandalized, was done while he was away from the computer. Other than that, I don't think any of us has done anything wrong. ThuranX, however, has committed vandalism. All you need to do is look on the Gorilla talk page history, and his own talk page. Todd Bridges 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • George Herbert. I don't think there's much likelihood of confusion. · rodii · 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no vandalism by me of the Gorilla talk page. That was done by ThuranX (who should be investigated), and it was reverted by UtherSRG (and he was right to do so). I have never heard of George William Herbert. The name Todd Bridges is probably possessed by a number of people. Besides, he's not exactly famous famous. I'm surprised it wasn't already taken. Do whatever checks you want, you'll find no connection between me and those other users. Also, I don't believe I've committed any vandalism. I've looked back through my contributions and can find nothing - not even anything to support the "general incivility" charge one user levelled against me. Todd Bridges 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Checkuser confirms that user:Georgewiliamherbert, user:Todd Bridges and user:Mr. Conky are all the same person. Thatcher131 11:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That's a lie. We are certainly not the same person. Why don't you do something useful, and investigate ThuranX? Todd Bridges 12:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Essjay also confirmed that you are both likely socks of Biff loman9 . Thatcher131 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add fuel to the fire... Just 7 minutes after User:Todd Bridges made the "Oh, we stole the name off an Amazon booklist" comment above, the one-L User:Georgewiliamherbert account made the same claim on his/her talk page. Survey says... socks! Not that that wasn't clearly evident and obvious a couple of days ago. But that they keep doing dumb stuff and incriminating themselves is indicative.

For what it's worth, that is indeed my booklist. I would be happy to add an appropriate item, such as Bedtime for Bonzo, to the list temporarily if anyone desparately needs me to prove it's me. What this impersonator thought they were doing grabbing names off an Amazon wish list is bizarre. Georgewilliamherbert 02:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Luka Jačov repeatedly removing a {{PUIdisputed}} tag on an image page

The image in question is Image:Kuzma.jpg. I'm not sure if that qualifies as vandalism, so I'm referring to this page. User:Luka Jačov removes the {{PUIdisputed}} which says the image is listed on Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images for some reason. It is in fact listed there, but he claims to have received a permission (he has not shown it despite my constant requests).

I was even blocked for 12h by User:Jaranda in connection to this activity of Jačov. Jaranda may have been very likely mislead by Luka Jačov. I first reported Jačov's 3RR (four reverts), then he reported me claiming I had made six reverts, when in fact they were three (this can clearly be seen), the other three he listed being other edits to the page. What's more, I wouldn't have ever made a fourth edit, because this would mean breaking the rule, and I'm perfectly aware of it.

In addition to this, he keeps inserting several images (Image:Pasadur.jpg and the already mentioned Image:Kuzma.jpg) with undetermined copyright status to the FA Lastovo. Due to copyvio issues, the article's appearance on the Main Page was postponed until they're solved, but this has proven to be very hard. Jačov claims to have received permissions (and has indeed received one for a text) and keeps inserting the photos without being able to prove them being free (presumably for now, until the licenses are shown). His attitude to copyrights can be made clear by this statement: 'i come from country where we dont care about copyrights'. Todor→Bozhinov 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Abdelkweli

This is going to vague but (and I'm clearly I'm not assuming Good faith) I need the advice of some old lags. I first encountered this user when I noticed that his userpage was full of fake awards and the like (Claim of 2,500 edits, claim of Vandalproof usage). Besides some interaction on a couple of list articles - his whole presence seems to be about promoting a barnstar award he's come up with and he's now started adding it to various category lists (which I have removed because if we allowed people to advertise their barnstar awards all over the place we would soon be in a real mess). My previous interactions with him have been frosty (it does not help that I have been systematically removing content from the French-american article he created because it seems to be mostly OR), so frankly I'm loathe to get into with him on his talkpage. What's the best way to proceed?

--Charlesknight 16:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Charlesknight

I know this is the good place but I'm not so sure about what we should do with User:Charlesknight. I first "met" this guy when I set up my profile. Before I could remove the userboxes that didnt concern me (2,500 edits, Vandalproof user), this guy emailed me wandering why I had these icons(though I didn't how it worked). So I kindly asked him how it worked, (I even had trouble discussing on talk pages) and before he could answer me he vandalized my page. Now I've contributed to many articles and he keeps vandalizing my contributions. As I'm trying to be more and more involved to improve wikipedia I find myself with a weight that drags me down. Actually he motivates me to keep on improving wikipedia a website that I so admire for its real freespeech. Anyway I dont wanna have to deal with him again on his talk page, cuz all he does is remain silent and vandalize. Should I block him or warn him? I've tried once warn him but he didnt understand why he had been warned. Please let me know, I'm in desperate need of help to help this poor fellow. --Abdelkweli 16:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ok Debate about my actions and methods I'm quite willing to take - out and out lies are quite different. All I am going to say - my user history and my interactions on the talkpages speak for itself. --Charlesknight 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, no, this ISN'T this place to bring this. Second of all, removing a VandalProof template when you're not approved to use VandalProof is hardly vandalism. Take it to mediation. --InShaneee 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

he could have given me time to breathe... I was a newbie, don't bite. Charlesknight is an angry person, he should calm down. Misplaced Pages is about contributing not expressing hatred or other forms of non-physical violence. Take care --Abdelkweli 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone an 'angry person' and accusing them of 'expressing hatred' instead of contributing isn't helping, either. Both of you need to take a deep breath. --InShaneee 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ok now can you tell me who tried to impersonate me creating abdeikweli for AbdeIkweli and vandalized pages. It's interesting to see that the person who did that kept talking about me and charlesknight "verbal fight". Abdelkweli 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to do with this discussion. --InShaneee 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Help Needed

I new here and Yom keeps leaving VERY offensive messages on my talk page! HELP!!! Atlas151 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's clear User:Atlas151 unsuccessfully tries to impersonate those two users. His contributions and his talk's edit history show that he leaves the messages himself and only adds the guys' signatures. Todor→Bozhinov 17:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I'm blocking him for trolling (if he hasn't been already). Sasquatch t|c 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He's lucky - you got in with a 24 hour block just before I put a week's block on him. So the 24 hour one will stand. --ajn (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well, I'm in a nice mood right now. But I think we'll all be watching his return. Sasquatch t|c 17:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hay, I'm in a good mood too, so I'll stay unblocked! Atlas 152 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think not. User:Zoe| 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As a result of that last edit, I've unblocked Atlas 151 and reblocked indefinitely. User:Zoe| 19:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SO WHAT! I DONT CARE! Atlas153 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo

For those that haven't encountered him yet, General Tojo is one of Misplaced Pages's more persistent and prolific sock-puppeteers with ovr 60 different sock-puppet accounts.

• General Tojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of General Tojo
• Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of General_Tojo

However, things have sunk to new low today with General Tojo threatening to undermine the work of three editors today including Andrew73, Chris_73 and myself. He has also harassed Jfdwolff and PaulWicks. This was one of the threats General Tojo sent out today:

GENERAL TOJO WAS HERE

I have started reverting everything you have ever added to Misplaced Pages from the outset. It is not being done by obvious means. A large variety of names will be used. Instead of being obvious by just reverting, the actual wording is being changed bit by bit. This will teach you to avoid reverting my contributions based on your own personal malice and emotional inadequacies. This will go on for several days at a time, and will be resumed every time you revert what I have added. Rather than care about adding information that is useful for people, you obviously only care about your own self sentred ego. --General Tojo 2 14:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

General Tojo also openly gloats about his ability to create more accounts at will from within the 88.104.0.0/13 IP block and taunts administrators over possible collateral damage such as here and has also threatened to escalate his attacks on Misplaced Pages. In the last 24 hours, he has used 6 different accounts to revert Parkinson's_disease () to his own version.

Background: It's suspected that the true identity of General Tojo is a biochemist in London by the name of Keith Bridgeman, who holds a patent on a drug called dopavite. His edits to Parkinson's disease are used to promote his view that dopavite can be used to treat the disease, however this form of treatment has yet to be accepted by the wider medical community. One of General Tojo's known sock puppets was "Viartis". This username has been banned (apparently for being disruptive) from the neurology, forum BrainTalk Communities (Dan: could you please elaborate?). "Viartis" also runs his own "Parkinson's Disease Forum" at http://p4.forumforfree.com/ which seems to support General Tojo's views on the treatment of Parkinson's.

I have seen the discussions on BrainTalk after another user - JD, I think - tipped me off and I did a search. However, I wasn't there during the actual events that led to his being banned, but I believe Paul was. From what I could see, it appears he was banned for behavior similar to what we've been seeing. Oh, and something I forgot - he also used the username "Keith Bridgeman" on BrainTalk --Dan 19:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Three days ago, I noticed the newly created article Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease being used to spamdex http://p4.forumforfree.com/ which led to the following AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Toxic_causes_of_Parkinson's_Disease. Since then the situation has further escalated with General Tojo making personal attacks and threats against anyone who has spoken out against him or reverted his changes.

For the last month or two, General Tojo has become an increasingly erratic and time-consuming problem to deal with. He's now tying down the resources of at least five editors who now have to be constantly vigilant against his edit-warring and sock puppets. We really do need stronger action to be taken against him now that he taken to making threats.

--  Netsnipe    18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should write to his ISP in an official capacity. This is a web-wide troll. No ISP likes its whole userbase discredited due to the behaviour of one loose cannon. JFW | T@lk 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to block Strand_58 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) indefinitely. — getcrunk what?! 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever it is who insists on typing in bold with multiple exclamation marks needs to be blocked on that basis alone. Tom Harrison 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment This user is unusually disruptive with his multitude of sock puppets and outright refusal to behave appropriately. While I concede that he may have the potential to contribute something useful here and there given his knowledge of the area, his interactional style is extremely challenging and overshadows whatever positive contributions he may hope to make. Plus, he has a tendency to launch some off-color diatribes here and there as an anonymous IP, e.g. by Bio Doc, a likely sock puppet. Andrew73 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yes, it hasn't been all that fun a time. Several comments could be interpreted as veiled threats:

• "4. Poor Wimpy. Fresh out of college yet he thinks he knows the subject. Delusion is a terrible thing. See you soon Wimpy."
• "I wrote to Paul Wicks that instead of being a fresh out of college student he got about 20 years of experience, that then maybe he could start assuming some degree of expertise. However, if I see mistreatment or abuses of petty power, I will show those abusers precisely how powerless they are and precisely what extremes can be gone to."
• "You're the troll Wicksy. I've seen your photograph on the Internet. You look a complete wimp. I am far bigger than you emotionally, intellectually and physically. How about you meet me face to face to see how ready you'd be to run me down to my face ? If you don't take up my invitation you will prove yourslef to be the complete COWARD that you are. You're just another keyboard coward that the Internet unfortunately breeds. Too frightened to say anything to anyone's face you only say it from a distance. I know exactly where you are and what you look like. I am quite near to you. How about I turn up unnannounced and ask you to repeat what you write to my face. We'd then see what a pathetic COWARD you are. You're only a fresh out of college student who has already proven what a complete novice he is with the complete garbage you write. General Tojo"

I've got 2.5 years to run on my contract with the Parkinson's Disease Society during which time I hope to improve the PD article significantly. Once we've gotten this mess sorted out I'm looking forward to working with all of the outstanding individuals that have galvanised together over the past few weeks. --PaulWicks 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh Tojo is an very annoying troll but I remember a same 88 IP severely trolling the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki page a while back and I'm very sure is the same person. See User:Japanese historian, a Tojo sock contribs. Thanks Jaranda 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Which IP's is he editing from. There are some mentionings of 88.104.0.0/13, but there is also vandalism coming from 88.106.xx.xx. Are there other IP's he is editing from, and are there many other legitimate users on these IP's? -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we blacklist http://p4.forumforfree.com so it won't keep being spammed? Proto///type 13:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo 10 (talk · contribs) seems to be an account created for the express purpose of reverting edits by Chris 73 (talk · contribs); recommend a block. Isopropyl 13:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people have been checking out the facts but obviously not thoroughly enough. Keith Bridgeman was killed in a car accident in 2005. He qualified as a doctor of medicine not as a biochemist. He sold all his patent rights over three years ago. --&£$%;?@!!! 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) &£$%;?@!!! is a suspected sock puppet or impersonator of General Tojo. Floriana (talk · contribs) is another sock puppet that should be blocked.

User:Rafaelvasquez should be blocked

User:Rafaelvasquez has been creating and reverting bogus articles on Joshua Barbera and other animation people and characters. Appropriate warnings have been left on the user's talk page. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've undone the nonsense, and I'll be keeping an eye on things. --ajn (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IP sock of banned user

84.223.152.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be the IP of banned user Brian G. Wilson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His only edits are related to the user page of the blocked user, and even requested that the User and talk pages be deleted at WP:AN as seen here. Ryulong 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked that IP for a week. I've also blocked Sky-surfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Brian G. Wilson (based on contributions evidence, and he admitted it to me in an email). In his email he also said he's using other sockpuppets, I suggest people keep a look out for them... Petros471 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Sky-surfer and B G Wilson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here on July 1. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive115#Brian_G._Wilson_apparently_evading_block. —mjb 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Request

Mike Garcia must be banned for trolling, vandalism, harassment, inaccurate edits. He is not as valuable as Hephaestos, who went away because of him. Zzzzz 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this user from vandalizing my talk page and Hephaestos'. I just sent him a message on his talk page why he is doing this. Mike Garcia 21:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares why he's doing it? I've blocked him for trolling.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to bring to the administrators attention that Zzzzz has filled his talk page with {{unblock}} accompanied by the edit summary "FUCK YOU! WIKIPEDIA ISN'T KNOWLEDGE IT IS SHIT!" Ryulong 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page since he was continuing his trolling there. No reason we have to put up with this. Antandrus (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Either a sleeper account or one that has been compromised. User:Zoe| 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that Zzzzz account might have been hijacked, he was an excellent editor who wrote 5 or 6 Featured articles, something that any troll won't do. I'm in big shock about this. Thanks Jaranda 01:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Zzzzz (Talk | contribs | block) moved User:Zzzzz to User:Johnny the Password Cracker" kinda looks like a hijack. --Conti|✉ 01:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I told Zzzzz to email me in his talk page to sort this out, fucking Johnny the Vandal likely hijacked that account, I'll try to deal with the situation, maybe a checkuser is in place. Thanks Jaranda 02:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I told User:Rebecca in IRC to do a checkuser for Zzzzz account, and comfirmed the highjacking, Zzzzz Ip is a major one in the US while the vandalism came from an IP in Italy, this is bad. Thanks Jaranda 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't he change his password? Mo-Al 02:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be accurate and as Zzzzz didn't do these actions, I have unblocked and reblocked indefinitely as "compromised account per AN/I and checkuser - temporary block until situation is fixed by the real Zzzzz." For the record, and all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing the real Zzzzz can do to fix the situation, is there? The hacker would have probably changed his account's password. Kimchi.sg 07:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If he can convince us that he is he (email, IP address, etc.) then his account password should be reset to allow him to regain control. If there is no way for an administrator to do it then a developer (I suppose) would have to do it and I would recommend adding a feature for it. —Quarl 2006-07-06 07:51Z

There isn't a method for administrators to do this, and I don't believe the developers are willing to do so for security reasons. There are Mediawiki extensions available (and it would be no problem for the developers to create one of their own) to do password resets, but the problem is that a) it can be abused very easily if given to the wrong people, and b) it's nearly impossible to be certain the person requesting the reset password is the real user. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This guy's password is "zzzz", for example ZZZZ 10:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This account ZZZZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have been hacked as well (or, as the vandal seemed to indicate, the password was simply the username), and was used to do some page move vandalism. This account has been blocked indefinately, I suppose until the user can convince us somehow that he has regained control. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Update in the case of User:ZZZZ: Checkuser confirmed that the account was indeed compromised. However, since ZZZZ had not set an email address, we have no way to get in contact with him, confirm that the password has been changed, or even confirm that we're talking to him and not the vandal. Therefore the account was blocked indefinitely as compromised. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a textbook case of an incredibly weak password. If Zzzzz wants to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages he's going to have to make a new account and use a strong password this time consisting of a random combination of letters (both uppercase and lowercase), numbers, and punctuation. For example (don't use this!), sh0G/3Wb9# would be a good password. --Cyde↔Weys 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You bastard, now I have to change my password--Sh0G3Wb9 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked per email I got with Zzzzz, he did had a very very weak password and he now changed it. Thanks Jaranda 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

angry nationalist in need of admonition

-- the Nazi Krauts parading around Misplaced Pages John-Cleese-style are (but for the beam in "Netaji"'s eye) Paul Barlow (talk · contribs) and myself; thanks, dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

please review by emergency admin action, please

Could an admin please review the following. Feline1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had breached 3RR. A complaint had been registered. I was one of those involved in an edit war with him. No admin seemed to be available to deal with the situation. He reached 5 reverts with no intervention, while taunting other users that he could still keep reverting while they, obeying the rules, would not go beyond 3. To stop the situation spiralling out of control, as no other admin was available I intervened to impose a 24 hour block. I would not normally do so as I had been party to the edit war. However I believed that someone had to intervene quickly and no-one was available to. I am putting this message here to ask another admin to review my block and enable them if they wish revert it and then impose their own. As I said I would not normally do so but in this case in the absence of anyone else I felt I had to act. I would offer not to edit the page any more tonight until someone else reviews my actions, but it any case I have done 3 reverts. FearÉIREANN 23:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Commented on the 3RR page. Block looks appropriate to me. I especially appreciated the correctly done 3RR report. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ste4k being disruptive

Ste4k (talk · contribs) has been engaged in some very hostile and disruptive editing behavior on the articles Charles Buell Anderson (and likely others, such as Endeavor Academy and A Course in Miracles). For instance, he/she has removed multiple times from the section Charles Buell Anderson#See also a link to A Course in Miracles. As a look at http://www.endeavoracademy.com shows, this is the name of the primary text used by Anderson's organization, Endeavor Academy. Yet Ste4k has repeatedly removed that link, with bizarre edit summaries such as "See also - removing incorrect POV" and "See also - Removing POV again. Please ask if you don't understand the topic, thanks."

When I restored the link (because its relevance is rather blatantly obvious) Ste4k left a message on my user page alleging that I had added "unsourced information" that had not been "published by reputable sources" and carefully avoiding the fact that there was no "information" whose truth or falsity could be supported or debunked by "reputable sources", but rather a link in the "See also" section. Ste4k also added twenty articles to the "See also" section, including Nuclear weapon, District court, Heaven and Hell, asking that I explain how each one was irrelevant to the article (also accusing me of vandalism via a template inserted in his/her edit). When challenged to explain why those twenty links were relevant, Ste4k gave such rationales as:

• Nuclear weapon - "Another link to context regarding Anderson's landing with the marines on Nagasaki in 1945"
• District court - "Related to Anderson's involvment in litigation over A Course in Miracles"
• Heaven - "Related to Religious Figures"
• Hell - "Related to Religious Figures"

Ste4k ended with an extremely insulting postscript: "Please learn to study the subject before making blind edits, and please discuss your hopes to improve the page with other editors in discussion."

This is far from the only instance of Ste4k twisting policy and bending the facts in such a way as to make it impossible to believe that he/she is acting in good faith. He/she has initiated an AfD for Charles Buell Anderson in which he/she makes the claim that to write in the article that some of the couples who have attended Endeavor Academy have come away with complaints, based on segments of CBS's news show 48 Hours where they spoke with couples who have attended Endeavor Academy and have come away with complaints, would be original research. Someone needs to explain to Ste4k that wikilawyering and incivility of this sort are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Ste4k is apparently concurrently involved in multiple controversies. I have found written Ste4k a couple times about his AFDs. He likes to quote policies at well-established users (and administrators) who have much more experience than himself. In his defense, I think he is usually acting in good faith - just not communicating in a way compatible with Misplaced Pages. I would call him a "verifiability warrior"; he wishes to delete anything without (what he considers) reliable sources. (One disagreement I have with him is due to his wanting to delete entire articles if he didn't see citations in the article.) —Quarl 2006-07-06 07:43Z

I agree. This editor has been very aggressive. I can't tell if it's POV pushing, or just plain old pushing. A slower approach would help. -Will Beback 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k also wound up in a verifiability/notability dispute over A Course in Miracles (book) with Andrew Parodi, in which he solicited both a Third Opinion request and a Request for Comments on the article, then accused me of "deliberately starting an argument with me about topics I did not wish to discuss" when I provided a third opinion and some comments. The dispute, which went as far as an aborted mediation attempt, wound up apparently driving Andrew Parodi off of Misplaced Pages. I don't entirely blame Ste4k for that -- the dispute was somewhat poorly handled on all sides (including my attempt to mediate it), and Andrew's remarks seemed to have a habit of poking Ste4k with a sti(k rather than trying to actually resolve the conflict -- but it's another example of a very combative and disruptive style. Kickaha Ota 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Proto needs to stop speedily deleting rapid articles

I am in the process of re-creating several articles about Toronto Parks which were speedily deleted by the administrator User:Proto. The article deletion logs are here: