Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:51, 20 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

Community ban on User:Hogeye

User:Hogeye was blocked for a month for disruption on anarchism related articles. Since then he has been consistently and almost on a daily basis (although with notable and lengthy lulls) been using open proxies to evade his block. Ideally I'd like to see a ban and indefinite block put in place, but I'd settle for something that we don't have to reset the block every couple of days :)

20:15, 7 July 2006, Sarge Baldy (Talk) blocked Hogeye (contribs) (expires 20:15, 7 August 2006) (Unblock) (resetting due to ban evasion)

See the category here. Note that most of these are not sockpuppets in the conventional sense, but just open proxies that are being used to circumvent his block. - FrancisTyers · 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent most of my time on wikipedia yesterday reverting Hogeye's sock edits at Anarchism, so I am fully supportive of this proposal. Their socks also reverted changes I made to other articles recently, including this page, making three personal attacks in the process: , , and . This user constantly evades blocks and edits disruptively, and it's about time they get banned permanently. The Ungovernable Force 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As the one who protected the Anarchism article for a month while trying to make Hogeye discuss his changes (before the first month-long block), I would not oppose it. --cesarb 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They have a new sock: User:Drowner.--The Ungovernable Force 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• <sarcasm>Oppose; useful method for finding more open proxies to block.</sarcasm> Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: They will still use open proxies even after they are banned permanently, so it won't keep you from finding more. The Ungovernable Force 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell sarcasm in type. It was funny though. The Ungovernable Force 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning User:haham hanuka

I removed part of this users userpage becuase,imho, it violated the guideline at Misplaced Pages:User page (Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages) ; please also have a look here. I consider a block. Any comments? Lectonar 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the translation (which I had been waiting for before taking further action on this), I strongly support the removal of the material. There's no need for a block at this time, but the user should definitely not re-add the material. -- SCZenz 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The content has just been deleted through a formal procedure and he readds as if the community wasn't here. He should be blocked, as he has done this many times before and he was warned about his disrespect for our community decisions many times before. gidonb 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the was deleted at his request, not because of the MfD—and he hoped that adding it to his user page instead would be a compromise. It's clear the community wants it gone, even from his user page, so that isn't acceptable. But at this time, it has been removed from his userpage by Lectonar and not-readded; as long as he doesn't restore the material anywhere, no further action is necessary. -- SCZenz 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SCZenz: a block isn't appropriate at this time. There is a difference between re-adding because he's in a fight and re-adding after he's gotten multiple sets of administrative eyes. In the former case, the slow-ish dispute resolution process would need to take place. In the latter case, it's sort of a different set of offenses that can justify a block more quickly. (No, I'm not lawyering. I'm suggesting that the user can misunderstand some things, but not others.) Geogre 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the page was deleted through a regular procedure with which he agreed. In the meantime he has been blocked for a week for serious trolling on other AfDs. gidonb 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

reposting of thread User:SirIsaacBrock

Wjhonson reverting Kitty May Ellis stuff

Wjhonson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Hi guys, as a result of this deletion review, I changed my closure of this AfD (and deleted "Kitty May Ellis") and removed all quotations of her works from various articles. Wjhonson is reverting my edits. Now, I've already warned the user about revert-warring, but since I don't want to get into this revert war myself without knowing whether I'm in the right, I thought I'd make a note here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A deletion review that was not consensus. My article was a professionally-writen, complete and thoroughly-cited biography. A few attackers kept stating over and over the sources weren't verifiable, which is incorrect. Every source I used for the statements is verifiable and previously published in a reliable source. The deletion *review* came to an incorrect conclusion and there is no reason I should be penalized for trying to expand, valid and useful content on wikipedia. All the sources I used were posted to the article, and the quality was far superior, in my opinion, to the majority of biographies on here. And again every source is verifiable, the attackers took no attempt to even try to verify my sources. Wjhonson 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now, for the first time, been given the opportunity to read the this deletion review. I go to bed with KEEP, I wake up and everything I worked on for the past week — every single quote, every reference to this very notable person has been wiped by Deathphoenix. The sources are on wikisource, a sister project, and have been accepted there as documents of historical interest. Aside from that, I have posted portions of those quotes to various genealogical and history boards for the various communities and names mentioned, and each has expressed great interest in this source. And yet, one of the remarks on the review is that this person is not notable. It's relatively hard to reconcile the two positions. One person, a descendent of Chief Joseph wrote with profuse thanks that there is yet another source on her ancestor. The mere fact that a person is not universally known, is not a sufficient reason for stating that person is not *notable*. The notability page I would add, states that a person is also notable if they *should* be more widely known. If nothing else, this person should pass on that criteria. Wjhonson 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have some experience with genealogy. What are the links at wikisource so I can look it over? Never mind. This belongs on Wjohnson's talk page and DRV. Thatcher131 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment User:Wjhonson's conduct, the DRV should either be properly closed (and the old version possibly userfied?) as the closing admin has reverted his prior decision, or the history be restored until the DRV has run its course. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The DRV has been closed in favor of deletion. Without getting into a debate about the merits of the deletion, in the interests of tidying up, I'd like to remove all the redlinks to the now-(re)deleted article. I'm afraid, however, that another edit war will ensue. Any advice would be appreciated. Katr67 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

I ask for unblock on User:Panarjedde. The indefinite blocking was decided by User:Llywrch, who told me to come here.--151.47.76.121 01:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let your original 24 hour block expire, don't create sockpuppets, and those sockpuppets won't get banned. There is no reason to unblock Panarjedde, you were only using it to get around your original block. User:Zoe| 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I told him to go to Misplaced Pages:Changing username to change his username, because I placed an indefinite block on the user name he wanted to use. He wants to use a new user name because I put a 24-hour block on his original one, Panairjdde; an Admin there is welcome to perform the necessary acts to change matters if they felt I behaved unreasonably. (Although I advise anyone so inclined to research his history of behavior both before & after the block. I also told him not to petition Tony Sideway or David Gerard for help, because they aren't as nice as I am. My apologies if he has ignored my advice & contacted them.)

BTW, I had to block this IP address because it was used for edits to Misplaced Pages unrelated to the business of his original block. Why don't you stop digging your hole deeper? -- llywrch 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - Since he says he closed his "Panairjdde" account, I put an indef block on that one. He has also stated he is going to leave Misplaced Pages countless times -- yet keeps coming back. Any Admin who believes he will stay on Misplaced Pages -- & trusts him to make useful contributions -- is welcome to undo those blocks. But if you do this, I expect you to mentor this user (or find one for him) & assume responsibility for his actions. -- llywrch 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said countless times, User:Panairjdde account is closed. Nobody can logon & it is no longer "mine" or of anybody else (now also User:Panairjdde is blocked indefinitely). My account is User:Panarjedde, and is blocked indefinitely, not for 24 hours. Why are you blocking my account indefinitely? What is the reason?

Furhtemore, User:Llywrch blocked two accounts indefinitely. On what basis?--151.47.99.159 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you have also said several times that you are leaving Misplaced Pages, you obviously don't need two accounts. If you simply meant that you are closing one account, then it is clear that you did this only to avoid the block for disruption. Although I originally blocked the second account because it appeared you were misusing a sockpuppet, your language convinces me that the second possiblity -- that you are avoiding my block -- is more likely. The block follows the person, not the account. I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Misplaced Pages for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption -- convince another Admin to lift it.

Panairjdde, there's far more to life & the Internet than Misplaced Pages. Use this time & find out. -- llywrch 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Misplaced Pages for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption — If the penalty for "disruption" (and you have yet to show me where this disruption was, right?) is 24 hours long, why the block is indefinitely long?

convince another Admin to lift it. Yes, like I do not know that everywhere is written that and admin should be careful when unblocking other admins' blocks! This matter has been here for some days, yet it is still a matter between you and me.

And, please, please, stop this patronizing tone with me! altought I originally tought you were simply an over-zealous admin, your language convinces me that you actually enjoy your "power", exercising it here, maybe because...--151.47.83.98 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(delayed response) It's very simple: as Zoe wrote above, sit out for 24 hours, explicitly tell us which user name you are going to use, & as long as you behave you will not be blocked. -- llywrch 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: A new User:LimWRtacCHsua appeared yesterday, making edits to many of the same articles Panairjdde had, & the same edits. When I asked him directly whether he was Panairjdde, I failed to get a straight answer -- but LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case. I can put 2 & 2 together; account also blocked. The name id also suspicious, BTW. -- llywrch 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have problems: "LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case"?! You put on my talk page a link to all this matter, and I am oddly aware?! Next time you don't want people to learn something, don't show them!--151.47.115.171 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what kind of disruption happened here, but the blocking behaviour and explanation disturb me. Even though an indefinitely blocked user asks why the explicitly named account he wants to use is blocked and why indefinitely and he complains about the blocking admin and the fact that no other admin looks into the case he gets told by the same admin as before: "sit out for 24 hours, explicitly tell us which user name you are going to use, & as long as you behave you will not be blocked." And then you wonder why he comes back and has bad feelings? Socafan 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs):RfC

Is anybody here willing to help me fill a RfC agains JzG here? There are no pro-forma warnings on Misplaced Pages. There are warnings or no warnings. Pro-forma warnings are just a form of bullying. After I have proven, that the original reason for warning was removed even before the warning was placed, JzG is searching for new reasons (see his "it is still unacceptable.." comments) or calling the warning pro-forma. Now he is joking about the "cabal", disparaging my comments and complaints and clearly trying to irritate me with those comments. Azmoc 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You got a little warning. Lets order Global Thermonuclear War! --mboverload@ 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No way. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I got friggin BLOCKED for reasons that I thought were baseless. All I did was calmly ask for comment. Calm down. I know you feel wronged but in the end it's just a warning. --mboverload@ 13:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, if you got friggin BLOCKED for nothing, it is wrong. That's why I proposed the easy-gain-easy-lose adminship on the Village Pump. Azmoc 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you consider Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace to be an entire collection of pro-forma warnings? I would... -- ChrisO 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this even appropriate on this page? You've already made your complaint, now you want to escalate to an Rfc and you're issuing a blanket invitation for someone to second you? KillerChihuahua 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard he punched a baby too. KWH 06:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this particular case, but the attitude to shrug off complaints about abuse of adminship with derogatory comments and mock about "the cabal" is something I know from JzG, too, and I think it is in no way helpful to resolve disputes. An admin should know better that special rights come with a special responsibility. Socafan 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

Per the terms of his probation, Guy Montag has been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestaking is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --Leifern 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of bad faith. Furthermore, see, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see , so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: . Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --Leifern 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. SlimVirgin 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I share your concern. I do think Guy Montag should have discussed the move on the talk page before making it. Controversial articles are on many watchlists. Fred Bauder 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Devonshire

Carrying this over from User talk:Theresa knott, during a routine checkuser of vandal-account creations (in order to discover and block the IP, halting the creations) I discovered that User:Conrad Devonshire has been creating malicious vandal usernames for some time now. A small listing of said usernames is listed on Theresa's talk page; a relevant, and particularly indicative, snippet is:

04:57 User talk:Gwernol (2 changes; Page history)

m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Some usernames you might consider blocking...)

m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (Some usernames you might consider blocking...)

04:42 (User creation log)

04:42 (cur; last) . . Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong? (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:40 (cur; last) . . Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!! (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:39 (cur; last) . . FickenKont (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:38 (cur; last) . . Foot-long penis (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:37 (cur; last) . . A erection lasting longer than four hours (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:36 (cur; last) . . Vandalbot Alpha (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:34 User talk:Conrad Devonshire (diff; hist) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Brfx)

I reported the matter to the Arbitration Committee via thier private mailing list, in order to get a sanity check (though it's very obvious as checkuser results go) and for advice on how to proceed. I also requested that Conrad email me urgently; instead of doing so, he responded with a curt response that he did not pass out his email. Theresa made a similar request (as an Arbitrator) and was met repeatedly with a similar result, before being reluctantly provided with an address. His response, on her talk page, was less than satisfactory.

At this point, he's made it public, and the appropriate avenue to decide what to do is here. I count 18 usernames on three IPs (there are dozens more, those 18 were just handy); they are not, as he suggests, dopplegangers. Indeed, he warned one of them shortly after using it to vandalize: . Sadly, this sort of thing is all to common; this is at least twice in the last week that I've come across otherwise legitimate contriubutors engaging in vandalism via sockpuppets.

Ideas on what to do with Conrad are greatly appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is he creating vandal accounts so he can revert it himself and look like a great vandal fighter? Is it all obvious or is some of it insidious? Thatcher131 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he won't do it again, now that he knows everyone else knows.....is it worth punishing him with a block for something did in the past and probably won't do again? I don't know what prentitive measures arbcom could do anyway.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, were these accounts created on his IP or while he was logged in? I thought you couldn't create an account while logged in.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about this... but a post on ANI is got to be rather punishing in and of itself given the content we're seeing. Conrad Devonshire'll likely never hear the end of this. (→Netscott) 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, one gets the impression that you might be obligated to do quite a bit of work corresponding to all of these sockpuppets. If that is indeed the case then if for no other reason that alone should merit a good long block. (→Netscott) 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My thought was along the same lines. While posting to ANI might be punishment enough (depending on how badly he wants to be seen as a good wikipedian) I would rather see probation at the very least. However, only a checkuser would have the ability to monitor his probation (Essjay, Mackensen, and the members of Arbcom). So I say it should be up to them. Is there a checkuser willing to vouch for him? Thatcher131 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Responding to a few things (I went to dinner and the thread exploded!):

• As much as you'd think it wouldn't happen, it's not uncommon to see someone vandalizing and then cleaning up thier own mess. I don't know if it's some kind of guilt, or if it is because they want to elevate thier public image, but it happens too frequently.
• He may or may not do it again; I guarantee if he does it again he'll do it in a way that is much harder to detect. Rarely does ignoring the problem cause it to go away; it just cases it to hide deeper beneath the surface.
• You can create accounts while logged in, but it causes them to be logged under your name, as in "User:A created User:B" rather than just "created User:B". If you log out before doing it, or do it in a separate browser, then it doesn't do that. This is not a case of "someone else was on the IP at the time"; dynamic IPs do sometimes change, but they don't switch to a vandal for twenty minutes and then back to you, as shown above.
• There is a reasonable amount of work that goes into this, but it's what I'm here to do. My concern is that further problems be prevented, as each one of these accounts takes admin time to block, often multiple admin's time as they all simultaneously block, and the time of others to tag the accounts. Additionally, it takes checkuser time, as at least one checkuser (me) is actively checking accounts from these types of sprees in order to block the IPs and prevent further damage.
• I've yet to see any response from him on the subject, and certainly no remorse. Indeed, he has been very uncooperative so far, and I don't forsee a change in that. As I indicated above, I think if he's learned anything, it's to be smarter about his sockpuppetry. I'm not willing to spend the next year checking up on him constantly, and I doubt any of the other checkers have the time.

Beyond seeing that no further damage is done to Misplaced Pages, I'd like to know the community's take on this, and what they feel should be done; as I've said, I find it all too often, and if the community is unconcerned, then I will just keep it to myself from now on and not waste my or other's time with public reports. Essjay (Talk) 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should happen to Conrad, but I'd like to voice that things like this definitely need to be reported. These actions are damaging to Misplaced Pages, take up Misplaced Pages resources, and consume administrator time. An ANI thread is the very least we can do, and whatever response is decided to be taken, hopefully actions like this will be greatly discouraged in the future. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is definitely disruptive behavior, and a fairly long block is warranted. Enough time, for instance, that Conrad is forced to take a break from WP and, if he chooses to become active again later, will perhaps reevaluate the point of doing so. His behavior is very at-odds with our goal of creating an encyclopedia here. Mangojuice 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. how long is fairly long? pschemp | talk 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not less than 2 weeks or otherwise some amount per sock (like 4 hours) added up. (→Netscott) 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've alerted the user in question. We shouldn't assume that he'll find the thread, it's better to be frank with him and let him know.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ulp. I'm feeling a little uncomfortable about a remark of mine here: I start to think that WoW (and the like) and certain WP editors need each other as virus writers and virus "protection" merchants need each other. Which was written largely for CD's, er, benefit. He replied (I hope to the comment as a whole, and not merely this part): "I am beginning to see things your way." -- Hoary (mightily bored by vandals and trolls), 03:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Has he made any statement that this behavior will stop? He should in my opinion be blocked at least until he does so; certainly there is precedent for that -- for example the User:Wonderfool case from months and months ago. (Yes; such a promise is made under duress and may have little real value; but it's all we can do.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - I admit that it is true that I have been creating accounts. I am not going to play dumb or lie to you about it. I will explain, but not rationalise my reasons for doing so. One of my reasons is that which was mentioned, that it would give me an oppourtunity to show my willingness to fight vandalism by reporting them myself. Another is that I suffer from certain mental problems including schizophrenia. One symtom of my mental problems is that at times, certain thoughts which I find particularily inappropriate or unpleasant inter my mind and my mind cannot let go of them. By creating accounts with names that reflect these thoughts, it in a way has helped to isolate them from my mind. It is difficult for me to explain how this works, but doing so helped to relieve my mind of unpleasant thoughts. I also created accounts and/or made vandal edits in a few cases simply to see how efficiently Misplaced Pages would respond. But, as I said, I am not trying to rationalise what I have done. Though I mentioned having mental problems, I do have control over my own actions and could have found other ways to deal with my problems. And as for wanting to show my willingness to fight vandals, I should have done so by actually fighting vandals rather than inventing vandals to fight. I apologise for what I have done and promise to discontinue it immediately. Please note however that my contributions testify to my desire to be a respectable editor. I regret that I have perhaps permenantly damaged my reputation as a Misplaced Pages editor, but accept that I am to blame for it. I believe that I do deserve a block for this and shall take a break from editing whether I receive one or not.--Conrad Devonshire 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was very big of Conrad to come clean with the above, and I commend him for that. It must be quite difficult to have all of this aired under the public eye of ANI. However, it's pretty clear that his actions were egregious, and a punitive block in the range of one week is very much in order. -- Samir धर्म 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Conrad for your explanation and apology. It shows maturity. Personally I feel that you do need a block but I will not apply it myself as I am an arbitrator and I have been acting as an arbitrator in this incident. I feel that if I block you, the rest of the community will be reluctant to disagree with me and i don't want that to happen. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week per the above, pending further consensus here. -- Samir धर्म 08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block.--MONGO 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Echoed. Conrad is taking a Wikibreak; this is a good idea. Something tells me that the embarrassment will be enough to ensure no repeat. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Except we don't do punative blocks, right? - brenneman 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron here. I have followed this case carefully and see no reason for a block in the circumstances pertaining now. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how our wikisociety functions. Would a block be preventative if in enforcing one other users will not engage in such behavior (or alternatively if they are currently engaged in similar behavior now, stop)? I understand the logic for no block... but this individual has made quite a bit of work that others are forced to deal with. This should be a citable example for what to do in the future. (→Netscott) 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's another excellent reason to not block--some people might be tempted to block in similar circumstances in future. --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you and Brenneman are correct. To a certain extent at this point whether this user is blocked or not may be immaterial as he's decided to not edit on his own for some time... and if he indeed abides by that then a block'd be redundant (if we're talking strictly about preventative in the sense of this one user). I think in a similar situation in the future Essjay or an ArbCom member should be inclined to just immediately block and note the reasoning in the block log and then proceed to inform the community of the back story and if given an explanation and promise not to continue that is on an equivalent level as Conrad Devonshire's, then subsequently lift the block. Essentially in my view some sort of an easily verifiable history (ie: block log note) should accompany such behavior, no? (→Netscott) 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I find creating multiple inappropriate usernames a blockable offense whether it's preventive or not. It's something explicitly forbidden policy and caused multiple people a lot of work. Oh yeah, don't forget to block the all the accounts except for the main one. If he can control himself now he's shown he can own up, I have no problem if he edits in a week's time. - Mgm| 13:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  My approach to this is that I'd support a block if he presented an ongoing risk to the encyclopedia. While there might be an argument for blocking as a deterrent, this isn't compatible with our blocking policy. Moreover if we were seen to block someone who came clean and promised to stop, it would almost certainly deter other editors from coming clean about antisocial activities. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with the principles of Tony's reasoning (but I have no comments on the specific case at hand). Haukur 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think you can call this "coming clean". From Theresa's talk page I see first he claims it was a joke and dopplegangers, then insisting on not being treated as a villain until uncontrovertable evidence is provided. Only once shown he has been caught red-handed does he admit it and promise not to do it again. NoSeptember 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I think Conrad has resolved this quite well by taking a voluntary wikibreak. In the circumstances, I wouldn't object to an unblock with the annotation that the user is taking a short voluntary wikibreak in view of his bad faith actions. A block is also okay, but I think it's a little worrying in the circumstances where he has finally come completely clean. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. I reckon Tony's right. Is there any preventive action required? Sounds like there isn't. Is Conrad generally a problem editor? I'd say not, from an admittedly quick review of his contribs and Talk. Conrad has taken his punishment like a man and taken a voluntary Wikibreak; if he wants that to be enforced to avoid temptation then fine, otherwise it seems a bit - well, vindictive. Just zis Guy you know? 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am unblocking, based mostly on the range of opinions expressed in this thread (my gut feelings steer me to believe that punative blocks do have some utility). But when Tony and Aaron agree on something, it's probably a good rule of thumb that that something should be done. NoSeptember -- I agree the "coming clean" is unevaluatable at the least. Still, he'll pose just as much threat a week from now as now, so I don't believe the community agreeing to lift this one-week block is harmful. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that I've wasted my time a) checking up on the problem, b) sorting it out, c) notifying the Arbitration Committee, d) trying to resolve it with the user, e) reporting it here, and f) thinking anybody would care. There *is* a side to this besides "Oh poor Conrad, he's been naughty but we shouldn't hold it against him": There's the dozens of administrators and other RC patrolers that have been affected, there are the users who have been impersonated and/or attacked in these usernames, and there is the time of the Arbitration Committee any myself that has been wasted dealing with this. I think NoSeptember hit it on the head: He *didn't* come clean until he was *forced* to, and displayed defiance right up until he posted here with a miraculous change of heart, deep understanding of his conduct, and profound sorrow for the trouble he's caused. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced in the least; I think I understand now why so many of the longer-term checkusers have stopped doing this sort of thing: The end result is that nobody wants to do anything about it, and you've wasted several hours (about six, in this case) dealing with it. Essjay (Talk) 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In my opinion Conrad Devonshire is on final warning. I think that's enough of a result. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, why did you not just immediately block? (→Netscott) 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect for the same reason I generally don't immediately block when I find anomalies doing CheckUser: it's best to have another party verify your suspicions before going public with serious accusations. If I, as a CheckUser, block sua sponte based solely on CheckUser evidence, and someone complains, I am in the situation of having to justify my block with the reason "I have evidence that supports this block, but I cannot show it to you". This doesn't go over well. Having the evidence reviewed by other trustworthy individuals at least results in a united front before a block goes in, with multiple seemingly reasonable people who will stand behind it. If the other people won't stand behind it, then it would have been a bad idea to block in the first place, eh?

I view my role, when using CheckUser, as that of a security officer. It's my job to examine the evidence and report on what I find to others to decide what to do as a result of my findings. It's a way to increase accountability for a position which carries a great deal of trust and responsibility. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your fine detailed response makes good sense Kelly Martin thanks for sharing the logic there. What is your opinion on how Conrad Devonshire's case should be handled? (→Netscott) 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I believe prevention extends beyond the individual user concerned, the message we seem to be sending out here is that provided you apologise when caught then no problem. --pgk 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the message. Misplaced Pages is extremely generous with second chances. Unfortunately, consideration of the effects on other users is often neglected (as Essjay pointed out, or as in the case of the unblocking of Blu Aardvark and MSK). By unblocking him are we sending the signal that we are more interested in rehabilitating one part-time vandal than in respecting the efforts of dozens of vandal fighters? A long block or outright ban would send the message that his disruptive activities and their negative effects on others so outweigh his positive contributions that we would rather not have him around anymore. (On the other hand such a ban would be largely symbolic as there is no practical way of keeping Conrad from continuing to create more abusive accounts--he just couldn't get "credit" for reverting them anymore.) Thatcher131 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that is really the message, nor do I think Essjay has wasted his time, although I see where he is coming from. Bear in mind that blocking isn't the only consequence in play in this case; for example, Conrad Devonshire clearly had ambitions to become an admin and realistically that will not happen now. Alerting the community to this kind of fraud is very much a concrete result in of itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that if you apologise and stop then all should be forgiven. Call me a cynic but we only have his word that he is taking a wikibreak. For all we know he is happily editing (and trolling for that matter) with yet another sock. I don't think unblocking him was the best thing to do, it gives a rather wishy washy effect. A week was a very short block in the first place IMO and it should have stood unless there was overwhelming support here to undo it - which there wasn't. Having said that, what's done is done. I think he needs to be carefully watched and if he shows any sign of his past bad behaviour he needs to be community banned. If OTOH he stops fucking about he should be completely forgiven. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Can't say I'm pleased with the way this has evolved. We have a user who has made multiple vandal-only accounts, and has attempted to improve his cred by "reporting them". He also did not come clean when first approached about it. Heartfelt apologies or not, there must be something said on a community front that such behaviour is unacceptable. I think that entails a block. Call it punitive if you want. There was no consensus to undo the action -- Samir धर्म 22:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still support the block. Not to discredit the otherwise good work of Conrad, the rules need to be applied evenly to all. Essjay did the right thing. Conrad isn't necessarily eliminated from becoming an admin someday. Enduring a week long block and then returning to solid editing for a period of time will suffice.--MONGO 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'm restoring the week-long block, based on the evolving input here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment that we don't do punative blocks. We clearly do however do preventative blocks. We can support a block here while at the same time remembering that we're not "empowered" and don't hand out spankings. - brenneman 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to register my view ... I don't believe it when someone "reveals" that they have various mental illnesses as an excuse for their actions. It's too convenient. If they've been open about it from the get-go, and then later on they do something that might be a result of their illness I understand, but magically becoming schizophrenic when it's revealed you've made over a dozen abusive sockpuppets is too much. We're being played. --Cyde↔Weys 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well to be fair he does state on his user page that he has suffered from mental problems . 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting the one-week block. I find it short, and would have suggested a month, but I'm not now recommending we jerk the user around any more by changing the block length. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

I agree. Essjay saved us all some work by spotting this. Tom Harrison 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from his talk page and modified slightly) Uhh, sorry, looks like I am the only one who feels that Conrad's apology is next to meaningless, and that he deserves a very long term block. Actions speak louder than words. If we are going to endorse his apology which resulted from his vandalism fiasco, then we are basically saying that creating accounts and reporting them was constructive in the first place. In other words: creating damage can be nullified by certain actions. Sorry, I don't think so. And incidentally, on a personal note, the accounts that he kept creating are marginally funny after the "list of shock sites" debacle. I'm sure, however, they aren't funny to the people who had to remove them and delete them etc. If you want forgiveness, see a priest, as a Jew I believe in guilt :-) - Abscissa 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

Per the terms of his probation, Guy Montag has been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestaking is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --Leifern 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of bad faith. Furthermore, see, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see , so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: . Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --Leifern 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. SlimVirgin 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The ban was undone by User:Briangotts . -- Kim van der Linde 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested

On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin , and substantially rewrote the article . This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be Deir Yassin massacre. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: , , , , . Based on this, I reported him here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.

As I have been involved, I request that this move is reviewed by independent admins, and undone if they come to a different conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page has been moved back in the meanwhile by involved editors, however, I will move the page back if there is no objection of uninvolved admin's of the decision I described above. -- Kim van der Linde 12:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what you did on the Israel apartheid page(s): you moved pages using admin tools, even though you were directly involved in the dispute. Also, your accusations of vote-stacking could amount to no more than like-minded people arriving because they agreed with what was being done. Admins are not allowed to use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute they're involved in. SlimVirgin 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The incident SlimVirgin points at has been discussed here, seeMisplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#Admin_protecting.2C_then_editing_article. The votestaking was confirmed by an uninvolved admin, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. For the rest, I have posted my action here for review by uninvolved admins as it could be disputed, and if an univolved admin concludes that the move is invalid, I will move it back without hestitation. -- Kim van der Linde 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this, and I have concluded that the move was invalid, because you're involved in the dispute but used an admin tool to make the move. You acknowledged that you were involved in the dispute when you asked another admin to ban Guy Montag from the page. Therefore, please undo the move, and leave it for someone who has no connection with the article to decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider you uninvolved due to our disagreements at various other Israel-Palestine related articles, and the ongoing ArbCom case here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you're well out of order. You don't make me involved just because you choose to say so. SlimVirgin 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have moved it yourself, however it should be moved back. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to the original name Deir Yassin massacre or moved back from my move to the Battle of Deir Yassin? -- Kim van der Linde 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to Deir Yassin massacre. But you shouldn't do it and you shouldn't have done it. - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will not do it myself, but leave it to another admin to do it. -- Kim van der Linde 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back from your move. Please undo whatever it was you did. You posted for input, and you've been given input. Kindly don't ignore it. SlimVirgin 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to undo at the moment, as the page has been reverted back to Battle of Deir Yassin. However, the move revert war that has ensued may require further consideration, maybe even by the ArbCom. Pecher 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this dispute and I don't remember ever editing pages on the Middle-East - but I do have some experience carrying out moves requested on WP:RM. I think that Kim van der Linde should not have closed the debate herself, having taken part in it. In spite of that, having spent some time looking into this, I agree with her analysis. The vote solicitation by Guy Montag clearly tainted the vote. His original move was objected to almost immediately. The user is on probation for biased editing on articles of this kind. This all seems to speak fairly clearly to moving the article to the name it had at its creation and which it still had last month. I've seen no rebuttal to this - can anyone offer one? Sarah? Haukur 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, I have no opinion about the title, and don't know anything about the arguments. My only concern is that we're calling an editor's attempt to get help from other editors "vote-stacking," when editors are in fact encouraged to involve other people in disputes and polls. Had he posted to 50 talk pages, I can see the grounds for concern, but five seems legitimate enough to me, and the fact that he was doing it openly on talk pages is another factor in his favor. There's probably a guideline about this somewhere, so maybe I should look around. I'm also concerned about Kim's comment that "Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces ..." How could she know what these editors' preferences were regarding what to call the Deir Yassin battle/massacre, if they hadn't already commented on it; and if they had already commented, then why is she concerned about their involvement? SlimVirgin 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Very often you can make a good guess what opinion people will have on a given dispute and selectively contact those you think will agree with you. I know, I used to do this sort of thing back in my move-warring days... In this case Guy was, it seems, 100% successful in contacting the right people. The best way to bring attention to a vote is through noticeboards which anyone can watch. Haukur 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can think of several others who might have supported who he appears not to have contacted, so there doesn't seem to have been any kind of a concerted effort. SlimVirgin 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis and Haukur, I recognize that I should not have moved the article myself, but should have brought it to the attention of this noticeboard to start with. My judgement error on that part. My appologies for that. -- Kim van der Linde 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you did exactly the same thing on various pages related to Israeli apartheid (four times, I believe), and seeing the amount of trouble it has caused, it's hard to see how you could make the same mistake again and not realize. SlimVirgin 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See this log for the moves in question. -- Kim van der Linde 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The page should be moved back, and the move poll be taken there. Anyone else want to do it? - FrancisTyers · 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.

On another note, Kimv really seems to have an issue with using his administrative powers to gain an advantage in a dipute that he is a primary party to, while it is a step forward that he just admitted that he shouldn't have done it, I really must question his veracity considering the fact that in another post above he basically said that he didn't act inappropriately because people weren't "assuming good faith" whatever that means.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I think this is the type of situation that Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict (originally developed by Ed Poor and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."

Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically excluded from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.

The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Misplaced Pages entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible original research ("defining new terms"). Unfortunately it appears that the POV-pushers have taken over on this article; I think the page's move permissions will need to be locked and the case referred for arbitration. -- ChrisO 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of title that shouldn't be decided by a Google search, in my view, because of the number of highly POV sites that get included. What I do with contentious titles is try to find out what mainstream academics call it. Maybe that could be done here: try to find out what academic historians refer to it as? SlimVirgin 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help, I just did a Google Books search for the two terms. 56 books use "Deir Yassin massacre" and only one uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" (citing "a motion was put before the Jerusalem city council to honor the five Zionist patriots who "had fallen during the battle of Deir Yassin"." - the motion failed after a public outcry.) 142 books use the terms "Deir Yassin" and "massacre" in close proximity. Google Scholar returns 51 articles using "Deir Yassin massacre" and none at all using "Battle of Deir Yassin". All of the encyclopedia entries that I've found relating to Deir Yassin refer to the "massacre" at "Deir Yassin" (cites: Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable, A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present, A Dictionary of Political Biography, The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia). None refer to it as a "battle".

So it seems that the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" is not only little used but is associated with a specific, highly controversial POV - rather akin to calling the Srebrenica massacre the "Battle of Srebrenica", as some denialists are wont to do in that case. This seems a very clear-cut case of a non-mainstream term being adopted for presumably POV reasons. -- ChrisO 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have made a watertight case from a NPOV so unless anyone can find and equally strong verifiable rebuttal, this should be accepted, and the contention should cease. Naturally what people think it should be called is pure OR and irrelevant. We are looking for the commonly accepted term, the principle of least surprise. Tyrenius 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A "watertight case"? Are you serious? All he did was illustrate a pov, its not like someone can say that hey you can't disagree with him, can;t you see that my side has already made a watertight case? Anyways it is irrelevent what the majority of people call the incident, what matters is that we chose a title that does not favor any pov, I am not saying that "battle of Deir Yassin" is completly npov I am just saying that the "Deir Yassin Massacre" really isn't npov either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll go ahead and move the page back, citing this discussion. Haukur 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, you might want to move protect the page after that to avoid a new move war. -- Kim van der Linde 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if someone else did that. Haukur 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe a move war is forthcoming Kim as long as you stay out of it. I reverted your initial move because of your completely unacceptable behaviour there. If Guy Montag's initial move was done without consensus, then it should have been reverted, and done so swiftly. You starting a poll on the matter, rejecting the legitimacy of the results when they failed to go your way, and then making an out of process move however, was farcical, especially given your current involvement in an ArbComm case on this very same matter. The move war was not the result the intractability of the issue, but rather a response to your complete lack of standing to make the aforementioned move. This entire move war could have been avoided if you had bothered to act in a way even vaguely resembling what is to be expected of admins. Protecting the page is thus likely unnecessary, as without your involvement in the move, I do not expect there to be serious objection to the page remaining there while debate continues on the talk page. Bibigon 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the important thing here is that KimvdLinde stays away from the situation completely. I would also suggest we try to find out what academic historians call it i.e. academics who are currently employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest this discussion not be split up. For some reason, it's been started on AN too. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F. SlimVirgin 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know, I'm proposing to start a workshop along the lines of the ArbComm workshops to work through the specific policy issues involved (e.g WP:NC, WP:NCON, WP:NOR etc). The workshop will be at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop later today. Hopefully it'll help to identify the specific points of disagreement, provide some advice on what the policies and guidelines require, and focus the discussion on policies rather than personal POVs. I suggest we continue this discussion there. -- ChrisO 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you've protected the page against moves, and on the version you prefer. You're involved in the dispute and you're currently in front of the arbcom for using your admin powers in another content dispute. Please undo the protection. SlimVirgin 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it's inappropriate, please feel free to unprotect it. I've had no involvement in editing or moving the article, and my only involvement to date has been in providing pointers to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, providing some data on usage and trying to help the parties to find a resolution. If you (or any other administrator) feel that makes me too close to the issue to legitimately move-protect the page, then please unprotect it. -- ChrisO 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you're involved in the dispute, and we're not allowed to use admin powers where we're involved, especially not to gain any kind of advantage, and given you suggested the page be moved back to the version you prefer, and then protected it, that's what you've done. I'm not prepared to unprotect it and be accused of wheel warring, so I'm requesting that you do. SlimVirgin 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, OK. -- ChrisO 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope everyone will leave it where it is now until a consensus is reached. Your workshop idea is a good one. SlimVirgin 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure I notify people when I've got the workshop prepared. You're very welcome to offer advice and views (on my talk page if you don't wish to get directly involved). Given your experience in dealing with controversial issues, I'd certainly value your advice on the policy issues. -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kim needs to "stay away from the situation completely", as Slim suggests, then so should Slim, myself and ChrisO. However, I don't see the point in delaying this - Guy Montag changed a long-established article name without consensus. His user page, User:Guy Montag identifies him as a supporter of the Irgun, the Revisionist Zionist armed militia identified as perpetrating the massacre so his interest in choosing an equivicating title for the article is clear. If a Stalinist tried to retitle "Katyn Forest Masscare" to "Battle of Katyn Forest" we would not permit it, even if he was able to rally the support of his friends in a poll. Homey 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to play that game with me. I have no involvement in this content dispute, and while I have no intention of becoming involved, I'm also not going to stay away from it because it would please you. SlimVirgin 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a systemic POV when it comes to articles related to Israel so you are not neutral in this matter even if you haven't explicilty addressed content. I was not asking you to stay away from the article (you are projecting your habit onto me, it seems) - rather I'm saying you are in no position to dictate to Kim that she should stay away from it.Homey 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could the three of you please stop ragging on each other? It's incivil, inappropriate and definitely not in the right place. It's certainly not going to resolve anything! -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?

(Copied from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F)

I'm rather troubled by the problems which KimvdLinde has reported over at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. As I've posted there, the article's current title of "Battle of Deir Yassin" violates Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict and Misplaced Pages:No original research (it's a novel term with negligible use outside Misplaced Pages - only 81 hits versus over 21,000 for the alternative "Deir Yassin massacre"). It also probably violates Misplaced Pages:NPOV, as it seems to be a novel and minority-POV term for an historical incident which is generally known by a different name. (It's comparable, for instance, to renaming Srebrenica massacre to "Battle of Srebrenica" or American War of Independence to "War of American Aggression".)

In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and, unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.

Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? Kim Bruning 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've found in instances like this (Republic of Macedonia comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Misplaced Pages policies. -- ChrisO 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors don't care about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Misplaced Pages's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- ChrisO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as WP:NOR. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- Kim van der Linde 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bruning is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the The Wrong Version is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Misplaced Pages is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend.  : - ) FloNight 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- Kim van der Linde 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. SlimVirgin 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. SlimVirgin 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid.-- Kim van der Linde 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge the interested editors to have a look for themselves at the ArbCom case before the decide what is going on. I am not going to drag the extended discussions from there to here. -- Kim van der Linde 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde at venus I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Misplaced Pages. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. FloNight 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I share your opinion about "the wrong version". -- Kim van der Linde 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is a misrepresentation. Slim is one of the admins against whom sanctions are being proposed - Fred Bauder proposed a one month ban - there have been no action proposed against Kim, nor is she accused of having participated in the wheel war that has gotten Slim in trouble. Homey 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, quit it. You and Kim van der Linde have caused the entire dispute at Israeli apartheid, and you kept it going at maximum heat and intensity, because that's how you get your kicks at Misplaced Pages. I've never seen such disregard for the rules about using admin tools between the pair of you. The evidence hasn't yet closed, by the way, and I'm not going to argue it out with you here, because it would make your day. SlimVirgin 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you brought up the arbcomm case and misrepresented it by claiming that Kim was "central" to it while you are "barely involved" when in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't. As for "disregard for the rules about using admin tools", you are the one who participated in a wheel war, not Kim (or myself) so stop deflecting (or projecting). Homey 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't

Are you serious? I'm sure that not even you can actually believe that that makes sense, You proposed a bunch of wierd and inappropriate "solutions" that nobody supported and then you claim that that shows that Slim is more involved with the dispute than you or Kim. The fact that there isn't a bunch of stupid proposals involving you and kim really just shows that other people aren't as spiteful or inappropriate as the two of you. I guess the fact that there is nothing on that page that explicity calls for your adminship to be taken away and for you to be banned must show that you are a completely neutral and uninvolved party or at least that you did nothing inappropriate at all in that conflict, is that right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this really is my last comment. No sanctions have been proposed against Kim because no evidence has been put up about her yet. Only half the evidence is in, Homey. SlimVirgin 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Homey, please lay off. Ragging on SlimVirgin only gets us deeper. Fred Bauder 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 for acting like WP:TROLLs. I had lodged a previous report on ANI that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on Talk:Sikhism, Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of user:Sukh. These users have spoken offensively to user:Sukh, User:Rajatjghai, user:Gsingh and myself.

Despite repeated and continuous warnings, both ARYAN818 and Elven6 have repeatedly engaged in revert wars, removing comments from their own talkpages, coming close to WP:3RR violations, repeatedly violated WP:NPA (includings religious, personal, political and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, and have been acting like WP:VANDALs and WP:TROLLs.

user:ARYAN818

Relevant Diffs (most recent):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Relevant Diffs (continuous):, ,,, ,

user:Elven6

Relevant Diffs (most recent): ,,,,,,,,,,

Previous Report (continuous):, , ,

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hinduization of Sikhism - Elven6 created an article that constituted WP:COPYVIO.

Thank you - I request administrators to take decisive action, as this has been going on for over one month, with a previous ANI report and numerous warnings. This Fire Burns Always 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to block both of them for 48hrs. Frankly some of the material discussed isn't for me to understand - well I couldn't see anything obvious from the article edits, but some of the talk page edits seem rather bizarre to say the least and some of the knockabout tone and inappropriate language is very disconcerting. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically Aryan argues from a hard Hindu POV, and Elven is oppposite that. The diffs provided illustrate a combination of revert warring, personal attacks, abusive messaging, vandalism and constant disruption of Misplaced Pages work. This Fire Burns Always 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This time I ask for really decisive and follow-up action, because several good editors have taken a lot of hell for over a month over several articles. A thousand warnings have not affected these gentlemen, who haven't even acted in a civil manner aside from the disputes. This Fire Burns Always 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen both these users (ARYAN818, Elven6), I endorse these blocks. Both of these users spent most of their time in disrupting the articles and attacking other editors, without adding anything fruitful to the articles in question. ARYAN818 has already been blocked several times for his user name, though he claims 818 is just his area code and has no neo-nazi connotations (though his frequent edit-wars in Aryan provide an interesting insight). I suggest other admins keep an eye on the pages referred to above as frequent edit warring continues to foment there. --Ragib 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 should be permanently blocked for his user name. User:Zoe| 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

His articles of interest (and manner of edit warring) lead me to believe that he is not a neo-Nazi. While this can also be easily faked, his name in the email address he used to write to the unblock mailing list also had "Aryan" as a first name. Maybe he should be blocked for edit warring, but I don't think he should be indef blocked unless he shows more serious behaviour. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis use the code number "88" ("HH" = "Heil Hitler". This is a clearly inappropriate user name. User:Zoe| 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Chinese people use "88" as a good luck number. I've seen plenty of people with "88" at the end of their user name (I mean email address and user names outside of Misplaced Pages, I don't know anyone here IRL), and they're about as Neo-Nazi as I am. I'd never heard of this 88=HH="Heil Hitler" stuff until here (and as a side rant, Buddhists can't show a certain religious symbol because of the damn swastika). And he's not 88, he's 818. Look, I'm not saying that it's not serious, but there is such a thing as too sensitive. This guy is an edit warrior, sure, but looking at his edits, he doesn't strike to me as a neo-Nazi (at least, not yet). That means that he's certainly a good recipient of a block if he's a persistent edit warrior, but it'll take more evidence to indef-block him for having a neo-Nazi username. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this had been pointed out already, but in the same way that 88 means HH, 818 means HAH, or Heil Adolf Hitler. And there's the tiny matter of the fact that the code is preceded by the word Aryan. If his username was CuteFluffyKitten818 it might be different, but it's not. The claim that it's a common name sounds fishy to me - I've never heard of anyone called 'Aryan', and after going through two disambig links I only managed to find a single person called 'Arya'. --Sam Blanning 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will study the matter and shall offer my comments within two to three days. Prima facie, I find that the two users concerned do not care for the guidance and comments of fellow-wikipedians. This is not a good sign. --Bhadani 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss

I have been the subject of an accusation of violation of WP:ENC by User:Hipocrite on his talk page. There is much background on this, but what I'm coming here for is his refusal to discuss the matter. I tried to respond to the accusation here, but he removed my response without removing this accusation. Isn't making an accusation like that without hearing out the editor in question slanderous and not in accordance with WP:AGF? I thought so, so I said so here, asking to discuss it as equals. He removed it again and again, each time leaving his accusation there. He even "banned" me from posting in his talk page, leaving me an uncivil comment in the process. I read the guidelines for talk pages, didn't see anyhting about banning people from them. And now he's made an "archive for arses" and dumped my comments in there. I think I've put up with this slander, personal attacks and general hostility long enough. Comments would be greatly appreciated; please tell me if I'm in the wrong here. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a posting from an editor that hadn't edited in six months, linking me to encyclopedia dramatica's new mainpage article that is supposed to be about me. I removed it and changed the comments as I do not need , yes trolling like that on my talk page. You later come in and restore an edited version of the comments that I had altered . In this, you reminded me of the obvious and added the editor summary of "rv deliberate mischaracterization of talk page comment by MONGO by changing the heading". Hipocrite removed it for me, you reverted he reverted and then you restored it again and again he reverted , yet agin, you restored it...., so hipocrite then tried to minimize damage with ...but that wasn't good enough and you once again, reverted the section heading . Tony Sidaway finally reverted the entire passage to the version I wanted . Basically, I removed the links or mention to that website since at this time, they are enaging in personal attacks against me on their mainpage. Your attempts to point out this fact, even after I had removed them constitutes a personal attack. I have never met you before and this isn't some kind of playground. Guess what happens next to trolls? PsychoMaster indeed.--MONGO 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Once YOU got rid of it, I didn't revert. how was I supposed to know what you wanted? All you had done before was to turn the heading into a personal attack.. The discussion itself was left untouched by you when I reverted the personal attack. Your complaints are baseless and unrelated to my problem with Hipocrite's general superiority attitude. THat issue was (poorly) dealt with and is now dead. ANy other comments? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 22:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You restored a version that I had altered and mischaracterized it with the edit summary I stated baove...yes it was trolling. Don't play games here.--MONGO 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe anyone here will take your case. "petty bureaucrats always support one another" - quote from: The Book of Balance and Harmony (13th Century Taoist writing) --Acatsfinetoo 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Troll warning...three edits...one being to welcome himself to Misplaced Pages...--MONGO 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, you're in the wrong. Also quite wrong when you claim, on my talkpage, that I've "alleged" you committed policy violations. No, I haven't. If you post on MONGO's page again it won't be for violating paragraph 10 B of policy 6 R, Amendment 173 that I'll block you, it'll be for inconsiderate obnoxiousness and not using common sense. I get to do that. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC). P. S. And leave Hipocrite alone, too. Don't post on his page. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
    • I'm not even talking about you here. Please try to be more observant. Is there any chance we can be civil here?Psycho Master (Karwynn) 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of IP 82.110.149.183

Hello All,

Firstly I'll introduce myself as Tony Sargeant, Network Manager of St Bernard's Convent School, Slough (see article).

I see that the school IP (82.110.149.183) has been blocked from editing until 12th September 2006. Good, please leave blocked. I agree with your policies being applied to protect the articles.

Is there a way I can stop the St Bernard's School article from being changed? Or be under my control? There are some minor errors in it.

Regards

 --TonySargeant 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You can edit the article, like anyone else; as for "control", please see WP:OWN. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are blocked at your work access from changing the article, you can pass along the changes necessary to another user. However, we don't really lock down any articles, and therefore it is always possible for them to be changed, appropriately or inappropriately. We're pretty vigilant, however. We miss some vandals, and we miss some mistakes, but generally we spot it when a school article gets "booger" edits and the like. Geogre 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Being referred to by name again

"Ryulong! you are not Moot, stop changing other peoples edits." Does this count as a personal attack, too? Ryulong 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of these are vandalism, but please don't look for the NPA policy. It's not needed, in the first place, and we all take chances when we edit Misplaced Pages. The gibbering on the talk page and the random edit warring is sufficient for intervention without trying to assess whether or not a person has been insulted. Geogre 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

Condoleezza Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is bursting at the seams with insanity once again. Although it's been fprotected, the talk page is getting really nasty, with an overabundance of racist allegations, impersonations, and invasions of privacy. Several users are acting way out of line. Could an administrator please look into the article? Thank you. Isopropyl 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, can someone else close the discussion about proposed changes and request unprotection? Thanks. Isopropyl 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:FelsenVonEngland is banned user User:BrittonLaRoche?

Editing same subjects (e.g. Celtic toe, and contributing artwork credited to Britton LaRoche, eg. This will be the third User:BrittonLaRoche sock, reported to WP:SSP Pete.Hurd 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful accusations

DyslexicEditor (talk · contribs) is making up lies about me and posting them to other users talk pages. Posting on Ed Poor's talk page "MONGO on wikipedia has impersonated you on Encyclopædia Dramatica as one of the sock puppets he used to vandalize their article about him, the other is MONGO1. I would link to proof to ED's "MONGO" article but MONGO has ordered me not to link to it (he has also removed the link to it from the article so you will have to see the article's history for the link). I am asking for a statement that it was not you." I have not used another wikipedians username anywhere else, and this is a lie deliberately designed to further discredit me. I stated unambiguously that I have never edited encyclopedia dramatica nor anywhere else that posts in a wiki-style format. I stated that I know that someone has deliberately used my username on ED and at unencyclopedia. DyslexicEditor has also posted links to ED to blocked editors encouraging them to make comments about us there and other places in a deliberate attempt to harass me and/or promote that website via wikipedia., , , , . The main problem I have is the personal defamation campaign DyslexicEditor is engaging in.--MONGO 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, one more example of him accusing me of signing up as Ed Poor at that other website...--MONGO 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block commensurate with the scale of the attacks. One week? --Tony Sidaway 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best as I can see no reason that we should support the defamation of any Wikipedian here by linking others to off wiki sites and pages that serve solely to harass.--MONGO 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DyslexicEditor also created an attack redirect page, making Unfunny (now speedy deleted for being an attack) which redirected to encyclopedia dramatica. --mboverload@ 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure its an attack as such, it was created a week ago and the creating edit summary suggests it is one of the ways they describe themseleves (which I can well believe). --pgk 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please block 24.252.28.188 (talk · contribs), it seems that they are impersonating MONGO on ED causing the source of all this trouble, it would be a good bet that this IP belongs to DyslexicEditor and should be blocked as the source of off wiki personal attacks and disruption--messanger 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's actually quite funny, because yesterday that IP edit history included an edit to North Saskatchewan River which seems to have ceased to exist in the last few hours--Max Bialystock 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, the same thing seems to have happened to this talk page--Max Bialystock 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrewwinkler (talk · contribs)...

...appears to be a trolling-only account. I would like to see him indefblocked, but would rather not take the action myself. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

This page is protected, but Peppers, Brian has just been created. I've set a redirect, but a protection is required Clappingsimon talk 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected, and all revisions prior to redirection deleted. --Sam Blanning 09:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it was deleted, it is no longer protected. Kotepho 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's an annoying 'feature'. Thanks to FloNight for restoring protection. --Sam Blanning 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it's always been that way. Would this be a possible feature request? --Cyde↔Weys 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that we can usually speedy-delete articles that redirect to a delete-protected article. Would "Peppers, Brian" be better served with a delete-protection as well? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peppers, Brian is delete protected and move protected per FloNight according to the history. Is the protection not in place? Syrthiss 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't redirect to the expanded reasoning - the bit that says "This page has been deleted by Jimbo Wales, and should not be re-created until 21 February 2007 at the earliest". --Sam Blanning 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that not what is in place? A redirect to Brian Peppers (which itself has the expanded reasoning), that is fully locked down. Because thats what it looks like. ;) Syrthiss 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no real problem with either result, a delete-protected page or a redirect to a delete-protected page. I suppose the optics of redirecting to a Jimbo-deleted page would serve better. Doesn't matter either way. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning two accounts by the same person...

I don't know if this is the right page for this, but I'm just suspicious that Panda52 and Butterfly52 are the same user. Note their user pages. Both of them are similar in their bad grammar. It's just a hunch, but whoever each of those two are both put the wrong date in the Aalog-Alog article. - 上村七美 | talk 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as they aren't violating policy or doing any other malicious things there's nothing wrong with a person having two or more accounts although it is discourged, see WP:SOCK for more information on that. Pegasus1138 ---- 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AFriendlyKitten (talk · contribs)

User removed a talk page vandalism warning. Although user stopped editing after that, I was told to report it here. Gimmetrow 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dyslexic agnostic is blocked for 48 hours

User:Dyslexic agnostic is blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks as seen in this edit. User referring to other party in this settled arb-com case as boor and ignorant. Per user's probation the maximum block available to admins is now one year. Steve block Talk 11:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

abusive admin terrorising TPIR editors

I have speedy deleted Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/TPIRFanSteve. The page was created by Buckner 1986 (talk · contribs), a user with a history of needlessly escalating conflicts. The sock puppet accusations were conclusively disproven. The page was embarrassing to one party in the The Price is Right dispute (I can't believe I just typed that), and damn well ought to be embarrassing to the other.

Because the assertions made by Buckner 1986 are definitely incorrect; the page has seen no activity in quite some time; both parties, if they're smart, will want it gone; and I'm in a deletin' kinda mood, I've speedied it and reverted the various abusive sockpuppet templates placed on the userpages of TPIRFanSteve (talk · contribs) and several unrelated users. Feel free to pelt me with brickbats ... now. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :) - FrancisTyers · 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no article called Brickbat. Can we use maces instead? Syrthiss 12:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at Google

There is an edit war at Google regarding whether mention of Chinese censorship belongs in the introductory paragraph. While an attempt to arrive at consensus is being made at Talk:Google, certain editors continue to insert the text despite continued warning that it should remain out until consensus is reached. Countless edits/reverts have ensued (with likely 3RR violations). I'm especially concerned with User:Spet1363 admitting that s/he also edits under User:129.67.89.102 (perhaps to avoid 3RR?) . Again today, rather than working towards consensus, that editor re-inserted the disputed content under the anon IP , while placing this comment in talk . It is apparent that Spet/129 is not willing to allow consensus to decide whether the content should be included. Options? Partial protect the page? Temporary block to let tempers cool? Intervention is appreciated. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Have you tried a straw poll on the talk page? --Improv 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its there now. Thanks for the (obvious) suggestion. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Community block on User:Mayor Westfall

Recently User:Adam Bishop blocked this user indefinitely for trolling on WP:RD. Having looked through his contributions, I agree partially: some of his posts are clearly inflammatory (check out his first edit, for instance). I feel that this guy could be unblocked eventually, but certainly not yet. Anyway, I just wanted to post a notice about it here; since this would be a community patience block, I think it merits a mention here at least. Mangojuice 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Baron Von Westfall is presently active on WP:RD. — Lomn | Talk 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious. Mayor Westfall was blocked on 7/11, and Baron Von Westfall became active later. FWIW though, Baron Von Westfall seems to be behaving. *shrugs* Mangojuice 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So were some of Westfall version 1's. The guy's just a timewaster; he had thirteen main-space edits, and two to article talkspace - one of which was abusive. One Misplaced Pages: space edit that wasn't to WP:RD (which was on an AFD - "I'm the mayor and I say delete"), and north of a hundred, mostly pointless, questions to WP:RD. As far as I can see he was trying to be funny; it didn't work. On it being unsubtly hinted that we knew he was screwing about, he got abusive; on Tagishsimon making the point clearer, he just strutted. Community patience was definitely exhausted on my part - he was being an idiot, wasting people's time, and not even having the redeeming feature of being funny about it. Shimgray | talk | 16:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a suspected sock puppet case, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mayor Westfall, with Mayor Westfall (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) being the master and Baron Von Westfall (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) being the sockpuppet. Not only do they have similar names, both of which use the reference desk, here. The account was only created after Mayor Westfall was blocked. Enough to block? Iolakana|T 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (Merged from other entry on this page by Baron Von Westfall 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this block was justified. I have contributed to Misplaced Pages in many ways. As to questions on the reference desk, if questioning paradigms, and having a differing view on morallity & ethics is trolling, then would Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, and Socrates also be banned from Misplaced Pages for their views? The reference desk should be a place for Misplaced Pages users to ask questions they would like answers to. Many of the questions I have may be provokotive to some, but so would have been "Hey, why don't we free the slaves?" in the early 1800s. I shouldn't have responded to rude comment made by another Wikipedian in the manner I did, but other than that I have done no wrong--certanly nothing close to justifying this ban. In the future, I will try not to respond to personal attacks, like this and this. Btw, why where those users not repromanded for their personal attacks against me. Not a big deal, as I know they won't be--Misplaced Pages isn't as fair as it should be, but I think they should have been. Baron Von Westfall 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But your username is too similar to the current blocked user. Iolakana| 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo's true identity

General Tojo is actually one of the many sockpuppets of User:JoanneB. And I can confirm this fact; SPUI has told me of it via email, and can confirm it.

Ask SPUI for more info - he's got the full story. --Holcon 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a very serious charge. I suggest you contact a member of Arbcom and offer to e-mail them your proof. They can run appropriate checks if needed. Thatcher131 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is patently false. I've blocked Holcon for 15 hours for making it. Trolling on WP:AN/I is not to be tolerated. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd already blocked indefinitely, contributions are very similar to a bunch of users recently such as , placing blockedsock templates on their own page for a variety of admins etc. Complaining that the blockedsock template was broken (which this latest incarnation's first edit was to fix) etc. --pgk 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So we can block people for disagreeing with us now? Evil saltine 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Who blocked whom for disagreeing with whom? Holcon was blocked for trolling. User:Zoe| 01:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Threats and legal stuff at Mitch Modeleski

Mitch Modeleski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Presumably Mitch Modeleski himself is posting cease-and-desists over the text of this article, as User:Supremelaw, User talk:166.214.106.208, and User talk:166.214.16.223.

Diffs:

I don't want to be the target of legal action by this guy, so I no longer want to be involved in this. --Chris (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit () quotes an old threat that was posted against me on my talk page weeks ago. I think this person may be unbalanced. Fan-1967 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: . The user has started an email correspondance with me, threatening me with legal action, apparantly under the misguided belief that I am incharge of wikipedia (!) I have since replied to him asking that he direct his comments to the article talk page, not me, and I explained that I do not own wikipedia. Could we have page protection on the page in question so that the edit wars calm down? It should also be noted that the company for which the user works (ie his company) charges an extorionate rate for sorting out their own copyright issues, which the usere claims this is (but I dont see how it can be). Martinp23 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I have protected the article. I have reduced it to a stub because the content was not cited; this is what we are supposed to do in cases of biographies of living individuals - specifically: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.". If editors can provide valid citations from reliable sources for the removed content then I am sure it can be reinserted. I have left a comment on the article's Talk page to this effect. I just know I'm going to get in trouble for this, but since the ANI seems to be only sporadically monitored and this does look like a highly volatile and litigious individual I have adopted the precautionary principle. I am off now and will probably not be logging again until tomorrow, so to be unambiguous any admin is welcome to undo any or all the above, to reduce to semi-protection or whatever. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcyu

I have blocked Marcyu (talk · contribs) for one month for personal attacks (and refusing to attribute comments by means of refusing to sign -- or to let people use {{unsigned}} to show what comments that he's making). Comments about whether the block is appropriate and whether it's for the right length are welcome. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much in the way of constructive edits from that user, but I can't see any personal attacks on a random sampling, either. Can you provide some diffs? The so-called "unlinked signature" is pretty clearly in violation of WP:SIG (obscures real username, inappropriate pseudo-username "Policeman of the Control Freak Misplaced Pages Admins"). --ajn (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the "signature" is the personal attack, in my opinion. Certainly, if it had been a real user name, it would have qualified for an username block. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's grossly inappropriate, but I don't think I'd call it a personal attack. I think it would be a good idea to make it absolutely clear about what exactly you have blocked this person for, on their talk page, given the history and argument about what is/isn't disruption, vandalism and attacking. --ajn (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcyu has emailed unblock-en-L asking to be unblocked on the grounds that there was no policy justified reason for the block in the first place.

On first impression, this reads like a minor user dispute between Nlu and Marcyu in which Nlu has used admin powers without sufficient justification. Nothing that Marcyu did was significantly disruptive to any page or discussion, nor did it reach the threshold of personal attack, though it was rude and inappropriate.

This additionally appears to be a violation of the general rule that admins should not block people they are engaged in disputes with other than for egregious abuse or clear vandalism.

I would like to request further review of this block and Nlu's actions. At the very least a more detailed justification for why the block was made is required.

Georgewilliamherbert 07:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He's also emailed me, with essentially the same message that went to the mailing list. He's claiming that he was initially blocked by Nlu for six months and that this will show up in the deleted history of his main page. Nlu's only actions on User:Marcyu were to delete it on Marcyu's own request - {{db-owner}} - on the 18th of March. He then deleted it again a couple of hours later as a vandalism/attack page, G3/A6 on WP:CSD, because Marcyu's response to Nlu's doing what he asked for was to call him and R. Koot "extremely biased, immature, and unprofessional". There is no six month block in the block log, there is nothing in Marcyu's talk page history mentioning six months as far as I can see. He's also claiming that Nlu reverts anything he adds to articles - since March, he has made one edit to an article, to insert an unconfirmed rumour and Nlu did indeed (properly) revert that. I don't see any other evidence of Nlu reverting article edits (Marcyu has made 26 of these in the eight months he's been here - he claims to generally edit anonymously because of this alleged, and apparently nonexistent, constant reverting by Nlu). The only disputes with Nlu I see here are Marcyu's persistent and long-term refusal to sign talk page edits with anything other than an attack on admins (if a "signature" doesn't contain either your username or a link to your user page, it's not a signature), and persistent attempts to remove vandalism and personal attack warnings from his talk page (one placed there by Nlu, most placed there by other people). I'm not a big fan of people slapping warning templates on people's pages without any further comment and then getting aerated when they remove them, and Nlu could have been more communicative, but it's pretty clear that Marcyu just isn't getting the point. He's an adult, he ought to know how to behave in communal situations, and as he also claims to be a journalist he ought to know about the importance of verifiability and reputable sources (which have been the cause of many of his problems with other editors in the past, apparently). I'd be in favour of reducing the block to maybe a week, on condition that he uses a proper signature in future and stops mucking about with his talk page to remove warnings, but I think the block is justifiable. --ajn (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the block. In the interests of disclosure, I'm somewhat involved in this, but this guy's clearly abrasive and not getting the message. He also seems to enjoy playing the innocent, and making up ridiculous accusations (see WP:AN#Hasty Blocking by Some Administrators. When I confronted him with overwhelming evidence completely quashing his accusations against Nlu, he went off onto another tangent. This is not the type of person who should be editing Misplaced Pages. Werdna talk criticism 11:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having exchanged a few emails with him, I'm now of the opinion that Marcyu is trolling. He has made several claims which turn out to have no basis whatsoever when investigated. --ajn (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet with a vanity article and a history of link-spamming

64.1.198.83, 70.89.181.10, Fiber-optics and Timbercon appear to be accounts owned by the same user to spam links for a small fiber-optics business, Timbercon. They also have a vanity article, Timbercon, which I have nominated for deletion. On June 2, they got one spam warning, then they used another account to add the same links again a few days later. Then June 12, another account was warned and links reverted. Then more spam-links were added by still another account.

There's an ongoing back and forth between me and these users at Talk:Timbercon. Repeatedly cleaning up link-spam, warning (politely at first), dealing with the vanity article, then with the sock-puppets objections spread across multiple talk pages, my talk page and the article talk page -- all of this is consuming hours of my time. The objections are disingenuously masked in a friendly, "how can I improve" manner that is belied by a review of all 4 accounts' talk pages and edit histories.

Any advice or help from admins before I just walk away; I've got my day job to consider and can waste no more time on this (in other words, the sockpuppet is about to win). --A. B. 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article to conform with WP content policies, as for the sockpuppetry, you mat want to add a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to learn they're notable with so few employees and such a low profile, but then I'm fairly new (<1500 edits). I probably should have just minded my own business instead of fooling with the spam links, sock puppets, notability, AfD and such. It's not as if any of this really damages the encyclopedia.

I've not used RFCU before but it looks like there are some high hurdles imposed for an RFCU:

• Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.
• Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser.
• Please do not list cases involving "throwaway" accounts that are only used for a few edits.
• Data is kept for a limited time so we cannot compare against accounts that have not edited recently.

As an admin and based on your experience, do you think this sockpuppet group meets these hurdles? If not, what steps, if any, should I take next?

Also, should I try to get that URL blocked using the blacklist?

Thanks,--A. B. 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshire Terrier Article

HELP! Why am I being blocked? I have nothing to do with the vandlism that is being alleged. IS Wiki just blocking everyone who uses AOL?

What's more, I edited the Yorkshire Terrier article with important links that were missing (check shooterdog.com, workingyorkie, and earthdog yorkie for examples. NON COMMERICIAL sites and they were deleted. MEanwhile, Smokey the War Hero dog - a commerical -for profit site is being hosted. WHY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately innocent users do sometimes get caught up in blocks, I'm sorry about that but sometimes, when a vandal is persistent we have no choice but to block the IP for a short time.As dor the yorkshire terrier article I suggest you ask at the talk page of that article, where people will be able to ecplain thier deletions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How to report abusive admin editing? / updated with details

What is the proper procedure for this? I suspect an admin is trolling/being abusive and biased on a certain article. thanks! rootology 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just put it here, or on AN/I (preferable.) Have you posted on their talk page and tried to work it out first? KillerChihuahua 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Extensively. The following users are aggressively attacking the Encyclopædia Dramatica article since it was unprotected, frivously editing, deleting, and removing content in a very hostile fashion, despite repeated requests that such changes be done properly and discussed first on the talk page. MONGO's behavior especially has been wildly boorish and insulting--I don't even have anything to do with this, and just came into to try to push a NPOV/non biased POV as a middle ground. In response I've been accused of trolling, and the edit war persists. I want to ask that MONGO be at least temporarily stripped of sysop permissions based on his:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=MONGO

outrageous antics and comments</a>. I don't know or am interested in whether the 3rd party ED article that flamed him is relevant or not. His boorish behavior and commentary are not representative of the type of person that should be in a position of power. It reflects negatively on wikipedia in general. The following are making the massive edits/deletions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:MONGO

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Hipocrite

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=71.112.141.236 (recommend blocking IP temporarily)

Additionally, it was requested in the talk page of the article that time be given to cite sources. In response, these three went on a prolonged systemtic deletion spree in response and are fighting still--the admins themselves have turned it into an edit war. I will put it in AN/I too. rootology 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

One place or the other, not both. A "massive deletion spree" is not only not a problem, it is laudable, if (as from what you're saying is the case) there is unsourced content on the article. "Wait, I'll find a source" is not a free pass to ignore WP:V. Find a source that meets RS criteria, then the content can be added to the article. KillerChihuahua 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are three talk page archives about every sentence in that article regarding references. What MONGO is doing is just plain disruption. SchmuckyTheCat 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And I went to check the article, and Karwynn is using a link to an Afd debate as a source. Um, right. KillerChihuahua 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to see any credibility to this when I am labelled as "boorish". The article failed to meet WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:NPOV...geez, you name it.--MONGO 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437662

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&curid=1975039&diff=64414695&oldid=64413700

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414908

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=prev&oldid=64526606

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64527993

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=64419547

Thanks.Note your last edit there is you actually deleting a request that you be investigated. Isn't that a conflict of interest? 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You unilaterally protected the article and began to edit it, and then protected the talk page so no one couold have any input, also refusing to hear about it on your own talk page. YOu cut much of the article's talk page out and archived it, even when it was still active headings. You threatened and intimidated users who mentioned the matter. You deleting huge chunks of the article, without even a note in the talk page, and continued to delete rather than insert "fact" tags or other notices of disputes. You reverted several attempts to include sources. YOu have been intentionally deletionist and uncooperative. That's how you've been "boorish". Karwynn (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You cite a blocked troll's edits? How amusing. Everyone of you people are misusing wikipedia to POV push encyclopedia dramatica and should be permabanned.--MONGO 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All my edits before getting pulled into this mess had nothing to do with ED. I pushed and pushed in the talk pages for a balanced, fair, by the books review/changes, nothing more, until I was met with increasingly hostile replies and apparent abuse. I have nothing to do with ED. I should be permabanned for publically airing what I perceived to be a possibe admin abuse issue? rootology 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed original research here since it wasn't verifiable:here, same here, and here, then added this, removed again an unreliable source here, the added a references tag, then removed this attempt at link farming and removed the link farm again. Nothing I have done violates any policy...the IP listed above is the one doing most of the deletions. As far as the talk page, it was doing nothing to make the article better...hence I added the boilerplates at the top now, since it has become a troll magnet...I now see several editors working the page that are all SYSOPS at encycliopedia dramatica...or at least have the same usernames...who are you people trying to fool here with this nonsense. This isn't some playground where you get to promote the filth on that website.--MONGO 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you have my sympathies. Good luck. KillerChihuahua 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It also seems as though User:24.252.28.188, a sockpuppet of User:DyslexicEditor is being used to impersonate MONGO on both en.wikipedia and ED, MONGO made the correct first steps in deleting all the edits from wikipedia in which 24.252.28.188 was pretending to be him, even signing his name, but given the severity of cross wiki personal attacks, MONGO would be well within his rights to block this IP for at least a month, and give DyslexicEditor a chance to cool down--messanger 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nine edits. Admitted run-in contributor. Karwynn (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That IP is not used by DyslexicEditor...it appears he uses AOL.--MONGO 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever they are, leaving an impersonator running around unblocked is bound to cause problems--messanger 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? We don't block anyone because they vandalized another website...since when. Do a range block on AOL if you want to catch DyslexicEditor--MONGO 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, but the edits that you deleted from this IPs history showed it doing the same thing here, on wikipedia, even signing your name in articles that you frequent, it seems like a border line wiki-stalker, I don't think deleting its wikipedia edit history is enough, a block may be the only thing that can stop future impersonation attempts--messanger 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see deleted-page-histories as well as the next person, it seems that someone who goes around wikipedia editing articles that you edit, and signing your name to talk pages has no intention of playing nice, the fact that they would export vandalism from ED to Misplaced Pages shows their intent to continue their attacks on you--messanger 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So why the complete disregard for discussion, MONGO? Why all the secrecy? Why the attempt to exclude sourced information from the article? Karwynn (talk)

What sourced info? You mean from unreliable sources?--MONGO 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you mange to discuss their reliability? Even Hipocrite managed that! It's obvious that ED articles can be used to verify the existence of ED article themes, even if the actual info isn't necessarily accurate. Karwynn (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the E.D. article is now up for deletion (again). (→Netscott) 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I know little about this debate and have only had positive experiences with MONGO in the few times I've had anything to do with him here. I can see that ED hosts an extremely derogatory page which I'm sure he finds very insulting (having read it, I can definitely say that I'd be infuriated if it was written about me). It would strain the best of editors' patience and temper to deal with such inflammatory and personal attacks. Therefore, and I don't mean any disrespect, it seems a tad inappropriate for him to be personally involved in dealing with the issue. I suggest that MONGO ought to recuse himself from dealing with the article on ED to avoid the appearance of partiality. There are plenty of other administrators who can defend that particular article from vandalism, trolls, etc. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As the following user continues to quickly complete edit out changes to the article while editors are making "good faith" attempts to work on the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Hipocrite

I am requesting that he officially be banned for at least 24 hours from editing the ED article. rootology 23:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand behind my edit history. I have no non-vandalism reverts on that article to my knowledge, and am certainly not engaging in the fruitless editwar. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So you see no bias or conflict of interest for either yourself or MONGO to directly participate in this article given the recent problems? I request again that both yourself and MONGO do not participate in this. There are literally HUNDREDS of other editors more suited at the time being. I don't mind others making valid edits, but given the hostile tone from MONGO and the sheer determination of yourself to work at removing the article from wikipedia outright, I believe this is a conflict of interest in your role and position. rootology 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you're just as determined to see it survive so claiming others as being incapable of not being biased is really a double standard. Going around claiming others are abusing their position etc., demanding those that disagrree with you recluse themselves...how obtuse can one get?--MONGO 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over pending deletion vote of Encyclopedia Dramatica

The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself.

If the vote and discussion from the article is a "keep" or no concensus, I am concerned that some action may be unilaterally taken vs. this article after the vote possibly, going against concensus. Questions in regards to this have been ignored on the vote page, while every other question/comment from parties opposed to the article's existence have been met with swiftness. rootology 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "vote"...--MONGO 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is fine for syntax clarification, thank you. I expect if a decision of keep or no concensus of the discussion is clearly reached, it will be honored as is standard...? rootology 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad for whoever is going to close that mess. --Woohookitty 06:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have evidence that the attempt at deletion was a premeditated act to destroy the article: ( other one - threat in edit summary) Hardvice 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are strong accusations from you. I think that it would be good if you offered an apology.--MONGO 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, almost any AFD nom is a "premediated attempt to destroy an article". That is, after all, the point of nominating something for AFD - to remove something that the nominator believes is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. I would hope that AFD noms are premeditated - I would hate to think that people would nominate articles for deletion on the spur of the moment. Calling an AFD nom "a premeditated attempt to destroy an article" is like calling article creation a "premeditated attempt to create an article". It is rather impolite to phrase it that way, trying to spin a perfectly normal action into something sinister. Guettarda 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(But very amusing now that you've pointed it out! Tyrenius 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

If the community decides they don't want the article, then fine, it can go. I don't see a problem with this. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The actions and comments from certain members of the keep side of the debate are really quite shameful. If anyone wonders why admins burn out or get upset occasionally, one need only look at the onslaught of willful ignorance and the completely undeserved sense of entitlement being utilized by certain members of that debate, threatening current editors who have had the courage to speak their mind, and even against anyone who would potentially enforce policy in regards to this debate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Examples, please? I've seen no threats or intimidation from anyone but MONGO and Hipocrite, mostly MONGO. Karwynn (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

m:Don't be a dick should have a corollary, m:People are dicks.

Emails

Am I the only who received a ridiculously long-winded ranty email regarding this? Twice actually. The same both time. 207.96.237.60 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I had no activated the cookies when connecting. Circeus 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got one, too . I made a note of it in the AfD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that every admin (except those complained about, which includes me and MONGO) received a copy. Oh well, at least one recipient has forwarded the silly thing to the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No copy was sent to my inbox. User:Zscout370 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Zscout, be careful what you wish for. The only thing I learned from the copy I received was that MONGO was an Admin (for some reason I had presumed he wasn't) -- the letter does not make it clear who is doing what to whom, except that one or more individuals are alleged to be acting very badly. -- llywrch 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the IP address of the emailer used by any other usernames? Can that be looked into to see who sent it? rootology 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got this email too. -- JamesTeterenko 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the sending IP address in use by any usernames on wikipedia? rootology 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got one too, even though I'm listed in it for deleting an attack image. I guess I'll have to investigate myself ;). NoSeptember 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got two, from different senders. -GTBacchus 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got FIVE, from one sender (User:Rptng03509345) -- Samuel Wantman 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And I see hw has now been blocked. Blocking still allows the use of Special:Emailuser, the possibility of blocking that should be requested to prevent abuse? Circeus 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I also received such an email from User:Rptng03509345. I guess email needs to be allowed from blocked users as it is one way they can request unblocking.--A Y Arktos\ 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• From looking at the linguistic patterns and involvement surrounding this ED issue I have a sneaking suspicion that user Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is our spammer. Does this type of diff and language seem familiar? (→Netscott) 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• the emailer may be using this page as a place to copy and paste from. It has all the same info.--MONGO 10:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Shove deep and thrust

User:Shove deep and thrust has been vandalizing some, but the name itself may be a problem. -- Donald Albury 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The user name is benign. For all we know, he could be referring to the act of digging a deep whole with a shovel. Maybe that's what he's doing right now. Who knows? But let's not read so much into usernames. --AaronS 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The account has already been idefinately blocked. Nothing to see hear. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

legal threat or lame trolling attempt?

Someone on Wikinews posted a possible legal threat towards me. She claimed that I applied for access to a chat room, which I did not. In fact, I don't even use chat rooms much at all. I have a feeling that this is just a lame trolling attempt. How should I deal with this situation? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks to Avador (talk · contribs) for bringing this to my attention. --Ixfd64 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of phishing attempt to me, or someone is trying to stalk you. Ignore it. It's garbage. Fan-1967 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note "internet securities act of 1983"????? Good one. Fan-1967 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem like a silly attempt to get my personal information. I'm not too worried about it. Thanks for the input! --Ixfd64 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to report that post to the Wikinews administrators. --Ixfd64 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. There is no conceivable legitimate purpose, and the legal stuff is absolute crap. Fan-1967 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wing Nut & copyright

I thought I'd bring this up since it seems to be a recurring issue. Wing Nut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is lifting entire passages from copyright protected sources (newspapers, magazines) and insterting them into articles as statements of fact without any attribution other than an external link to the source. Recent examples are Mike Hammer: and Roy Spencer: I've added attributing language to these edits to avoid the NPOV and copyvio issues but I'm not the one to have a word with him since we've had content-related disputes, but someone should. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD spam only sockpuppet

Would someone kindly indef block Funcionar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Shanes took care of it. Thanks Shanes! (→Netscott) 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia yet again

Same old revert war at Scandinavia. On one side we have a number of experienced Misplaced Pages editors and on the other we have User:Comanche_cph and User:Supermos who do essentially nothing except fight about this. Both of them have five or more reverts on that page in the last 24 hours. A typical argument from them is: "TELL ME WHAT IS MORE RELIABLE THAN THE SWEDISH NATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOTHING!" and "As I have said and will continue to say nothing is more official than the school books of ones country and the national encyclopedias of ones country." As far as I can see neither of them is making any attempt to familiarize himself with basic Misplaced Pages policies and principles. Can someone buy us some peace over there? Haukur 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Comanche_cph for 24 hours for violating the 3RR (a repeat incident, as his talk page shows - he's been blocked and warned before). User:Supermos doesn't seem to have been warned before so I've given him the usual last-chance-before-blocking warning and urged him to resolve the matter without edit warring. I've also rolled back the last edit by Supermos (choosing a more-or-less random version from someone else). If you wish, I'm happy to act as an informal mediator - I'm emphatically not involved in the dispute, though I am fairly familiar with the region and something of a Scandinavophile (is that a word??). Let me know on my talk page if you feel this would be helpful. -- ChrisO 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

Poorly sourced negative material about this individual (a source of wikipedia controversy) is being multiply reverted into the article. I require immediate adminstrative assistance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if some admin could look at it, that would be helpful. Garion96 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia

I see and have a big problem with this editor and I don't quite know how to deal with it.

This editor is very domineering and controlling and not entirely scrupulous about it, frequently needling and baiting other editors. I'd rather you form your own opinions by visiting Talk:Asperger syndrome‎ and archives.

With this editor the deal seems to be that unless you submit to his/her control he/she will find ways to make trouble for you.

Today I REALLY believed that we had finally got a concensus going in spite of User:SandyGeorgia that still included User:SandyGeorgia, but I was wrong, the minute I expressed this here , she/he had a knife in my back here about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned).

I feel this user needs a gentle "word from the wise", and I can't find a way to do it right.

HELP! --Zeraeph 01:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When did this all start, and who (if any) are suspected sock-puppets? (I see references to sockpuppet suspicions on that talk page). All in all, some more detailed history please? FT2 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The mention of sockpuppets is a red herring really...an anonymous editor jumped in and asttacked an editor, so I expressed the hope this was not a sockpuppet (with no particular "puppeteer" mentioned or in mind)...User:SandyGeorgia jumped to the conclusion I meant her. --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if this is true, User:SandyGeorgia has been a very kind spirited person, I've worked with her on a mediation for Tourettes syndrome and she was most kind. I'm not sure where she "stabs you in the back", can you make it more explicit? I'm going to notify her about this section so she can reply. - FrancisTyers · 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I have read that mediation and I honestly do not see any evidence of "kindness" (for example: "Sandy is hypocritical when she gets on her soapbox about how I'm violating wiki rules! She edited some things I wrote on the talk page and moved it out of context. She also tried to simply erase the entire section on Marinol, until a sysop reverted the page back!", not quite my idea of "kindness"). I just see yet another editor who has been subjected to the kind of abuse I see on Asperger Syndrome, not being believed, which is a common feature of this kind of situation. --Zeraeph 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Francis. Since User:Zeraeph had not contacted me about any problem or dispute between us, I was not aware of this issue, and do appreciate that you brought it to my awareness.

That is completely untrue, I have repeatedly tried to find reasonably civil ways to express the problems I see and have with User:SandyGeorgia and I have every reason to believe she is aware of that (see and most clearly here:). I really think someone should actually look at the talk pages for themselves and form their own opinions

It has been suggested that she has already behaved similarly on another article. Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an appointment right now, but will be glad to respond in more detail later this evening, as needed. But, just to briefly address the question above about sock puppetry:

I am not aware of any suspicious or suspected sock puppetry on the article, nor have there been any problems with edit warring or anything of that nature, either right before, during or after Zeraeph raised the question of a sock puppet. I have no reason to suspect there is any sock puppetry going on, and believe the comments Zeraeph referred to were probably from a legitimate, anon editor. Since Zeraeph mentioned a sock puppet in a passage referring to User:RN and myself, I simply asked him to please not refer to sock puppets in proximity to my name. I also reminded him of civility, because of his response to the anon editor, to myself, and to Rdos. Sandy 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I should like a few impartial parties to look at the relevant talk pages for themselves. However, I do not think it is for User:SandyGeorgia to presume or inform me (or anyone) of what they mean by anything they say, nor to order people not to mention anything in connection with her name. To whit, if now, or at any time in the future, a person sees cause to suspect her of sockpuppetry User:SandyGeorgia has no right to order them to refrain from remarking it. Nor to dictate in any way what other editors should, or should not, say, yet she frequently does. Frankly she often addresses other editors as though she were a schoolmarm and they children who must defer to her. She also treats articles as though they were her personal property. To the extent of informing other editors what they may or may not do on both talk pages and in-line comments. --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing massive and consensual effort to improve the AS article, and editors are working very well together, with the exception of those few incidents, which resulted in a message to Zeraeph about civility. If a more detailed history is needed, I can provide more input later this evening. I do hope that Zeraeph will not be offended because I asked about a policy that I am not that clear on: it is my understanding that warnings and warning templates are not supposed to be removed from talk pages, which appeared to be the case here. I think a review of the talk page history will reveal why I was concerned that we maintain civility. Regards, Sandy 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is a persistent tendency to distort facts, present them selectively and express her opinions as though they were hard fact, as above.

I would really like an impartial admin, with whom neither of us have ever been involved, to keep an ongoing eye on this situation. I know what abusive control looks like. I also know that I have never seen behavior like User:SandyGeorgia's on Misplaced Pages before, it seems to me to be all about "tactics" and "control" for the sake of it, and I am at a total loss how to cope with it, at the same time I really don't want to run away and leave a significant article at the mercy of any distortion of bias or information she may choose to insinuate into it. I'm not putting in a lot of refs because I think the best way for anyone to see this is the look at an overview of the WHOLE picture, and see the pattern, not "selective excerpts". --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Diffs and refs added. Sandy 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the sock puppetry issue, I jumped to no conclusion, Zeraeph, but I did point out that you were using the term sockpuppetry in the next sentence after you mentioned me, and I asked that you please take care with doing that. This is in accordance with Wiki policy (AGF), not a "domineering" directive of mine. We had another problem when you archived the talk page, with no warning, in the midst of multiple ongoing discussions and a FARC. Because you archived *current* (within the hour) discussions, I asked that you not do that, and I restored the talk page, with consensus, while other editors waited. Again, this is in accordance with Wiki policies, not my directives. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the sockpuppetry issue, here is my remark Sandy's initial response here is Sandy's second response an hour or so later .

I would prefer that one or two impartial admins looked at the relevant pages and formed their own opinions of what is happening in context (not least because, as long as they do, nothing else will happen, and the page will be edited by true concensus of equals as it should be).

I do not believe any WP guideline is meant to be expressed as though it were a personal order to a subordinate. re the above this might be a good starting point where Sandy orders me, as though I were a subordinate, to revert an action I had stated I believed was right in it's context, rather than doing it herself. Which WP guideline impels her to do that? --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the TS mediation, those were statements made by my co-editor on the TS page, and since Francis was the mediator, he was in a good position to know whether or not I was kind. The co-editor was emotional, and was mistaken in his statements about the talk page or the edits. In fact, I have been very kind to him, and with respect to him, then and today. A thorough review of the talk pages in question will reveal the facts. Francis, who was the mediator, can respond to your charges about my behavior on that. I would be interested in seeing an example of what you refer to as my abuse on AS, so I can understand what is troubling you. We have gotten a lot of collaborative work done in the last week, and I've not seen any evidence of discord. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As already clearly shown, Sandy is perfectly well aware of discord (see and most clearly here:) and the above statement is untrue.

Also see her own comment further down here where she states You have never made contact with me, indicating we had a dispute, but you did seem to engage in a personal attack on me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, when you referred to me as domineering and passive-aggressive. Since we have so much work to do on that article, I ignored the personal attack, called no attention to it, and moved on with our work. Because you are a frequent editor of pesonality disorder articles, I just took it that you tossed terms like that around casually, and decided not to make it personal. .

It is very hard to communicate discord when the person you are trying to communicate it to dismisses your every attempt to communicate it as a "personal attack", and tries to get you censured for it instead of considering or discussing what you are saying. As a result, you are prevented from trying to communicate by the risk of censure. Unfortunately, the more severe the problem, the harder it is to communicate in a way that cannot possibly be manipulated and presented as a "personal attack", which was my cue to bring this here.

I suggest Sandy show examples of "kindness" because while I have frequently seen her flatter people one moment and undermine them the next in the exact manner of one who seeks to control and manipulate by abusive means. I have never seen a trace of "kindness" --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that you got notably upset when I used the words "unencylopedic tone" to describe an anon editor's insertion of unreferenced, unnotable text which appeared as an advert. You asked me to define "unencyclopedic tone", I answered your question 3, 4, or 5 times, no answer I gave satisfied you, and the topic was dropped. I was not aware you were still stewing on something. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be read in context, as it happened . My problem was with the way Sandy persistently dismissed the contributions of other editors without real explanation of discussion, using phrases like "unencyclopaedic tone" in lieu of giving reasons as though this were a self evident fact rather than just her opinion. My error there was in trying to show her what she was doing rather than state it clearly, because I could not think of any way to state it clearly without being represented as "uncivil" again. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have provided links above to the Asperger syndrome FARC as evidence that you have tried to find civil ways to express the problems you see, but I see no evidence on those pages that I am to suppose you are speaking of me, as the description does not fit me. I presumed you were speaking of problems on the article that long pre-date me (I cannot help but notice the tension) and that I had walked into the middle of something. Regardless of at whom the comments were aimed, they didn't seem very civil. Since you are now saying they were aimed at me, I don't understand your objection to referencing the text from reliable sources, which we are all productively doing. If you had something to say directly about me or to me, the FARC page wasn't the best means of communicating that to me. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have provided a link to another user's page, where you were having a dispute with him because he had warned you about civility, and not me. I became aware of this when I went to his userpage to notify him of the FARC, as was agreed on the WP:FAR talk page. When I found I was being discussed there, I tried to make light of it. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have never made contact with me, indicating we had a dispute, but you did seem to engage in a personal attack on me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, when you referred to me as domineering and passive-aggressive. Since we have so much work to do on that article, I ignored the personal attack, called no attention to it, and moved on with our work. Because you are a frequent editor of pesonality disorder articles, I just took it that you tossed terms like that around casually, and decided not to make it personal. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy on one hand, insists that she was not aware or informed of, any problem, and on the other insists that my every attempt to communicate that was a "personal attack" to be ignored. How manipulative is that??? It's called creating a "double bind" where the target is caught either way. It is also quite typical of her ongoing behavior. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As to "order people not to mention anything in connection with her name", order is strong language. I asked you please not to refer to sock puppetry in the proximity of my name, and this is simply Wiki policy of good faith. What editor appreciates having their name associated with sock puppetry? It is interesting that you say I treat the article as if it were my personal property, when the only edits I have made for five days have been to revert vandalism, cleanup references, make edits specifically requested on the talk page, or add comments to text. I have taken this position because I understand that I am seen as a neurotypical outsider by a few of you. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot be inserting bias into an article, when I'm not even editing the article, and when hundreds of edits have been made by many editors in the last five days. You are "at a total loss how to cope" with this, but one thing you did not do is talk to me about it. My e-mail is activated, I will read and respond, and I guard confidentiality of e-mail scrupulously. You are welcome to resolve this directly with me. Or, alternately, since it seems that what you have is a personal dispute with me, perhaps you would like to request mediation? I am open to any option, and hope that we can move forward amicably. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an more accurate picture would be derived from Special:Contributions/SandyGeorgia even the sheer volume of edits on one single article and it's talk page is unusual. My impression, over several days, has been that Sandy has far more interest in controlling how others edit, for the sake of controlling, than in the article or it's topic anyway. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also hoping you'll explain this comment: about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned). I don't know what incident you're referring to, what I had resolved, or what is not mentioned. Thanks, Sandy 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that as long as one or two impartial admins keep an eye on the situation I do not think the problem will continue or recur. I doubt of it would have got so far out of hand if the active presence of an admin had curbed the situation in the first place. Put bluntly, as long as Sandy believes someone with some kind of authority over her is watching she will behave like a little burnished angel, which, for me, is a perfectly satisfactory solution --Zeraeph 09:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion is that this entry is a personal attack, from an editor who has made no attempt to present or resolve his apparent dispute directly with me. Examination of the talk page reveals cordial and consensual editing, and steady ongoing progress towards improving the article in order to retain its featured status, with two editors now changing their votes on FARC to "Keep" as a result of the progress made. I hope admins will explore the talk page and evaluate the extent of personal attack. I understand it is stressful to see one's past work under fire during FARC, and that tensions will naturally arise, but other editors seem to be coping fine. Sandy 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Samanello

This is a brief notice that I blocked User:Samanello for 24 hours for vandalism (actually, for WP:POINT and generally for being deliberately disruptive). User was subsequently blocked indefinitely by another admin and then proceeded to make legal threats against me. Sometime thereafter, user requested to be unblocked and a third admin looked in to the matter. In order to centralise discussion, I set up User:Yamla/Samanello containing the discussion thus far. I do not believe anyone else needs to get involved but I am noting this information here in case anyone else wants to double-check what is going on and in the interests of being open. --Yamla 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm concerned by this user's edits and actions. Appears to only have the intent of attacking admins.. Yanksox 01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider this a priority. He commented on my talk page in regards to my reverting this edit and we've had some discussion. However, while we were conversing, he created an anti-administrator template and began posting it on administrator's userpages. One can see that he's decidely determined to be antagonistic from the comments left on my talk page. hoopydink 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Johnny the Vandal. Same as the now-blocked User:Novart. User:Zoe| 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

King of Hearts has blocked the user for a week. While I do see some irony in the matter, whether or not the user is Johnyy the Vandal, they have no productive edits. If no one objects, I am going to make the block indefinite. JoshuaZ 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest the same thing. It's what we do with abuse-only accounts, surely? Not give them a week off. Bishonen | talk 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

Per Bishonen, I have blocked the user indefinitely. If anyone disagrees feel free to unblock. JoshuaZ 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of edits, many bad articles

I know this page says it doesn't deal with abusive behaviour, but I can't find another place to post about this issue.User:L.G. seems to have some sock puppets, like User:68.8.29.40 and User:68.101.241.195. If this isn't the correct page to use asking for assistance, please do take a moment to point me to the proper spot.

These users have created nonsense articles that we've been filing for deletion:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KBIT FM
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KFYT FM
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KMBS FM
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KWLD

If you dig into the edit history of the deleted articles, you'll find another username or two. You will also find that the user reverts, blanks, and modifies AfD and PROD tags.

The user-set will occassionally add articles about valid stations, but they're poorly written with badly-checked facts and other problems. Contact attempts at the L.G. talk page haven't helped.

They have made literally hundreds of edits to List of urban-format radio stations in the United States. -- Mikeblas 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the user. The next time he creates a hoax article like this he should be blocked and the article(s) speedily deleted. —Quarl 2006-07-19 05:34Z

Blacklist for linkspammer?

Could someone with privileges on Meta consider blacklisting the site http://www.ringtones-dir.com? I just saw one instance of inserting hidden links into an article here, and I suspect that there are – or will be – more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There were (and probably are) more, based on the Google site search I just ran, on several non-English Wikipedias (or sort of non-English, too: there's a SCOTTISH Misplaced Pages?: Gin ye dinna want yer writin tae be editit athoot mercy an redistribute at will, than dinna submit it here). Someone with access to the proper tools ought to run a search on the current state of Misplaced Pages, not Google's probably outdated cache. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Use Special:Linksearch. I found 2. nuking now. Thatcher131 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also added to m:Talk:Spam_blacklist. Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You can remove it; I just added it to the blacklist itself. Essjay (Talk) 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disruption and possible original research by IP editor

67.22.6.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was brought to my attention by the disruptive edits he made at Power Rangers: Mystic Force, which can be said to be orignal research, however the content of his edits are well received by the Power Rangers fandom. In fact, the information he stated is listed in the trivia section prior to his edits, as well as on other pages related to the series. It's just that the diction of his edits are a little condescending: "Five bucks says Nick is Bowen" and "Anyone who has done any research...". While the gist of these statements are regarded as true, I don't think they are necessary for inclusion in the article. I had left messages on the user's talk page, a test3 with some personalization and then he had done the second contribution while I was leaving him the message. I then gave him a test4 with other personalization and then listed him on WP:AIV, and then I was directed to list him here through a message left on my talk page. I'm not sure as to what should be done. Ryūlóng 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

64.110.251.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is POV pushing over at Saskatchewan Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Ardenn 02:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark (again)

Blu Aardvark has been caught by CheckUsers making more abusive sockpuppet accounts (about two dozen in all), including such gems as The password to this account is "LOLJEWS" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and The password to this account is "JEWRANDA" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I recommend reinstating the indefinite block that was originally placed on him awhile ago before some people got the mistaken notion that he could somehow be rehabilitated. --Cyde↔Weys 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I reblocked indef for the mass sock creation, and given his prior past. 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaranda (talk • contribs)

The one year ban imposed by ArbCom has more relevance and teeth than a community imposed indef ban that is easier to overturn. I'm sure sockpuppetry would restart the clock on the ban. This is ArbCom's baby now. NoSeptember 05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This case is such a no-brainer that we don't need to waste ArbCom's time to extend the ban. --Cyde↔Weys 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't waste their time in these situations, any admin can extend the block and add it to the log on the ArbCom case page. NoSeptember 05:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark. I just added 20 users to this category from just the past week. There are still a lot of socks that Blu Aardvark created in the spring that were never tagged as socks and added to this category. --Cyde↔Weys 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blu has a funny way of showing he's not an anti-semite. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it and believe that blue ardvark was provoked when an administrator removed blue ardvark's own messages in their talk page and protected it, claiming "they attempted to use their talk page." My recommendation is that you unprotect his talk page and try to reason with him. Hardvice 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comment reminds me of why I prefer ArbCom blocks. The beauty of an ArbCom based block is that appeals from his friends at Encyclopedia Dramatica etc. will go nowhere, since it now takes more than just convincing one random admin to unblock him. NoSeptember 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• He was doing this for over an week now, and he had his chances, today after the block, he came in irc and PM me calling me a fucking wanker!. No point in having him around Jaranda 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Hardvice...you must be kidding! I can't imagine any reason to reason with the unreasonable.--MONGO 06:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

<removed post by banned user>

I want to make it clear that despite blocking, Willy on Wheels still does his thing. I recommend diplomacy with blue ardvark. Probably certain people on wikipedia did things to upset him and he may feel justified. Hardvice 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So what you mean is we should give preferential treatment and pander to those who aren't able to behave as adults? --pgk 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense how preferential treatment can mean just talking to the guy. Hardvice 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you haven't edited here between January and yesterday (except for an ED afd, imagine that!), perhaps you missed all the long chats that have already taken place with this user before he was banned ;). NoSeptember 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well he was here in March for three whole edits, the last time the ED article was up for deletion...and voted to delete it....even admitting he is a SysOp at that website, so that makes two confirmed Sysops from ED and two more that have the same username here and there that are listed as sysops there...ummm.--MONGO 07:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly the troll I blocked yesterday had very similar editing patterns ;). NoSeptember 08:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, can you post a link to the checkuser results at WP:RFCU/SORT? Thanks. Thatcher131 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that indef community ban is justified but I prefer working through the Arb comm. Do not want another attempted rehab that might occur with something indef. Let's extend the ban by working through the formal process. FloNight 13:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The CheckUser results are as follows: everything in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark has been established by CheckUser as a definite sock account of Blu Aardvark. One of our CheckUsers ran a report last night and I went through the list and tagged all of the sockpuppet accounts. --Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a public record of the checkusers comment on talk page or something? The reason I ask is, if I create a record at WP:RFCU/Case and say "Cyde says so," someone is bound to cry foul, but if I can provide a diff to a checkuser, problem avoided. If there is no public record (IRC for instance), an alternative would be to create the record but ask the checkuser to personally tag it before filing it. Thatcher131 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I ran the checkuser that discovered all these account creations over the last week. I didn't personally care to bother with tagging all the accounts which were already blocked for their inappropriate names anyway, but Cyde offered to do it and I sent them to him in private. I can affirm that all of the accounts Cyde and I added to the category last night were determined by a very conclusive CheckUser. Put this diff wherever you like. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Arbitration case, as a purely technical enforcement matter I have reset the ban to run for one year from today after Blu Aardvark used non-logged-in IP editing to evade his ban. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• And this is exactly why, given a choice between an indef community ban and a shorter ArbCom ban, I'd pick the ArbCom ban any day of the week. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Nod. Support working the ArbCom process to keep this disruptive user (effectively, we can count on him doing something to reset it at least once a year, it seems) indef banned without the danger of some well meaning but misinformed admin undoing the ban. Good block, Tony. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  To clarify, I have not blocked Blu Aardvark, who is already blocked indefinitely. I have simply recorded his ban evasion and reset the clock on his one year arbcom ban to run from today, as is customary in such cases. He remains indefinitely blocked, but if someone lifts this indefinite block for any reason they should then impose a block to cover the remainder of the arbcom ban from that date until July 19, 2007. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• A useful distinction :-) We can always invite him back in the unlikely event that the rabid anti-semite viewpoint becomes significantly under-represented. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would object to any welcoming of him back so long as he hosts a website which exists for the purpose of defaming and stalking Wikipedians. User:Zoe| 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I, Blu Aardvark, explicity deny that any of those accounts are mine. Also, stop with the anti-semitism bullshit. That's simply a personal attack. If you Misplaced Pages cult worshippers can ban me for making personal attacks, why the fuck do you launch them? On a gentler note, I do apologize for my abuses last night, as I was (rightfully) upset at the bullshit being touted by these users. I do not intend to run on a vandalism spree. 90% of Wikipedian's are good, upstanding human beings, and most of them I wouldn't mind talking with in real life. It's only a small handful that feels the need to defend the cult, and act in an aggressive and abusive manner. --12.169.174.231 07:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User RJ evading ban

Warning: Due to the complexity of this case the following entry is not concise. My apologies.

Background Information

This notice concerns RJII, a user who has been banned indefinately for a series of wiki violations and his own eventual admission of intent to abuse. Vision Thing is a user whose first edit occured on March 19, 2006. Because his first edit was to immediately initiate a discussion on a topic which had recently been the focus of user RJII, he was soon accused by user AaronS of being a sockpuppet. User Infinity0 also suspected Vision Thing of being a sockpuppet, and requested a checkuser. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the RJ "project", as user Logical2u said on the checkuser page, "all accounts by the RJII "team" will likely be undectable and un-check-user-verifiable, due to "home" computers, etc."

Due to lack of evidence from usercheck, the case appears to have been dropped. However, I believe that subsequent edits by user Vision Thing have more than demonstrated, via circumstantial evidence, his intimate connection to RJII. Unfortunately this is the only kind of evidence that could be applied to this case. I have compiled an extensive list of identical edits made by user RJII and Vision Thing. Please note that in my time searching dozens of articles edited by these two accounts I never found a single instance in which either editor reverted or even openly disagreed with one another, despite a tendency by both accounts to engage in edit wars and reverts. When I eventually became certain of Vision Thing being a sockpuppet I attempted to inform twice. Despite making several other edits on his talk page in the meantime, both my attempts remain ignored.

Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user

As evidence I would first like to note RJII's repeated insistance on indicating that the writers of the anarchist FAQ are "social anarchists". This is the very topic that Vision Thing first used as a subject of his first edit. The similarity of their edits can be seen from these examples by RJ,

• 27 March RJ, 30 March, 3 April, 8 April, 26 April

which can be compared with this edit by Vision Thing after RJ was banned: 9 July

Such instances are not isolated. For example, RJ and Vision Thing inserted the same edits concerning David Friedman on medieval Iceland:

• 24 April RJ
• 25 April Vision Thing
• 26 April RJ

Vision Thing has made many of the same edits that RJ was formally known for inserting since RJ's ban. Benjamin Tucker's "capitalism is at least tolerable" is a quote originally introduced into several articles by RJ:

• 20 May, 20 May

After RJ's ban it has been inserted into articles by Vision Thing in his place: 15 July

Individualist anarchism "reborn", is another quote originally inserted by RJ into the anarchism article:

• 23 June

has since been championed by Vision thing after RJs ban:

• 15 July, 3 July

Way back in January of 2005 RJ started posting many edits about the "U.S. Postal Service monopoly"

• 11 January

not surpirsingly, after RJ was banned nearly identical edits started coming from Vision Thing

• 3 July

And yet another instance, before his ban RJ inserted the following edit into Anti-capitalism: 15 June After RJs ban Vision Thing once again inserted an identical edit: 25 June

These articles and edits are only a small sample, constrained due to my limits on time. Here is a partial list of more articles that each has contributed to, often making the same or very similar edits. Please feel free to look through them to get an idea of the similarity in tone, style, and point of view: An Anarchist FAQ, Economics of fascism, Anarcho-capitalism, Bryan Caplan, Laissez-faire, Capitalism, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism in the United States, Template:Socialism, Criticisms of socialism, Talk:Wage labour, Collectivism, Anti-capitalism, Corporatism, Friedrich Hayek, United States Postal Service, Mixed economy, Free market, Property, Altruism, Natural rights, Negative and positive rights, List of anarchists.

In fact, the total number of edits to pages they hold in common is far greater than those to pages they do not. Yet, despite the fact that these two seem to have identical interests, edits, and political viewpoints, they have never engaged in so much as a "hello", with their only contact being to support one another on arbitration issues or deny that they were the same person.

Evidence of violation of wiki policy by Vision Thing beyond circumventing ban

To my knowledge use of a sockpuppet to circumvent a ban is a violation of wiki policy in itself, however I believe there is plenty of evidence that this sockpuppet is also a violation of the rules on:

• voting (as mentioned above)
• and Creating the illusion of broader support ,

RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account

It is important to note that when faced with a ban RJ eventually admitted what had previously been obvious to many, that his intent was to use "...advanced techniques of psychological warfare... most importantly, most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection). Hence, the RJII account served largely to wear particular individuals down, pyschologically, who were judged to be enemies."

In admits again to having multiple sockpuppets already prepared and engaged in wikipedia, "In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia... It is safe now for us to divulge that some of the sockpuppets will continue editing Misplaced Pages until at least the end of the year."

The edits of RJ and Vision Thing are so nearly identical, and so obviously from the same narrow POV, that it can't helped but be felt that RJIIs intent to be "successful in driving several individuals off of Misplaced Pages, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally)" is being carried on via the account of Vision Thing. Circumstantial evidence is never certain, but I believe this is as much evidence as one could provide given the difficulty in tracking down all the sock puppets employed by RJIIs account. In the unlikely case that the circumstantial evidence I have compiled does not remove doubt that Vision Thing is a sock puppet of RJ he is at least a Meat Puppet (perhaps in the form of banned user Hogeye who worked closely with RJ in the past). Regardless, Vision Thing is clearly carrying out RJs explicitly stated goals of disrupting wikipedia and gaming the system. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. I would tend to concur with you. However as you said, this cannot be proven. I suspect the only thing that can be done in this case is to go through the dispute resolution process and get a similar result to that which was meted out to RJII. You could use the previous two ArbCom judgements against RJII as precedent. - FrancisTyers · 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that in any case, RJII also appears to be using a series of throwaway accounts to avoid detection. Accounts like User:Antitrust and User:C-Liberal which were registered since he vanished, made a couple of edits (only two in Antitrust's case) to keep his preferred versions in place, and then promptly disappeared seem like classic socks to me. --Aquillion 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the assumption, but nothing can be proven. If his words are any indication, RJII would thrive on this kind of speculation. I'd rather not give him that satisfaction. He can play with this until he's 80 years old, for all I care. I might suggest some professional help, though. --AaronS 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Editor19841

User:Editor19841 has been spamming users with this message:

Hey, how's it goin'? I'm gathering support from Wikipedian Democrats to help bring the 2008 DNC to my hometown of Denver. If your interested, just post {{User Denver2008}} on your page. Anyhow, have a good one. Editor19841 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate? —Quarl 2006-07-19 05:36Z

Gah! Nonono... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've rolled back all the spam. I won't block because all this was a couple hours ago and he seems to be an established user, but I'll leave him a note. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur with the reversion and the warning. Misplaced Pages keeps taking baby steps toward being Friendster, and this is not a good thing. Geogre 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user Todd Bridges / Biff Ioman9 / Impostor Georgewiliamherbert back at 70.53.111.253

See Special:Contributions/70.53.111.253; this user was blocked by Shimgray as an impostor of my account some weeks ago, and is now back via this IP continuing to vandalize people's home pages and continuing the argument on User talk:Georgewiliamherbert.

I leave it up to reviewing admins, but an IP block seems like a good idea to me... Georgewilliamherbert 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Todd Bridges for some of the history. Georgewilliamherbert 06:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Deglr6328 attacks at Eric Lerner

User:Deglr6328 appears to "have it in" for fellow editor, User:Elerner and an article about him, Eric Lerner, examples include:

• Extreme personal attacks and uncivil behaviour aimed at User:Elerner
• Smearing Lerner's work as pseudoscience , verifiable citations have been requested three times.
• Diminishing Lerner's status as a plasma physicist and plasma cosmologist

While I appreciate that User:Deglr6328 personally does not appear to approve of Lerner, nor his work, promoting those views in a Wiki article is not the place to do so. I would like to see User:Deglr6328 banned from editing the article Eric Lerner. --Iantresman 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. We don't ban people from articles for having editing disputes: and in this case, I think, it would be a double standard to do so: WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL doesn't mean that the subjects of articles should be immune from reasoned criticism.. and the fact that the subject is actually editing the article, frankly, swings the balance the OTHER way. If Lerner is going to edit the article on himself (which I really don't think he should), he's going to have to accept that editors critical of him are going to edit the article, too. I'm going to get involved in the dispute and see what I can accomplish. Mangojuice 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If the subject of the article was being equally uncivil, or presenting unveriable information, I'd completely agree with you about balance. But I accept your willingness to step in, and appreciate your time. --Iantresman 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner engages in personal attacks and incivility all the time. That's why there is an RfC for him that has been open for months. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing at AFD for ED

I was recent changes patrolling, and the following new users caught my attention because they already had User Pages: Fethawildthunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Magisgonorpanther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They claim to be using Misplaced Pages to send a message, the second of which has a link and a copy-paste from Waropl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s User page. And then I found the same message at Trazombigblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It seems that these users are contacting people who voted in the last AfD for Encyclopædia Dramatica to vote, again. All contribute the same message to different users. I contacted Trazombigblade and told him what he was doing was wrong, and he merely replied "I disagree" and he appears to have stopped. I listed them all at WP:AIV, and the first two were blocked, but it was suggested that I bring the other two here for input. Trazombigblade was the most prominent of these editors, and I haven't seen any other editors do the same, as of yet. Ryūlóng 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All are blocked. Wanted you to put this here because it's more permanent than AIV. That way we can track this a bit easier. --Woohookitty 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing.--MONGO 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

At what point does this AfD need to be restarted from scratch? --InShaneee 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think spamming and improper behavior on this AfD are avoidable (and that goes for both sides of the debate). Let the AfD continue and perhaps make a link or two to this kind of a post so that any particular closing admin might be able to factor in such examples of spamming/solicitous behavior, etc. (→Netscott) 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The wording on the AfD itself was also edited repeatedly *after* it was posted, making it sound, if I may, more severe and/or 'worse' than the original as posted. Is this an issue? Looking for comments from others beside original AfD poster. rootology 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Waropl doesn't appear to be blocked, but he wasn't one of the users who posted the same extremely long message. I would be suspicious of any new users who have user pages with the message "I am here to deliver a message, I am not a troll, etc." within a minute or so of creation. Ryūlóng 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been spammed on my email address that links to my User page by a user who is unknown to me in regards to this AfD. I don't know if this person is spamming everyone, or only admins, or only certain admins, but the behavior is highly inappropriate. User:Zoe| 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This diff by Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) makes me wonder if that user is not our culprit? (→Netscott) 01:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My email was spammed also by User:Rptng03509345, who seems to have been indef blocked. Vsmith 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that user is undoubtedly a sockpuppet of another user. I'm thinking that user hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) might be our spammer. (→Netscott) 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SPUI

I'm at a loss to figure out which of the many SPUI probations have expired, or whether one is still active. But please block for at least a week, so that the rest of us can sort this out.

For the past several weeks, s/he has been edit warring over Ontario provincial highways. S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again. Ensuing signs of extreme embitterment.

This page was fully annotated (by me) with legal references. Apparently, SPUI is some kind of wiki-lawyer, without formal legal experience.

Today, s/he is at 3 reverts, all with the edit summary including "crap".

1. revert crap - READ THE LAW MORE CAREFULLY
2. revert crap
3. revert incorrect crap again

I'm at my 3RR limit, and ask that the page be reverted to the most recent William Allen Simpson and protected. (Please do not protect at one of the incorrect SPUI states.)

Likewise, at limited-access roads, every requested fact has been annotated, so that the annotated page is full of them, and yet SPUI persists in edit warring, covering the page with "original research" and "disputed" tags.

1. revert inclusion of crap
2. revert inclusion of incorrect crap
3. fine... I'll leave it in and mark it as the steaming turd that it is
4. more tags

This is an abuse of process. Please protect the most recent William Allen Simpson.

--William Allen Simpson 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an abuse of AN/I space, sir. — Jul. 19, '06 <freak|talk>

Have you read the talk page of List of Ontario provincial highways? Myself and another editor have both told you that you're dead wrong, and notified you on your user talk page, but you continue to revert. As for limited-access road, everything I marked as uncited or original research is such.

You're also wrong about "S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again." I "lost" the one about Ontario, and have done nothing else with it. The one for Category:limited-access roads is still being discussed due to William's improper close; he was heavily involved in the debate, and closed it at his view when it could have gone either way. --SPUI (T - C) 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, Mr. Simpson closed it to retain the status quo, when no other participant in the discussion supported keeping the status quo. — Jul. 19, '06 <freak|talk>

There aren't any magic admin buttons to solve a content dispute. The "block SPUI" button isn't it. The "protect the page in William's version" isn't it either. Haukur 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For reference, ArbCom remedies imposed Jul 5, 2006 related to highways - Syrthiss 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways: 2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.

-- Drini 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This was perhaps misfiled at WP:ANI instead of WP:AE. Having said that, both parties are acting unreasonably in edit warring. I've asked them both to stop at once. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the very first sentence, I was unsure whether SPUI still had a current probation. Some clerk fell down on the job, as SPUI is not listed as a participant on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests/Involved parties since February 2006.

As to your other comment, you expect unilateral capitulation? Or that every page edit by SPUI should result in an individual Arbitration, rather than just reverting it?

--William Allen Simpson 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The page you cite has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee or the Clerks' Office. It seems to have been a private project of NoSeptember (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and was updated between April and June of this year.

I have not requested unilateral capitulation. I have asked both of you to stop edit warring. I expect you to engage in civil discussion. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns with my edits on the talk pages of the articles, and realize that you can be (and often are) wrong. --SPUI (T - C) 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that you were warned about civility, as well. The point of all this is that the ArbCom reiterated that there is no consensus, and to continue acting as if you have it is disruptive. --InShaneee 16:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus that (a) adding obviously incorrect information is bad and (b) removing {{fact}} tags is bad. --SPUI (T - C) 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact SPUI hasn't been blocked for violation both the civility and disruption conditions set by the most recent Arbcom is disturbing. If other editors involved in that Arbcom have to be civil and refrain from disruptive edit warring on highway articles, why is SPUI being held to a different standard? He is being disruptive, no one questions this above as it is without question. My question then is why isn't one of the Admins here doing their job. A block is proscribed and anything less then institution of said block does nothing but negate the entire validity of the Arbcom. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrators have discretion and are expected to use their common sense. Nothing would be served by a block or a ban at this point. Both sides are opinionated and a little unreasonable, but they're talking and no longer edit warring. I've warned SPUI about incivility as reported above by William Allen Simpson. --Tony Sidaway 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it serve as a warning to him that Arbcom is serious and that his behavior is unacceptable? Wouldn't it prevent the ongoing war on that page? If Arbcom decisions aren't going to be enforced that what is the point of having an arbcom? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a request to WP:AE. I will note that s/he is now tag teaming with administrator FreakofNurture to avoid 3RR.

--William Allen Simpson 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask for a page to be protected on your version, though. Protecting on a specific version isn't generally done except in cases of simple vandalism and the like; protection is supposed to be a preventive measure to help edit wars cool down, deter extreme cases of vandalism, and prevent vandalism to essential pages like templates and the main page. It isn't supposed to be used to defend one particular version in a content dispute, no matter how wrongheaded or rude the other party is. --Aquillion 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has to abide by the same arbcom rules SPUI does and the same rules SPUI has now flaunted I'm requesting he be blocked under the terms of his probation for disrupting and warring on highway articles. This giving him chances stuff is b.s. If it were anyone but him they would have been blocked, rightly so, under the terms of the probation (which explicitly forbids highway article disruption which warring is universally recognized as. If he's not then the Arbcom and it's rulings are a farse and should be treated as such. I would expect no less then a block if I violated the terms of that probation too. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dora Venter AfD

After discussion on here several days ago, User:Sceptre reopened a second AfD on Dora Venter at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dora Venter (2nd nomination) after the first one was messed with by User:Haham hanuka, the article's creator. Now Haham hanuka closed the 2nd nomination as keep despite no decision in that way (I know we don't vote, but nose count says 8-5 for delete, 2 of the keeps being weak keeps), at best this is no consensus. In addition, he voted in the AfD. I reverted his closing of it as he is too involved to be closing it. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? This is the second time he's impeded on AfDs for this article (an article that had been deleted four previous times as speedys ). Metros232 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Persistently acting in bad faith. Restart the AfD and block HH for the duration. (Alteratively, warn him and then block for a week if he edits the AfD in any way except to cast a single "vote." Thatcher131 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre blocked the user for a week and a new article was found on her between the reopening of the AfD and now . So I don't know what exactly to do now. Maybe the AfD should be withdrawn to allow User:AnonEMouse the ability to expand the article? Metros232 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD has 2 more days to go. Whomever closes it should take into account not just the raw count of opinions but their substance. It is not unusual for an article to develop during AfD so that it ends up getting kept even if the early opinions are to delete. And there is always WP:Deletion Review if the outcome still seems wrong. Thatcher131 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In actual fact, it's a restoration of deleted material. I'm letting the AFD run, and HH's single vote should stand. Will (message me!) 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:AlexWilkes

Several other users and I have been having problems with User:AlexWilkes for some time now regarding his edits to football-related articles. He's not a vandal and I honestly believe his edits are in good faith, but many of them just aren't helping. He adds dozens of tabloid-style headings to articles (ie here), which is discouraged in the MofS, or duplicate (and unwikified) information already recorded elsewhere on the page. Furthermore, he never responds to his talk page and doesn't appear to even read it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. SteveO 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted them about WP:MOSHEAD and told him that he should try and understand that all articles have to fall under this style guide. Has anyone else tried to tell him about this, SteveO? Iolakana| 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Numerous other users have tried to tell him about this and other issues but with no success. Just read through the messages on his talk page and you'll see what I mean. SteveO 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Username block/vandalism acccount

Would someone kindly take a look at Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? This account appears bannable on both the username and the user's subsequent edits. Also please consider speedy deleting the image they're using to vandalize. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Username blocked. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks RadioKirk. (→Netscott) 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Username block requested: Haywood Jablowme

Haywood Jablowme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is innuendo for "Hey, would you blow me?" in violation of WP:U#Inappropriate usernames ("Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre"). —Caesura 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Will (message me!) 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NICE catch! I had to do a few double takes before I noticed it. Keen eye. --mboverload@ 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's one of those newly current "all over the place" joke names. Apparently, it began with a fellow in San Fransisco being asked to comment on a fire -- a man on the street. He said he would appear on camera and gave his name as Heywood Jablowme. The video editor didn't catch it, and his man on the street opinion piece aired with his name appearing in a graphic. That got the funny-of-the-week e-mails flying. Geogre 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where should inappropriate usernames be reported?

Up until recently, I posted them here, but nowadays I'm putting them on AIV. Is there any policy? IMHO, blatantly inappropriate ones should go to AIV.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here, at least for ones that obviously merit an immediate block. Controversial ones can go to WP:RFC/NAME. --Sam Blanning 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed AIV is the place, for less immediate asking the user first if they'd consider changing is also a good option. --pgk 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind. :-) (→Netscott) 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

help me

hi a vandal is intent on having me banned because he claims it is aginst the rules to have a aol connection he is intent on having me banned and has resorted to personal attacks please could some one help. for evidence please go to my talk page. --Hunter91 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Users 71.143.19.196 and 71.142.208.166

Yesterday, User 71.143.19.196 was temporarily banned from Misplaced Pages. They have been engaged, along with myself and several others, in a dispute over the Benjamin Hendrickson page. The article is regarding an actor who recently committed suicide, and the dispute is over a line that states how (gunshot wound to the head).

User 71.143.19.196 had reverted to their version at least 13 times (since July 8) before being blocked yesterday. Along with some "minor sins" (ie, not signing comments with four tildes) they committed larger infractions, including foul language in other user's pages, and repeatedly removing text, including warnings, from their own text page.

It appears we now need to add sockpuppetry to their list of sins, as User 71.142.208.166 has made the same edit today (and has also made comments under edit summary that suggests they are the same user). This user is simply going to dispute anyone (myself or others) who edit this page, and agressively challenge them by comments on their page. They seem to have little to no awareness of proper protocol. I will admit myself that I don't understand all the intricacies of how to mediate a dispute, so I really, really need some help here. Thank you. NickBurns 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a consensus growing that the information about the gunshot wound should remain and one user is repeatedly removing the notes of that. This appears to be a simple case of a WP:3RR violation, so perhaps this should be reported at WP:AN3. Cowman109 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, scratch that. The IP in question was blocked for 48 hours yesterday (see block log). Is this still an incident, then? Cowman109 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, scratch the scratching! I did not see the subtle IP difference, and it appears user:71.142.208.166 is circumventing a block to continue his revert war that is against general consensus, so the user should probably be blocked. Cowman109 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, thanks for noticing - I read your comment on my user page - thought you may have missed IP address #2 and was just about to come to tell you....NickBurns 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• A range block on 71.142.0.0/15 would get both and maybe prevent more, although that's 131,000 addresses. Maybe blocking anon only wouldn't be so bad, for a short time. Thatcher131 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't do range blocks lower than /16 on wikipedia and you really shouldn't do range blocks for any length of time at all. We are too big now, collateral damage from range blocks in now an almost certainty. Are they edit warring over just one article? If so, semiprotection will sort them out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The edit warring in question appears to be with this article in question, though the user has been blocked in the past for general "abuse" and "disruption". Semi-protection should be best, though, as it will at least encourage the user to get an account so we can discuss the matter (though it seems he is just persisting in an edit war and has been reverted by numerous other editors). I will bring this to WP:RFP. Cowman109 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Nonetheless, the user has continued his incivility with a personal attack and has said he will continue reverting the article every time someone else reverts it. Cowman109 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'd like to see him try. Reverted and semi protected. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - and wow, my comment in question above was redundant.. in question in question.. Cowman109 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

blocked user evading block; Amorrow vs CanadianCaesar

During the past few days some new users have edited Francis Crick, James D. Watson and Rosalind Franklin. Some of this editing activity concerned moving existing text from those articles to a new article called King's College DNA controversy. CanadianCaesar deleted the new article and indicated that it had been created by a banned user, Amorrow. Several editors have gotten into a revert contest with CanadianCaesar and CanadianCaesar put some edit protection on Francis Crick. I asked CanadianCaesar for information about what is going on but CanadianCaesar told me to ask Jimbo Wales, SlimVirgin, FloNight or Nunh-huh. This was my first stop on the way past CanadianCaesar towards trying to find out what is going on. --JWSchmidt 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the question? All edits by banned user Amorrow must be removed. All articles started deleted. This article Francis Crickhas been edited by Amorrow. I have not checked the others but imagine that CanadianCaesar is correct. --FloNight 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"What is the question?" <-- Can you show me the evidence that Amorrow is involved? There have been many editors of these articles in the past few days. How do we decide which are banned users? --JWSchmidt 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AMorrow is an extreme gynophobe who has been banned for his misogynistic behavior and stalking. I've never encountered him personally but his style should be pretty easily recognised. If the editing stinks like a skunk, it could well be Amorrow. --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From the pattern. You can follow him from article to article. These are his IP ranges. 75, 68, 67, and others in close proximity. This is a topic of interest. From his tendentious and tenacious style. Other things I can't reveal. FloNight 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of with JWSchmidt, here. S/he asked a legitimate question and was rudely dismissed by CanadianCaesar. Now s/he comes here for more information and is once again dismissed (although not rudely). The question is, where is there any information on Amorrow's indefinite banning (aside from a single note on its user page) and some way for a user (such as me or JWSchmidt) to identify Amorrow's edits without having been around for the original behavior? Powers 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to ask the question. It takes a few minutes to put answer together. Since you all are interested, I'm hoping this means you will help clean up the mess he has made the past month. ; - )

This IP 75.24.110.198 edits boths these articles. Then look at IP 7523104203's Contribution page. You see the same overlapping articles. Once you find the article then I look for the other IP's. FloNight 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This information on AN might be helpful. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#AMorrow tries to edit by proxy --FloNight 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And this information. Category with Amorrow's suspected socks. and the Misplaced Pages:List of banned users FloNight 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to all for the information provided about Amorrow. As for CanadianCaesar, I am willing to be supportive of any Wikipedian who is devoting time to trying to control vandals and disruptive users. Also, for everyone who helps on this page, thanks for being here when people like me need you. I'm one of those folks who cannot deal well with the dark side of Misplaced Pages, and I really appreciate those of you who can and do. --JWSchmidt 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have now had a chance to look at many edits that are apparently by Amorrow puppet accounts. Above, Tony Sidaway indicated that Amorrow's editing often "stinks like a skunk". I have noticed this "stink" in a confrontational attitude and willingness to engage in multiple reverts when edits by these puppets are challenged or reverted. FloNight (see above) indicated that, "All edits by banned user Amorrow must be removed. All articles started deleted." However, some of the edits by these puppet accounts seem like valid contributions to the encyclopedia. The article that was apparently created by Amorrow and was deleted by CanadianCaesar was mostly text cut from other Misplaced Pages articles and written by other editors such as myself. There has previously been discussion about creating an article such as King's College DNA controversy and I am tempted to un-delete it (even if it was created by Amorrow) because it would be a useful article for Misplaced Pages to have. --JWSchmidt 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please don't! Andrew Morrow is a banned user like no other banned user. I don't care if he sometimes makes good edits.All his edits will be reverted. If you think the article would be useful for Misplaced Pages to have then write it yourself, do not undelete his work. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

      Theresa is correct. If he makes useful edits, those have to go to, and we can re-make them by hand if they're so good. Here (gotta scroll down to it) is Jimbo saying "Block on sight, revert on sight." That's all I need. -GTBacchus 07:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

      Or if you want the same thing without scrolling, see here. AnnH ♫ 07:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I created a stubby article King's College (London) DNA Controversy to replace the one created by a banned user. Note the name change. Please start from scratch rewriting it, remember not to violate copyright laws. FloNight 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see bad mojo with this'un

To whom it may concern: User:EETETE has been setting up a lot of sockpuppet or metapuppet accounts. For what reason I do not know, but I wanted to bring it to yout attention. Pat Payne 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Update -- his main account apparently has started vandalizing. in Talk:George W. BushPat Payne 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (forgot sig ^_^*

banned user Iasson editing as anon

213.16.157.19 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has two edits, both relabeling other Iasson socks as socks of Faethon, which is another Iasson sock. For some reason, he thinks it important. (One of them is a self-admitted public account, which he claims is being confused with Iasson; although RCU confirms. I haven't bothered RCU with this; if anyone wants to ask for confirmation, Iasson's page is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iasson. Septentrionalis 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Beyruling

I have blocked User:Beyruling indefinitely. All of his/her edits are vandalism or nonsense. User:Zoe| 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huge astroturfing campaign for "Christian30"

What does anyone think about this? I haven't done anything yet but have been observing the behavior of the following "separate" users:

• Rachel McLeod (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Zoe inPop (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Bethany Arbuckle (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Dan Nadine (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Renee Sanshaw (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Danielle Archanelii (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Abalaster Lox (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Rebecca Israel (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• David Arsenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zoe Coppins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ralph Itchi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Every single edit by these users seems to be here to promote a website called "Christian30 dot com", and the VJs, DJs, and other things associated with it. Google hits on this thing are awfully slim. Has anyone heard of this? Should the whole batch be AFDd? This kind of behavior is what set off my warning light. Antandrus (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment All of these users sound like a teenager. They all sound like the same teenager. Seems to me an RFCU may be justified to confirm. Fan-1967 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• To me it seems more like an adult attempting to sound like a teenager. "Supported: Do this!! This is lyk soooo coool... lyk totally man!!! u gota do it :D !!!!!! woooooooooh!!! lol Rachel McLeod 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)" Would a real teenager actually go that far? I agree that a checkuser would be appropriate. Mak (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's major sockpuppetry going on here. Danielle Archanelii, Ralph Itchi, Rebecca Israel, Rachel McLeod and Zoe inPop are pretty clearly the same person. Blocking all the socks seems to be the thing to do. Rebecca 05:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. All are confirmed (via checkuser) socks of the same person. Essjay (Talk) 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All accounts, like, totally bummed out using my bodacious block button, dude. User:Rachel McLeod designated as the puppetmaster purely because she was first in the above list. --Sam Blanning 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I found another: Danielle Cooley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't feel comfortable blocking on suspicion alone as all (well, some at least) of these accounts have contributions to other articles, not all apparently Christian30-related. --Sam Blanning 11:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And another: Rebecca Rowland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Being used to support Cooley on Talk:Gloria Jean's. --Sam Blanning 11:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Losing new editors

Misplaced Pages has a problem with losing new editors. I have seen many comments by editors who have decided to leave because they have felt unwelcome or have been treated roughly. As a newish editor myself the following experience might serve as as a case study. I put the Gill Langley article up for AfD (it has just been closed no concensus). The pros and cons of that are not the issue here, however. During the AfD SlimVirgin thought it appropriate to make a smutty joke which though subsequently blanked remained up for nearly a day.

I considered that the report cited in the article was controversial - whether right or wrong that was my view. I inserted into the article 'The Next of Kin report into what is a contentious subject has, however, not yet been peer reviewed nor subject to critical analysis.' Again, whatever the merits I regarded that as factual point and my right as an editor to make it. However, SlimVirgin the creator, reverted my edit as (delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?) and (rv stop this nonsense). SlimVirgin than put on the talk page 'BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights.'. When I explained my position SlimVirgin then wrote 'You're talking utter nonsense....As for your attempt to poison the well in the introduction....'

I gather SlimVirgin is an admin, charged amongst other things, presumably, with dealing with aggressive editors. Her comments do not seem compatible with either WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. How can I and other new editors have confidence that she will look after our interests when she is prepared to make these sort of comments to someone who she acknowleges is a new editor?

I have spoken to several people who have expertise that they could bring to WP. However, they are reluctant to get involved because they have heard that if you tread on the wrong toes you can get flamed. From my experience I can only confirm that they are right. BlueValour 03:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I offered a view on Blue's talk, but I wonder whether this ought first to have been raised at Slim's talk page, at which I find no correspondence from Blue prior to his directing her attention to AN/I (my sincerest apologies if I've overlooked a post); surely AN/I does exist in order that one might solicit outside views with respect to the conduct of an admin, but issues are often resolved through direct communication, even in such situations as one thinks (as Blue seem to here) his or her interlocutor to be averse to discussion. Joe 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin often removes talk from her talk page. She has a high edit count and has a lot of influence, even for admin. She has blanked her userpage as recently as May as a successful tactic to block other users from Misplaced Pages, at least for years if not forever. Since the Community generally is willing to conform to her expressed will (and she is an expressive person), then you can expect that such behavior will continue. Buck up and prepare yourself for such interactions. -- 75.24.104.11 08:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is from banned user Amorrow. SlimVirgin 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And?????? Does the block (especcially issued by someone like you) make him an underdog here? 85.70.5.66 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

She has blanked her userpage as recently as May as a successful tactic to block other users from Misplaced Pages, at least for years if not forever. Quite a trick there: I didn't realize that page blanking held such strong magical powers. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin is typically a fairly ok person. She has to deal with a lot of rude people though, and I guess like everyone she can have a bad day once in a while, when the rudeness gets to her, eh?

Wikipedians are normal human beings who sometimes forget their manners, but in general they *do* know how to behave. To get wikipedians to be polite to you, even if they're rude to you at first, just be nice, be patient, explain things using clear logic, stay calm, and stick to your point. People will typically start to listen and start to behave like proper wikipedians again. :-) Remember that you're constantly negotiating where the consensus will be, and that everything you say will be archived for eternity, so stay professional. Kim Bruning 09:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that the vast majority of our soldiers WP admins, 99.9% or more of them, in fact - are doing a fantastic job under incredibly difficult conditions, going by the book and treating iraquis editors with respect and even affection, how does the latest tiny batch of bad apples affect the otherwise stellar reputation of WP admins?

(uncivil, rules-breaking admin spirited away by admin cabal apologists - again) 85.70.5.66 11:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardvice (talk · contribs)

Hardvice (talk · contribs) is calling several editors sockpuppets with no proof, , , and claims the image on his userpage is a self portrait, stating "I took the picture of myself. That's about all it is." . The image was uploaded on December 14,2005 , right after the story broke, probably in the news and on this website, which has the same image, and is likely a mugshot of someone else. There is zero proof he took the image himself, and the image is up for deletion and should be a speedy due to copywrite issues, as at least the website above clearly states "Copyright 2006 by Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." Hardvice has suddenly reappeared after a long hiatus since January 3rd to participate in the drama over at the encyclopediadramatica Afd, with only three other edits in between, interestingly to the last time the article was up for deletion, even voting "delete" then. Hardvice has claimed that he doesn't want his identity reveiled, but I can see no proof that he is the same person in the picture.--MONGO 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this diff relative to the spam that was sent out by User:Rptng03509345. Does it not seem rather simliar? (→Netscott) 06:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I direct also to Jimbo Wales's commentary here, in which he states "I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project." I would say that this situation is an overt attempt to use a copywrited work, knowingly.--MONGO 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to comment that it would take long hours of dedicated internet stalking and bad faith and assuming bad faith to find every image I've uploaded and everything on my user page and try to hunt down some reason for a personal attack against me. By the way, MONGO it was user Hipocrite who did that, and they never told you to do this, so are you them?

Also I love how you two (or one?) never assume good faith and always assume bad faith. It makes it hard to assume good faith about you two (or one?) Hardvice 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain again how many wrongs it takes to make a right? -GTBacchus 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So now, again, he accuses me and Hipocrite of being socks that I am some kind of stalker...well look at this stuff...go to WP:RFCU and get proof. I think the fact that you added the comment "I took the picture of myself" after it was pointed out to you and put up for deletion simply proves the point that you are flagrantly violating our policies.--MONGO 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is not a copyvio. The story behind the image is embarrasing to Hardvice, who wishes it to remain private. Zscout unearthed the reasoning and posted it to the possible unfree images page. Per Hardvice's request, and with Zscout's consent, I wiped out that edit using oversite. Suffice it to say, the image is most definitely in the public domain. However, this is all academic, since Fcytravis deleted the image itself. Raul654 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification appreciated. There really wasn't anyway of easily finding that without someone telling us, which Hardvice didn't do. I'd appreciate it if someone would explain to him that I don't use sock accounts and he needs to verify this through checkuser before he makes this accusation again.--MONGO 07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I saw Hipocrite's edits to the image and to the unfree image place. I did not see any Zscout. Hardvice 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My actions occured at the WP:PUI, but as Raul said, the edit was erased from the servers with my consent. All it stated was a source for the image and it's copyright status (public domain). User:Zscout370 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the original post by MONGO, I want to say that I've been doing too much conflict editing and I am going to try to cut back and stuff. I think unfriendly edits came out and that's not good, nor is parroting stuff learned on ED. Hardvice 07:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Or you can continue editing, but try and not focus not ED, on MONGO, on Hipocrite or even myself. There are plenty of areas where you can help, and neither any one of us will even be close. But if you want a break, take one. User:Zscout370 08:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Executive

I recently noticed Mr.Executive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spamming article talk pages with this message. I have blocked the account for an hour and reverted the edits. Hopefully someone here knows more about what is going on here and can deal with it appropriately. The account appears to be a sockpuppet (only created yesterday). -SCEhardT 09:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is an obvious sock puppet of Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has an RfAr in process and who is currently banned for a month. We should block the Mr.Executive account indefinitely. -Will Beback 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Block and revert. You might want to note this on the RFAR page or tell Fred Bauder, who ran the first checkuser on him. Thatcher131 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Casteist And Racist Remarks

Someone is making intentional casteist remarks on some pages(mostly talk pages) related to Marathas. Marathas are universally accepted in Hinduism as Kshatriyas. But this particular user is slandering and maligning Maratha image by typing everywhere that Marathas are Shudras (the lowest caste in Hinduism). This is particlarly insulting to the Maratha community on Misplaced Pages. The Marathas, builders of a former Hindu empire (see Maratha Empire), being a proud community are aghast at this kind of humiliation. I request the admin to please check this user. He is working through different IP addresses everytime. And he is signing his name as "Manu". Here are hi IP addresses -

• 59.144.101.196 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.102.20 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.103.36 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.106.158 (talk · contribs)

This kind of nonsense slandering must stop.

--NRS 10:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am white, but would saying that I am black or asian be an offense to me? No way. In fact, by stating that somebody/you might feel humiliated by comparison to some other ethnical / whatever group of people, you are being a racist yourself. Azmoc 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Notice board for India-related topics is the better place of this sort of issues. Tintin (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:221.134.8.218

This IP has vandalised Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh seven or eight times. Tintin (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards