Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 6 November 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Bazuka Poo

According to Misplaced Pages:Username, "names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body" are not allowed. Does this also cover the result of those "excretory functions"? The username in question is Bazuka Poo (talk · contribs). Aecis 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'result'? :) Yes, I think "Pool of Urine" would generally be considered more offensive than "Functioning Kidney."

That said, and pointing out that I'm no admin, 'poo' does seem to fall under the category of excretory functions, although it's pretty tame. Usually the non-biological meanings are spelled 'Pooh', in my experience. --Masamage 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pool of Urine is an obvious name; Bazuka Poo is not. The username policy is widely overused; a username with 'fuck' in it is an obvious block, but one with 'poo' is stretching it a lot. There's no big deal with something like "Bazuka Poo". Ral315 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. This seems to be covered by the letter of the guideline, but not the spirit, since I'd be surprised to see anyone offended by it. --Masamage 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate usernames are also names "implying an official position on Misplaced Pages." So what should we do with Misplaced Pages Scholar (talk · contribs)? Allow it, like Bazuka Poo, or ask the user to request a name change? Aecis 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholar does not necessarily imply an "official" position. A scholar at a university cannot generally be assumed to speak for that university in any official capacity.--Srleffler 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Firefox question

Why is it that I see the extra tabs such as watch, protect, etc. in IE 6.0, but only get the basic four in Firefox 2.0? I'm using the monobook skin. Thanks. -- Avi 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Try refreshing FireFox's cache by pressing Ctrl-Shift-R in FireFox. It sounds like it hasn't recognized your move from a new user to a standard user. Sasquatch t|c 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If Avi is seeing a "protect" tab, doesn't that imply adminship? Hesperian 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Of course, he is an admin  Doctor Bruno  10:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried refreshing, it does not work. I don't even get the "watch" tab that every user should get. Any ideas? Thanks. -- Avi 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Still does not work :( -- Avi 00:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What version of Firefox are you using?
2. Do you have any custom scripts in your monobook.js? Justin Eiler 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1. 2.0
  2. Yes

Thanks -- Avi 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, the javascript you have affects tags displayed. Try cutting and pasting ALL of the script to a dummy page, refresh your cache (CTRL + SHIFT + R), and see if the tags are displayed. If this works, then there's some form of bug with the javascript.

If that doesn't work, try going back to FireFox 1.5.*. Justin Eiler 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My IE works, so I think I'm going to stick with that for now. Thanks for your help!! -- Avi 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)

This user is being intentionally distruptive, either to prove a point or to make himself laugh. I don't know.

I first learned of him from his questionable contributions at the reference desks . I then spotted the article Sexually dysphemic youth, which he seemed to request be deleted. After speedy tagging it, he immediately formed a hangon having to do with WP:OR and such things, suggesting to me that the semi-request to delete it was merely bait to provide him with a soapbox.

After that, he's acted increasingly strange. He went and created another now deleted article, Super irony. He's been rude on my talk page , insulting to others , and has been making questionable/distruptive edits to articles .

This isn't the first time he's ever acted this way , however he archives comments in a page which is not linked to, so people seem to miss this. I've issued a test4, but I'm wondering how to proceed from there if he keeps it up. He does have some decent edits, however most are superficial, and a few are subtly vandalism or near to it . I'm also guessing that he might complain if I block him myself, because I may have a conflict of interest due to his attempts at insulting me. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A few of those diffs are concerning, specifically the "adding vandalism" to the missionary position and the redirecting "mate" to asshole" on a user's talk page. The others seem to be silly and a bit counter-productive, but I'm not sure if any of them are vandalism. I suggest leaving a message letting him know that if he continues this snarky behaviour, he'll be blocked. hoopydink 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he's a subtle troll. Note this edit: Not by itself, but as a pattern of behaviour. He trolls a bit, then does a few good edits and sucks up, then trolls a bit more, etc etc etc. Anchoress 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Roman Empirer" edits

Help! Akanemoto is adding a template to lots of dates with what appears to be a bot - however, the template is spelt incorrectly - I've tried talking to him, but he keeps on! Not sure how I can stop this - it will just leave a lot of re-editing afterwards... Stephenb (Talk) 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He is redirecting his talk page to a temp page so it won't show a message. I have blocked him while I figure this out, brb. Proto::type 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks - didn't notice the redirect! Stephenb (Talk) 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow is faffing with his talk pages, I think he's done so I've left him a message. Proto::type 12:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, a massive template like that on such an esoteric subject is way, way too much information for each of the year pages - has adding this to each and every page been discussed? Proto::type 12:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back the "incorrect" edits. Will shorten the block to a day, if Akanemoto decides to respond to the requests and I miss it, please could someone unblock the guy. Proto::type 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it justifiable.....?

Sir,The article in the page u have protected from further editing(S. Jithesh) is about a noted Kerala Cartoonist. He is an artist who had drawn thousands of book covers in Malayalam. Whether there is any sockpuppetry is in the AfD or not is irrelevent.A person who played in one Oneday cricket match is notable and a cartoonist who had drawn thousands of cartoons is non-notable. Is it justifiable...? Usually editors of encyclopedia are experts in such fields.In wikipedia it is edited by teenage computer professionals. They may be expert in computer related subjects,or films,or cricket, but not in art or literature. Atleast in Kerala related subjects in wikipedia things are going in that way...!Administrators just check the notability of the artist. Doing sockpuppetry or any thing on the page of a wellknown kerala cartoonist does not make him non notable. U know cartoonist used to get the enemity of many. He is a notable and highly controversial. Through his sharp nib of pen and brush he used to attack nasty polititians and communal brigades. This might have provoked many. Please note these links-, ,. Devapriya 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Devapriya 13:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use deletion review to appeal a deletion. Daniel.Bryant 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bb3b no2

This user had already received a final warning on his talk page regarding his recent vandalism to Oktoberfest before his most recent vandalization of the page. Vandalizing that page is also the only activity he has to date engaged in. Badbilltucker 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick note. You probably want to report things like this to WP:AIV where they'll be sorted out faster. Though the editor has certainly vandalized Oktoberfest enough to warrant a final warning, there was only one warning on the page when I checked. I added a test2 for his recent vandalism. Keep an eye on it (I will too), up the ante on warnings and then report to WP:AIV. Cheers. Dina 15:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kilz

User:Kilz has severe problem (diffs below):

• vandalised his user talk page 8 minutes after being warned. list - User talk:Kilz#Vandalism of this page. He has been warned twice (no templates used).
• WP:NPA violations against me, and a non Wikipedian (Swiftfox author) - list User talk:Kilz#Personal Attacks
• repeated uncivil behaviour User talk:Kilz#Personal Attacks

I bring this here due to the combination of vandalism, PNA, uncivil, and NPOV, edit warring, and his personal involvement with the author of Swiftfox which is almost the only article he edits. Widefox 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:StevenCrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Strothra

Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be abusing the deletion process in relation to Barbara Pierce Bush, more specifically in relation to an ongoing content dispute and whether or not to include her public intoxication in the article. --Mhking 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mvk page moves

User has moved Laura Bush to SLUT. Not sure if this is something I can fix, or if it requires an admin. -- Coneslayer 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved back. In the future, you can use the "move" button at the top of the page to move the pages back. Shadow1 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

Large_Barge (talk · contribs), is a New user,declared himself as administrator and member of arbitration commitee. He put a temporary block tag at User_talk:Bhoy_Wonder

Blatant vandal warning issued in User:Large_Barge.

Regards. Mustafa Akalp 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Large Barge

Newly registered today, impersonating an administrator and member of ArbCom, see user page. Only edit has been placing an illegitimate block message on a user's talk page. Accurizer 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Disregard; intervening report above. Accurizer 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruption during polls and xenophobic remarks

Now that the shameful Jogaila's RM poll is over, there is a strong need to shed some light on processes that have been going on during this poll and before that, so that the same disgraceful practices will not be applied in the future. By disgraceful practices is meant xenophobic remarks, spamming and spamming on the brink of trolling. Such disgraceful activities reached its peak when User: Truthseeker 85.5 has tried to turn the poll into the battleground between different nations by spamming multiple inflammatory messages , . Prior to that , has started disruption campaign on Portal:Russia notice board by deleting information about Jogaila poll multiple times , , claiming that this poll has nothing to do with Russia. Note: Jogaila was a ruler of Smolensk (Russia) and there are many Ukrainian and Byelorussian users participating in Portal:Russia so these activities by User:Balcer can't be justified by any means. Prior to that placed following messages on unrelated Talk pages (which can be classified as WP:POINT and spam on the brink of trolling) , . Bearing all those facts in mind, one can guess what were the motives behind another campaign by User:Halibutt. Prior to announcing RM from Jogaila to Wladyslaw Jagiello (that means from Lithuanian name to Polish name), Halibutt has started to create articles about Polish personalities under made up Lithuanianized names and anounce them on Polish notice board. . Same user was leaving messages bordering with trolling on Wikiproject:Lithuania ,. Note: Slawomir Borewicz has nothing to do with Lithuania, because it's a fictional character from Polish literature, so this is clear WP:POINT case. This campaign was accompanied by xenophobic remark . Note: Lithuanians are adding suffix -as to their names, and this way user:Halibutt is mocking Lithuanian language by adding suffix multiple times. And the saddest part is that the same pattern of behavior can be seen in the actions of some Wiki admins. Recent History of Solidarity FAC poll was accompanied by xenophobic remarks, cabal voting and namecalling regarding some users by Wiki admins. " nie rozumiem ataków Ruskich na artykuł dotyczący Solidarności" Translates as "I don't understand attacks by Ruskies on Solidarity article" this message was left by Wiki administrator User:Darwinek. In reply to this message Wiki administrator User:Piotrus made this remark : "Co do Ruskich - coz, jest tu kilku nacjonalistow i niestety nie udaje sie 'zakopac topora', i caly czas mamy taka niby Zimna Wojne". "If we speak about Ruskies, there are couple nationalists here, and we unfortunately can't bury the hatchet and we are having constant Cold War". Note: Ruski is pejorative for Russian in Polish, and Russian and Polish languages are related, that means even though those xenophobic remarks were written in Polish, they could be understood by Russian editors and offend them. Same poll was accompanied by cabal voting "PS. Zapraszam do lektury i komentarza na temat HoS w FACu, kilka glosow za moze jeszcze przewazyc szale" ("I'm inviting you to read and comment HoS (History of Solidarity) FAC, couple votes in favour might shift the balance"). Same chit chat by Wiki admins included name calling directed against User:Ghirlandajo . This name calling ( Żyrandol is Polish for chandelier) continues for almost a year now and it's time to stop it together with all disgraceful practices mentioned above by taking appropriate disciplinary actions, so it never happened in future again, at least from the users mentioned above. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The translated comments do not appear to be xenophobia. A paraphrase: "Why would Russian editors care about the Solidarity article?" answered by "Because we have some (unnamed) Russian nationalists who won't let the matter drop, so we're stuck in the Cold War all over again." Whether anything untoward has happened or not, those comments by the two admins are not xenophobic, but rather commenting on how Misplaced Pages articles get influenced by real world political agendas, and one is lamenting the fact that the clock is being turned back by nationalists. If "Ruskie" is pejorative in Polish, I would have to take your word for it. I take no position on the talk page notices or any other matters, just the lack of inappropriateness (or at least obvious inappropriateness) of the administrators' exchange. Geogre 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • The list of ethnic slurs qualifies "Ruskies" as a pejorative term. It was introduced into English-language discourse of the project by User:Halibutt, if I recall correctly. --Ghirla 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Dictionary of Polish language gives straight forward definition of Ruski - Ruski pejorative for Russian. Normative word for Russian in Polish is Rosjanin, not Ruski. You can use Wiktionary also Russian - "Polish: rosyjski, ruski (pejorative)"-- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 06:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • While maybe not "classically" xenophoblic, these nationalistic excesses need to come to an end. They are not consensus building, and are truly giving more and more credence to the belief of the existence of a cabal. One that is networking and sockpuppeting some kind of agenda. And not a good one either. I believe that "E. E. DUDE" is right, and I agree with him. Dr. Dan 04:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem but I am not sure this board has a solution to it. We are not a dispute resolution institution we can only block/unblock editors:

• User:Halibutt indeed behaves somehow strangely lately but he have made enormous contributions to the project and earned his right to be unpunished for mildly disruptive behavior. Still he apologized for the asas joke and I do not expect he would continue Alex Bakharev 12:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• The relations between editors from Poland and Lithuania, Poland and Russia, etc. are sometimes less cooprative than we would like to, but I do not see how we could use the administrative intervention to solve the problem.
• There was no abuse of administrative tools and incivility was not of a blockable grade.
• Truthseeker is already blocked for his vote canvassing and harassments. I have reasons to believe that he also used multiple accounts in the infamous Jogaila vote but this fortunately had no effect on the vote results, so he is not the subject of WP:RFCU.
• Darwinek contributed a lot into the subjects of Russian geography and his remark on the Piotrus talk page is the first time I could suspect some sort of hostility towards Russian editors (or indeed his hostility to anybody). As far as I know Darwinek is not a native Polish speaker, so he might not mean any insults. (Factually he was incorrect, only small fraction of Russian editors has any interest to Polish FAC discussions and we are almost always divided in our votes).

Lithuanian editors are in difficult situation - almost all their history is shared with Poles, Russians or Belarusians. They have different perspective and often even different names for the key figures. There are less Lithuanians then Russians or Poles, so they may feel like opressed by powerful cabals, but there are much much more neutral uninvolved wikipedians then both Russians and Poles together so the neutrality should win. Alex Bakharev 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As to what George have said, my response would be that, I think it doesn't matter much in what context ethnic slur was used. I might be wrong of course, maybe if aplied in genre of lamentation ethnic slurs have its place in Wiki. So it would be nice to have full list of poetic forms (lamentation, ode, epic) where the ethnic slurs are OK.

Also it would be handy if clear past contributions-allowed misdemeanor ratio was definied (for example for every 1000 edits user gets right to 1 ethnic slur, for every 5000 edits - 1 sockpuppet, for 5 FA - wildcard for 1 week anything-goes rampage).

--Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this hunt. "Ruskie" is used in English as a very mildly (now quaintly comic) pejorative, derived from the Russian pronunciation of "Russian." I was merely reading the offered translations of those lines. It may well be that there was an awful name used, in which case the two administrators were being impolite and unhelpful, but the general conversation looked like one exasperated and one lamenting person. I take absolutely no stand on what the editors did, only on those comments, which, to me, do not look like xenophobia, or even nationalism. Imagine that, in the heat of that awful Gdansk war, an American and Canadian were typing. One said, "What's with all these Polacks and Krauts arguing over this article," and the other said, "Unfortunately, we're back in 1936 all the time." The American would have been using insulting terms, but what the two would have been saying would have been not "let's go beat up one side in this dispute," but rather a more neutral line. At the very least, I see nothing in Piotrus's comments that looks too evil. That's all I'm commenting upon: the words offered as proof of admin caballism. Geogre 03:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Since my recent edits are mostly limited to creating such articles as Ateas or Palace of Poitiers, I can't say that I have watched the Jagaila vote as carefully as might be expected from a "Russian nationalist". The familiar incivility and gratuitous provocations on the part of several Polish editors induce me to post a general comment on their behaviour, however. The problem with Halibutt, Piotrus and other involved editors is that their editing may be qualified as tendentious per WP:TE. I believe that this tendentious approach arose from their intense concentration on historical Polish traumas. I advise all interested readers to check recent proceedings on Talk:Russian Enlightenment to see how historical Polish grievances are given undue weight in articles which have nothing to do with Poland. To discuss content with a bunch of meatpuppets (sometimes abusive, as Truthseeker) is very time-consuming and disappointing. It is more worthwhile to edit topics where the editors from this group are unlikely to appear. That's what makes me leave the articles on recent Polish-Russian history to their mercy. I agree with Geogre that this matter is not for WP:ANI. There is enough potential for an arbitration case in the future. --Ghirla 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you George and Alex for replying to this; comments by neutral editors are always appreciated. I certainly agree this is no matter for ANI, but rather for WP:DR - although I most strongly disagree with EED about who is the guilty party. The above comments by EED and Ghirlandajo are a marvelous example of how one can twist facts to pursue one's own agenda. EED approach is nicely illustrated with this edit, where in reply to Halibutt civil post he calls him an 'egomaniacal troll'; anybody who would like some further examples of 'Halibutt bashing' and incivility employed recently by several editors should check the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution - and indeed, their approach has succeeded in Halibutt loosing temper a few times (regretable, and he has been warned about this, but to see people who provoked him now using their 'success' here is rather despicable). As for Ghirla, a great content creator, but unfortunatly less than neutral and reasonable when it comes to content disputes, I'd advise any reader unfamiliar with him to take his 'neutral opinions' with a pinch of salt. For those unfamiliar with his stance, this ArbCom warning about his tendency to be incivil and launch personal attacks may be useful; and this RfC, a collection of his offensive posts from just a few months, should serve as a nice back-up to his 'credibility'; his block log is also interesting. Last but not least, lecture of Talk:Russian Enlightenment should certainly prove interesting, although I am afraid Ghirla may be disappointed as to conclusions neutral observers will draw there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This comment nicely illustrates why productive communication with this particular editor is so difficult, not to say impossible. Everytime some bias in Polish-related content is pointed out by me, he will emphatically refute my "credibility" by providing links to an (in)famous RfC instigated by him as a response to my opposition to Halibutt's RfA some year ago. IIRC he provides these links on a public board for the 11th time, of which four times were registered on T:TDYK alone. What is this but a personal attack? I appreciate the wisdom of ArbCom which refused to give them weight during the botched attempt to launch an RfAr against myself. For the umpteenth time, I urge Piotrus to switch attention from these routine attempts to discredit my person to his own confrontational attitude, which is the subject of the current thread and which has been a problem not only (and not so much) for myself, as for dozens other editors. --Ghirla 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, I certainly don't need to discredit you, you are doing it yourself quite well. PS. Isn't this a more xenophobic remark disrupting the poll we should be discussing?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed P.P. (Prokonsul Piotrus), that you were so busy making yet another "friendly" and personal "remark" against Ghirlandajo, that you forgot to apologize for making ethnic slurs. Do you have intensions to do so in upcoming future?

EED (aka Encyclopaedia Editing Dude) made a good point - what is going to be in the future when next vote will proceed? We will see yet another campaign which will involve spamming, raising tensions state vs state, ethnic jokes etc? To avoid such thing some actions should be implemented. M.K. 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• <Sigh> Please, folks, it's not about the persons, I hope. Ghirla is a wonderful editor, and so is Piotrus, and you both believe strongly in your principles -- which adds to your value as authors and contributors -- and no amount of pointing at one another is going to prevail on the substantive matters. We really do need more outside views on these matters, but American editors (such as me, certainly) are very poorly educated in the region and therefore have a tendency to either keep silent both on the reading and commenting or to very foolishly charge in based on liking one editor or disliking one editor. Are there editors from nations and ethnicities who might know the issues and yet be sufficiently historically and personally removed that they might offer neutral views? Are Estonians, Latvians, "Yugoslav" (i.e. all the nations formerly in the conferation), removed sufficiently, or have their experiences with the former Soviet and Russian regimes given them distorted backgrounds? Are Germans likely to be aware enough and yet removed enough? My point is that we need to find people who can be clear enough of ideology and ethnicity to try to solve the problems and yet knowledgeable enough to understand the issues that are setting these groups of valuable editors against one another. If such people can be found, will both sides consent to explain and accept the matters? (Yes, this is not the proper business of AN/I, but we've got to find a modus operandi sooner or later.) Geogre 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Copied from User talk:Fred Bauder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thatcher131's suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SlimVirgin's modifications of Thatcher131's suggestions

Editing Thatcher's suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another sockpuppet

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

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

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

Examples of the sockpuppetry

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

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

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

• He doubled-voted on the Sexual apartheid AfD.

• He double-voted on the Gender apartheid AfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freakofnurture block, CJCurrie unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avian flu

Avian flu is plagerized in the toronto daily news article Avian Flu Explained published today in its introduction where it says "Avian flu first infected humans in the 1990s, and since then H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that inflects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain. Avian flu continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing the world's number one expert on avian flu to published an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist magazine." It uses key phrases I wrote and have not seen elsewhere in exactly those words. WAS 4.250 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Toronto Daily News article introduces itself as "Medical expert answers questions about avian flu - the symptoms, the precautions, the research." Was, you should write to them and insist they credit you. "Medical expert Was 4.250 answers questions ..." has a certain ring to it. ;-) SlimVirgin 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if that was true and not just a coincidence, it wouldn't matter. People can do whatever they want with anything that appears on wikipedia- even lift an article word for word and then sell it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's entirely incorrect. You can do with it what you like, as long as you follow certain provisions, the main one being that a copy of the original source (before you modify it) must be distributed with it, and attribution must be given to that source (or somesuch), and most certainly any version of the source then modified must also be distributed with the GFDL license. Such is the GFDL, under which all things wiki are licensed. It's possibly a matter for the Foundation to look at.Crimsone 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't see what it'd have to do with the Foundation, its something the copyright holder should look into, it is they who hold the rights and have licensed it under the GFDL. --pgk 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very true, though I'd assume that copying of articles wholesale is something that's encountered quite often, and is something that affects wikipedia as a whole on some scale or level. You're probably right though. Crimsone 23:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Write a letter/email to the newspaper and show that it was copied and ask for a correction. It is likely they will issue one if you are coherent and forthright. Also, a journalist or intern at that paper will likely be reprimanded or worse. --Deodar 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Deodar's approach. Got to admit that the situation is a little funny though. WAS, I could invite you to visit my hospital in Toronto to speak as a medical expert on avian flu if you want :) -- Samir धर्म 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned (no by-line) advertizement ridden Toronto Daily web-article consists of unattributed sentences from the Misplaced Pages article Avian flu introducing a copy of this from Temple University with Copyright © 2006 VG Systems Consulting Inc at the bottom. Toronto Daily News is one of many websites produced by Moscow Media Group Inc. with offices located in Canada and Russia says this. Anyone who wishes to ask them to credit Misplaced Pages when they use Misplaced Pages can use their contact page here (the e-mail box is optional). WAS 4.250 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I just looked at it again and the unsourced Misplaced Pages paragraph has been removed. I guess they read their reader input after all. Thanks to everyone who messaged them. WAS 4.250 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles

User:65.241.54.187 (aka 63.164.145.198, 65.241.54.160, 65.241.54.173, 67.94.18.137, 67.94.18.162, 67.164.15.153, 71.106.204.33, 71.106.172.109, 207.200.116.138, 208.251.92.62,208.251.92.67, 209.101.48.205, Brianq, Dollys, Teddys, and Daphnaz) has repeatedly attacked numerous articles, most particularly the Judd Winick and Pedro Zamora articles. The identical nature of these edits and comments indicate that they are all the same person, or a group acting in concert. He repeatedly blanks out sections of the article, inserts unsourced assertions, removes the accompanying photo from the Winick article without any valid copyright reason given (the photo is one I took myself, and is properly tagged), he continuously refers to the deleted material as “lies” in his Edit Summaries, sometimes specifying that they are the lies of other editors who revert the article. He also makes personal comments about the article’s subject in his Edit Summaries, like “Judd’s a loser” and “a fraud”. He even nominated the article for deletion in June 2005 without illustrating that it met any valid reason as per WP deletion policy, and unsurprisingly, every single person who participated voted to keep it, concluding the process in one day. This vandal continues to add the AfD tag, even though the AfD was concluded almost a year and a half ago, and even tries to recreate the AfD page, which led to its protection. He also keeps adding a tag questioning the subject’s credits, but without engaging in discussion to elaborate on this charge. He has also removed the semi-protection tag. This person has been repeatedly warned on all of the Talk Pages listed here, and at least two of those pages (63.164.145.198 and 207.200.116.138) show an extensive list of warnings, including final ones, and in some cases, even blocks, not only for the Winick and Zamora articles, but numerous others as well. Nonetheless, he continues his activity. Is it possible to block this person permanently or do something more decisive? Nightscream 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Could this be Puck? JChap2007 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You know, it's funny, because that thought ran through my mind, but I don't think Puck would have a motive to introduce some of the stuff this guy did into the Zamora article, like taking away credit from Donna Shalala and giving it to Brian Quintana for getting Zamora's family in Cuba to the U.S., or inserting an unsourced quote by Zamora. I think someone mentioned that the vandal is Brian Quintana himself, and that one of the things he does is that he keeps trying to re-create an article about himself that has been deleted. One of the Usernames above, in fact, is Brianq. Nightscream 06:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez

Apparently I have become Ruy Lopez' next target due to my attempts to make Deflation reflect mainstream economic thought. Though I no longer care to make this encyclopedia be a source of valuable information (see my User page for more details), I would very much like to be able to use my user-talk page as a vehicle to communicate important information to me. If someone could make User:81.117.200.37, and all of his other incarnations leave me alone, it would be appreciated. See also . Thank you. JBKramer 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are feeling disaffected from the project and hope the situation will improve. In the interim, I have removed the "disruptive editor" template that was placed on your talkpage by an apparent single purpose account. 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link to my last 100 edits, and see 100 edits ago was in March. Which means, if spaced out, I've made one edit every two days. Yet for some reason, people tend to see me everywhere.

The user in question seems to have left his phone number on a user talk page, perhaps someone can call them and ask him or her if they are me. Ruy Lopez 06:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Uknewthat again

Uknewthat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of blocks for edit warring at Hafele-Keating experiment and Global Positioning System. He received a one week block earlier this week, and responded to it by insulting the blocking admin, SlimVirgin: . With remarks like ...one hundred years should be enough for every normal (non-Jewish) human being... and ...you and your "people"..., I believe he has crossed the line and exhausted the community's patience. I believe the time has come to indef-block him. It is clear that he will not stop his editing, and there's no reason to believe that he'll stop attacking and insulting other editors. This user is only here to disrupt wikipedia. Aecis 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This personal attack nonsense is unacceptable, and he has no grasp on the concept of dispute resolution. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is "Wow WTF?" I saw those comments he made and I fully support an indef for that guy. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed - the personal attack via an anti-Semitic rant, in and of itself, crosses the line of what can ever be acceptable. Newyorkbrad 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an earlier rant about certain pro-Einstein "people" working for the Mossad and a rapist President. He has also been evading his week-long block today using a new account and an open proxy, both now blocked. I'm quite willing to make his block indefinite. SlimVirgin 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that probably someone other than yourself should officially log the block. It doesn't look like there'll be any shortage of volunteers. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. SlimVirgin 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked indefinitely --pgk 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any notice of this on his user talk page. Should he be notified that the one week block has been made indefinite? Aecis 22:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe an admin should apply the "indef blocked" tag to the userpage and talkpage, which will have the added benefit of getting the personal attack off the page. Newyorkbrad 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done now. Newyorkbrad 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, pgk. SlimVirgin 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Darn it, you should have blocked him for a hundred years to correct his mistakes, not indefinitely. Grandmasterka 06:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat in an edit summary

In this edit. FYI Fan-1967 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Warned user. It's the only contribution they have made, so I doubt they'll be back. ♠PMC♠ 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Street address given for building - semi-protection requested

An anonymous IP recently added in the street address for Lakemba Mosque. An imam who preaches there recently made some offensive comments. Adding in the street address doesn't help create an encyclopedic article, but it may be "useful" for those who want to engage in real-life vandalism. I think the mosque's address should be removed from its edit history, and the article either semi-protected or the anon IP banned until the controversy dies down or the IP promises not to re-insert the address. Andjam 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The address is easily available via the first Google hit (click directory and go to the Lakemba entry) when using the mosque's name as the keywords -- see here . I'm not sure it is a major security threat, although it is somewhat unnecessary information. Just remove the information. It is a community building, its not like it is a private residence address. But if they repeatedly add the information and you have told them on the talk page to stop, then take it to requests for semi-protection here Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. --Deodar 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

69.241.4.133

69.241.4.133's contributions have been continued vandalism on Habbo Hotel, AIDS, and swimming pool, among a few other pages. This IPuser has demonstrated no willingness to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, and has even parodied his former banning with an inappropriate comment on the talk page. Enough warnings have been placed on his talk page for the IPuser to "get the point." I also think that with the block of 69.241.4.133, there will be no need for sprotect on Talk:Habbo Hotel as I was originally going to request. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty minor vandalism, but yeah someone should ban the user. The article page is already semi-protected, the talk page could also be. --Deodar 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hrs. Chick Bowen 02:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Should this not have been directed to WP:AIV? Just trying to figure out why some requests such as this are instantly jumped on with reiteration that 'this is not the wikipedia complaints dept' and others are handled near enough straight away? Cheers, Localzuk 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time I saw that this had other IPuser vandals and assumed this was the appropriate channel. Further cases regarding IPusers will be taken to AIV. Thanks for the heads up! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a revision of Benjamin Harrison

Could an admin please take a look at the history of Benjamin Harrison? A well-meaning anon has deleted some offensive vandalism from the article, but in order to explain what he or she did, copied the offensive text into the edit summary, so it's there forever in the history of a frequently viewed article. Perhaps someone could do a dummy edit, then delete the last edit. I'll drop a note to the anon. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Chick Bowen 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Admin school again

I removed links to the admin school on the grounds that it is not part of the RFA process and shouldn't appear to be (and it's at MfD in any case). The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) has been adding them back. I do not want to get into a revert war with him, so I leave it to others to decide what we think of these links. Chick Bowen 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be better to bring this up on Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy) since it seems to be a policy concern or on the talk page of the RFA page. --Deodar 02:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not part of the RFA process, so no implying that it is. That's pretty much that. A person can have, "according to my standards ," but it's not only not part of the process, it's getting pretty seriously hissed by the audience. Geogre 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, that makes three administrators who have removed such links, against one non-admin but wanna-be principle of an "Admin school" who wants these pages to link to his one-person project. I respect your desire to not edit war, but IMHO the issues raised at the afd - "this project treats adminship like a trophy to get for its own sake, going so far as to provide advice on gaming RfA and not even mentioning such principles (you might have heard of them) as assuming good faith, verifiability, NPOV and god knows what else that are a lot more important for admins and all of us to know about than edit summaries and using AWB to inflate your edit count, the topics this project seems to emphasize" among others - make highly undesirable that anyone might read this and think it is actually endorsed by the community. I welcome input on how to best handle this situation. The Transhumanist has put a great deal of work into putting together a complex package of pages, and its a pity he didn't float this past the community on the Pump before writing what is, essentially, "how to game the system and pass Rfa." I personally feel there is no need for this, but if others feel there is, with earlier input it might have actually be helpful and accurate. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL being edited while protected.

WP:EL is currently protected due to an ongoing dispute over the guideline. However, the page has been edited twice so far since it was protected (29 October), without the change being mentioned on the talk page first, or time given for people to object. I'm going to ask that the people who made those edits, Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) & Mushroom (talk · contribs), please explain their actions. --Barberio 03:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First, take a deep breath and assume some good faith. Next, did you check the edit summaries? One edit restored info lost during vandalism some time ago, the other was per a long discussion here about YouTube. Consensus of the community doesn't always occur on the talk page of the article in question, and yes, its hard to keep up with every forum for discussion, but perhaps a talk with the editors in question could have cleared things up instead of coming to the Incident board? Shell 03:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, the discussion on WP:AN never brought up any proposed changes to WP:EL for discussion. Just the idea that 'something should be done'. If the change that has been made had been put up for discussion, several legitimate objections would have been made to the actual edit, and suggestions on a better text to use. (Because I would have made them.)

If the guideline should have a line about anonymous sites is currently being discussed. Breaking protection to put it back in is circumventing the discussion.

I'm not making any assumptions about why this happened, just that it has. The root issue here is that people should have been given a chance to discuss this on the talk page before any edits were made to a protected guideline. --Barberio 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It can always be removed when the discussion about anonymous sites concludes, if it's decided that that line shouldn't be in the guidelines. Remember that there is no "right" version during a dispute. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly continue discussing and the page can be changed when consensus is reached. It appears that neither of the admins who made edits were involved in the revert war that lead to the protection. Its quite possible they're not aware of the ongoing discussion and that particular dispute; a quick note on their talk pages will usually resolve those type of situations. If you have a concern that administrator priviledges were abused and you don't feel you can talk to the administrators, WP:RFC is the correct place to bring forth those concerns. Shell 04:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter that the admins who made the edits were not involved in the dispute. The rule is to discuss first, this rule is to avoid people breaking page protection in ways that worsen the dispute. In both cases, the edits have been objected to as being inappropriate for the guideline.

Accidental changes are okay, but should be reverted as soon as the mistake is known about. --Barberio 12:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

When you say "in both cases", are you also referring to the edit which restored content blanked during some old vandalism? --bainer (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion as to if the line should be included or not. --Barberio 17:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. Firstly, you only contacted one of the editors involved before posting here and then didn't wait for a reply before posting here. I think you should in future wait longer as people do not spend their entire lives on here waiting for messages on their talk pages. Both editors have entered into dialogue with you about this so it seems that discussion on this issue is a little unneeded.-Localzuk 19:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing protected pages is not an 'non-issue'. It's something that should be rarely done, and for specific reasons. It should be stomped on hard, and immediately, when people do it. Page protection is an important 'emergency stop' on content disputes, making this weaker by saying it's not so bad to break page protection will seriously damage that. Yes, people can do it by mistake, and yes they should be given a chance to fix their mistake, which they have been in this case. But it's still important to stress that breaking page protection without a clearly acceptable reason is a very bad thing. --Barberio 22:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but as I said, you did not approach both editors and then give them time to respond. Instead you instantly jumped over here and posted about it. What do you expect to happen? Both editors have started discussing it with you so this has become, to me anyway, relatively a non-issue. Why not go back to the talk pages and carry on discussing?

Also, to clarify, I agree that editing protected pages is a bad thing but both edits were done in good faith in order to a) restore a (what was seen as) non-vandalised version and b) add a line that was discussed elsewhere. Neither admin is 'in the wrong' here and it should simply be a case of asking them to revert their edits and giving them time to do so.-Localzuk 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I posted because two people had done it within 24 hours, and I wanted no one else to come along and think it was okay.

Mushroom has reverted his edit, and I consider that matter settled equitably.

Dmcdevit has not, and refuses to do so despite saying he had not noticed the page was protected and would not have made the edit if he had. Instead telling me to 'find another admin to do it' and making bad faith accusation about my motivations. --Barberio 11:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets needed to be blocked

There is a massive farm of sockpuppets that needs to be blocked that are disrupting China. A list of the sockpuppets, graciously provided by Dmcdevit, temporarily lies at User:Cowman109/personalsandbox. I've blocked a good deal of some not on the list, but here still remains quite a bit, and I"d rather to to bed before 3am, so I was hoping others could help out with the blocks here. Thanks :). Cowman109 07:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Am starting with Random section break 4 - Aksi_great (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Section 4 done. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Section 3 done. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep just wanted to confirm section one done, so that's the lot. Aksi did all the others God bless 'im :) Glen 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! But, there is a new group of them that need to be blocked. This time I used word to convert the usernames into {{vandal| }} templates, so things should be easier. There are probably more to come once I forward more of the potential sock masters to Dmcdevit... Cowman109 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections 6 and 7 now done. List is empty for now. JoshuaZ 00:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! If any more show up I'll post back here, but I believe that's as far back as checkuser will go, so now it's a waiting game.. Cowman109 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vague threat by probable sockpuppet

The account's only edit was this post. --Doc Tropics 09:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Already dealt with, by CSCWEM. – Chacor 10:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, both. What an odd threat: it's actually spelled correctly. -- Hoary 10:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Double thanks, he hit me too. --Doc Tropics 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

John254 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is a public account

This is a public account used by Formby High School - do NOT block. --Oxbleye 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Public accounts are problematic, as there is no accountability (especially with the public password). Any reason why this is needed or even useful? --Stephan Schulz 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially when the passwords on the user page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The password given on the user page doesn't work for this account. Probably a troll. Aecis 17:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This account has been indefinitely blocked. --Slowking Man 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that students at Formby High School are responsible for A LOT of vandalism, sorry! --66.226.79.49 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry Middle School vandalism

Patrick Henry Middle School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota) has been nothing but vandalism since September. We're just running up a history of reverts. Perhaps a temporary editing block? --Wolf530 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

USER user:Freedom skies Vandalism and blocking edits USING ADMINISTRATOR TEMPLATEs

using locking templates only admins are allowed to use in Buddhism and Hinduism. There is an editorial battle and user is calling all editorials vandalism and those who agree as sock puppets... here is the history section --Saavak123 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorting this mess out:

• The article indeed isn't protected, so I've removed the protection tag
• I've asked Freedom skies not to add protected tags to unprotected articles, and pointed him at the RFP page
• Saavak123, a new account today with a remarkable knowledge of wikipedia practices and only contrubutions to this dispute is an obvious sock puppet, so I've permanently blocked him
• I doubt this is the last we'll hear on the matter, so a couple of admins adding Buddhism and Hinduism and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Hinduism to their watchlists would be a good idea.

That is all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator note This complaint is crossposted to WP:RFI. I've protected the article and am conducting an investigation. Looks like a content dispute. Durova 19:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and Editorial Gang?

There has constantly been an editorial gang on Hinduism and Buddhism. Please check User:Freedom skies, User:Finlay McWalter and user:Addhoc

I user:Saavak123 have been accused and BLOCKED by Finlay Mcwalter, then he removes editorial tags from the page!

reason for blocking: I have a new account and I shouldn't know much.

But I have edited wikipedia before, since I don't have a home computer. This is a false accusation and I have added tags to other articles in the comparison Buddhism section (which is on the Buddhism template).

Please investigage these users.

Ultimate warrior

This is Kevin J reporting vandalism on The Ultimate Warrior wikipedia page. It has not been proven that Warrior and Andrew Wright are making arrangements to complete his documentary. But User 68.239.170.229 keeps saying that these arrangements are taking place without any known proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin j (talk • contribs)

I believe Kevin j is referring to the Warrior (wrestler) article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Journalist's comment on Talk:Celine Dion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

account used for anti-semitic comments

this is the one i found 1st & the user (User:Keltik31) responsible seems to have made a lot of fairly offensive & arguably anti-semitic edits & comments. does wp have policy against this type of thing? if so is this the right place to report? thnx Bsnowball 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well he has already been blocked once for a personal attack but I cannot see any real evidence, since that block expired, that he has 'attacked'. He is obviously very opinionated about the issues at hand and his comments reflect this. I would simply advise speaking with him on his talk page about it. If he uses personal attacks again or is uncivil then you should report that at WP:PAIN. You can also ask for comments to be made at WP:RFC if you feel it necessary.-Localzuk 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question: there are no specific policies against anti-semitic remarks, but they are covered by Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Aecis 19:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dhammafriend and offensive comments

The user made personal attacks . I NPA warned him and he persisted . He reverted my edits that I had made per a suggestion made by an RfC responder and his edit summaries are extremely incivil and offensive . He has also attacked the rfC commenter . He has had a long record of doing such things.Hkelkar 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, while I state that I wholeheartedly agree. Please see incivility rules of Misplaced PagesMyNameIsJohn.JustJohn. 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Please elaborate.Hkelkar 23:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

By seeing the incivility rules of Misplaced Pages page he will begin to understand. He'll understand that is clearly against our clearly worded policy not to be incivil.Perhaps I should leave a message on histalk page MyNameIsJohn.JustJohn. 23:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, MyNameIsJohn, but I believe the wording you just used there is the reverse of what you mean. No biggie, but you probably don't want to be quoted on it: it is clearly against...our policy not to be incivil. :)--Ramdrake 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that one can be read either way, depending on whether "not to be incivil" modifies "policy" or not. But it's pretty clear what he meant: "it is clearly against ... our policy-not-to-be-incivil." Newyorkbrad 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Users such asUser:Dhammafriend may long for the days when Wiki was one giant circus, buy now at least we can warn him without going thru a ton o' red tape.MyNameIsJohn.JustJohn. 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been both warned and blocked for this before .Hkelkar 09:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Keltik31 victim of WP:NPA

Just reverted a rather nasty NPA made against User:Keltik31, made by User:Nosycramyrralysha. Nosy's probably an WP:SPA. I'll be keeping an eye on Keltik31's page to make sure there are no repeats, but if an admin or two would add his page to their watchlist, it would be greatly appreciated. Justin Eiler 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Be aware of another AN/I dealing with Keltik31 just above Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#account_used_for_anti-semitic_comments. --Deodar 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Policratus (talk · contribs)

I just blocked this user for constant trolling and bad-faith editing, such as nominating an article on the Ainu people on AfD as plagiarism, and putting Domestic violence on FAC as a "cool and fun" topic. The user also had a history of incivility toward other editors. I'd keep an eye out for potential sockpuppets, given his persistence. --Coredesat 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I totally concur. The peculiar attention to Domestic violence, when it was recently nominated for deletion by a one-time-only account, seems to suggest that this user is related to the nominator. Around Oct. 29, IP editors on the article began appearing and getting very upset. The AfD and FAC nominations came hard on the heels of that. My feeling is that Policratus is himself a sockpuppet or reincarnation of one of our poltergeist editors. Geogre 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the WP:FAC nomination and struck out a couple of provocative comments on other FAC noms. I'm kind of surprised the nomination was left on FAC for so long, but it's not the first time that happens. I suggest some more active removal of nominations per WP:TROLL and WP:SNOW, the list gets long enough without them. We have to be careful not to bite newbies in the process—when in doubt, leave a superpolite note on the user's talkpage—but sometimes there just isn't any doubt. If you have the idea that removing bad FAC noms is only for User:Raul654 to do, that's not so: it's for any experienced good-faith contributor who knows what they're doing around FAC. (Get some of that aggro out of your system, remove a FAC nomination today! It feels so good!) Bishonen | talk 04:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

Julie Andrews link

On this page, which is the page about Julie Andrews, http://en.wikipedia.org/Julie_Andrews I did try twice today to add a link in "External links". It worked, but each time, after an hour or so, I checked and it had disappeared... The link I am trying to add, is a fan site (more exactly a forum) that's perfectly genuine and me adding it doesn't infringe any Wikimedia guide lines.

I have no idea whatsoever, neither who deletes my addition, nor why... What can I do? :o( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fran330 (talk • contribs)

You could try reading your own user talk page... where I've left more than one message. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Certain kinds of pages should not be linked from Misplaced Pages articles... links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself." The site you are trying to add is http://julieandrewsforum.com/, which is, by your own admission, a forum. This is prohibited according to Misplaced Pages's guideline on external link inclusion, given that it isn't mandated in the article (ie. the article is about the existance of the forum, like in the case of Yahoo! Groups). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Julian Parge

I am not sure, but is this a legal threat? If not, then my reply to him may have been a little confused . I understand that users have a right to disappear, but are they supposed to do it like this? Ansell 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say anything about what he's going to do about it, so I don't think it's a threat per se. --Masamage 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kazakhstan pages

Pages regarding Kazakhstan are facing a wave of vandalism due to the success of the Borat movie. Please keep a look out for vandalism on pages like Nursultan Nazarbayev, vandalized several times in the last few hours by various anons, Kazakhstan, Borat, et cetera. Thanks, KazakhPol 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but will offer you the suggestion to request page protection for these pages at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Hope it works. Elizmr 16:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced, poorly sourced controversial (highly questionable) material about Living Person Biography

Subject: Anderson Cooper Article 5: Sexual Orientation This article self aknowledges it is solely based on unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (highly questionable) material. We have tried to delete the article in various ocations and it is always reversed by the editors - please refer to the talk section of the article-.

It also blantlantly ignores Misplaced Pages's main rule for Biography of Living Persons which states: Misplaced Pages articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material.

The editors seems to have their own agenda towards this issue, and this article is being used constantly as a "fact check" by various gossip magazines and sites, portraying in a bad light Mr. Cooper and infringing him and his family with unecessary speculation and even sexual harrasment. Many sites are even offering rewards for "proof" of what it is stated in Misplaced Pages. This have fomented property traspassing and all kind of stalkish behavior of Mr. Cooper, Ms.Vanderbilt and family.

We appreciate your collaboration regarding this issue.

This issue will be notified to the legal department at Time Warner and its division of Turner Communications/CNN.

Anderson Cooperhttp://en.wikipedia.org/Anderson_Cooper ]

--Worldnewsjunkie 07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Worldnewsjunkie. You may wish to note that there is a distinction between articles and postings on a talk page. The material you linked to is not in the article space, and while I find the purient curiosity about anyone's private life distasteful, it does not technically fall under the policy you quote, which is directed to articles only.

You may also wish to review the Wikpedia policy regarding threats of legal action. There are avenues for resolving disputes that do not involve recourse to legal action, and of course if you do choose to take legal action we would not seek to prevent you, but statements of intent to resort to legal action are generally discouraged. Justin Eiler 08:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Justin, BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. The policy says, "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Justin, Sarah is correct that all poorly sourced questionable material that could be defamatory should be reverted from all places on the site. Moving it from the article to the talk page is not an option in these cases unlike other content that needs discussion. If a reliable source can be found for the material than discussion about the inclusion can be done on the talk page. FloNight 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sarah and Flo. Thanks for the clarification. Worldnewsjunkie, I apologize for my lack of understanding of the policy. Justin Eiler 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam in edit commentary

Could an administrator please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category:Sex&oldid=85765114 so that spam in the edit commentary won't pester editors in the future? __meco 08:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

External links in edit summaries are not clickable so no one will accidentally click on these. Kavadi carrier 10:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, but does anyone know if Google will count it as a link? I.e. could we be used for page rank boosting in this way? Geogre 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Google won't see it, nor anything else that respects robot.txt (which excludes history pages, diffs, and the like - anything with a url starting with /w/). —Cryptic 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user User:Yas121 is back as User:JEBenson

User:JEBenson has made his debut editing on October 23rd, a day after User:Yas121 has been blocked for two months for racist personal attacks & trolling. His contributions revolve around the same heated subjects Yas121 has dealt with. His biased edits are of the same style discussed here. According to JEBenson's talk page, he used an anonymous proxy for editing, which is congruent with a blocked user attempting to hide the link to his fresh sockpuppet. Please look into this matter, and have a nice day :) 88.153.64.65 11:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only has he been sockpuppeting as JEBenson, but also as User:E Jaffe and User:Geniusofall1. And valid editors have no need to edit from all sorts of open proxies and zombie machines. I'm blocking the lot, and resetting Yas121's clock for 3 months starting now. Jayjg 00:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

USER User talk:A.J.A. clear case of Vandalism

User User talk:A.J.A. has :

1) moved page from Buddhist-Christian parallels to Christianity and Buddhism. 2) deleted most material from the page, all materials are sourced. see history before vandalism: ] after vandalism: ]

the user has been warned. --216.254.121.169 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This was posted yesterday and someone deleted this message...--216.254.121.169 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Sarahjohnson22 constant vandalism

User talk:Sarahjohnson22 is constantly vandalising the Kiefer Sutherland article. Something must be done. Ryan2807 14:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Intangible removeing things

User talk:Intangible removes things from many articles and reverts people on many articles. For example on operation Gladio he deletes a big section and then threatens to report me when I restore it which seems a bit odd but then when you look into what articles this person edits and how he eidts you can see that he likes to delete and change alot of information that dosent fit with his views, I think somebody needs to talk with him and explain to him that you cant delete things just because you dont like what they say. So that is my request someone that will talk with him The Green Fish 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Intangible is under arbitration probation. Post some specific examples here or at WP:AE. Thatcher131 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. The material User:The Green Fish wants to keep adding is already at Belgian stay-behind network. From my previous AN/I request (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#The Green Fish (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) & sockpuppetry):

• The Green Fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lokqs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Weedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.249.79.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems all to be the same user, according to their style of editing, behaviour, and article editing history. I came across this user after edits on Classical liberalism, Operation Gladio and Belgian stay-behind network. In the first this user was reverted by another user . In the second article, Operation Gladio, this user removed a fact flag, and re-inserted material that is already available at Belgian stay-behind network . In the latter case, this user tries to re-insert conspiricist information all linked to one source who is not an expert or writer about the Belgian stay-behind network.

Is a checkuser warranted here, or should this be dealt differently? Thanks for any help. :::Intangible 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do something about this user. Now his edits removed the hoax flag added by User:Morton devonshire. Intangible 16:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick look of what is being fought over here shows that most of it is already tagged with fact tags, thus it is not vandalism to remove it; if anything I would question the restoration of the disputed material when it is being restored without citing sources. Not to mention that the same user removed the hoax tag without giving a reason. Brimba 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those accounts, I can confirm by CheckUser that all three are sockpuppets of SuperDeng (talk · contribs), and I think they have been used abusively for reverting in tandem and supporting each other on talk pages. Dmcdevit·t 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked the sockpuppets, blocked SuperDeng for one month, since these accounts were created during a previous 2 month block for disruption. It might be time to talk about a community ban, just based on SuperDeng's block log and this recent activity. Thatcher131 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be for at least 6 months. It's very obvious that he isn't going to improve. It's sad because he could be a good user and we've given him plenty of chances, but goodness. How many blocks is he up to? --Woohookitty 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:66.226.79.49

Please be careful about blocking 66.226.79.49 (talk · contribs) - this is a school IP, that I'm on, and it's part of Internet for Learning. Be careful about blocking the IP address, as it is a shared one for an entire high school, well, two actually - Formby High School, and Range High School, over 300 + computers have this IP, so be careful about blocks, OK?? --Colbber 15:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really wish to edit wiki properly, register an account, as you did. It is a shame that the vandalism of a few will affect so many, but not blocking vandals will affect the millions of people who use wikipedia daily–a much more pernicious effect. -- Avi 15:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

MatthewFenton (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

Does this warrant a block?

User:Netoholic is banned from reverting more than once per page per day as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole#Remedies. He is revert warring on Misplaced Pages:Avoid using meta-templates, including two reverts within 24 hours. See history.

Should Netoholic (talk · contribs) violate his ban in Remedy 1, he may be blocked briefly for a period of up to one week. Blocks are to be noted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.

It should be noted that he usually finds someone to unblock him within a few hours. — Omegatron 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear arbitration infraction. I'd say so. --InShaneee 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tawnydruver (talk · contribs)

Please can someone look into this user's edits.... theyre odd! --WylEr 20:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've "looked into them" in the sense of reverting them and asking him what he thinks he is doing. Clearly has a grudge against Musical Linguist. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've "looked into them" in the sense of glancing at them and blocking him indefinitely. FreplySpang 20:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay! FloNight 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Support the block. Not sure about the cheering bit though. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:217.235.243.238, vandalism and civility issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I don't. --217.235.243.238

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. --217.235.243.238

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

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

Username change requests request?

Should the following users be asked to request a username change, or are the usernames ok?

• JMorgbot (talk · contribs) ("Names that imply bot accounts")
• Misplaced Pages Scholar (talk · contribs) ("Names that imply an official role or a role greater than that of a standard user")

Aecis 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked Alex Bakharev 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another one, maybe: User:Scotbotuk. --Asterion 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open proxy question

How can one tell if an IP is a suspected open proxy. I hve seen that edits that add a large number of "///"'s, especially around quotes, have been suspected as such. What about a case like this: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=66.211.32.50 where the WHOIS comes up blank, is that usually indicative of a zombie/open proxy that needs blocking? Thank you. -- Avi 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• You can list them at WP:OP. Aecis 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• You can also search for them using search engines. Jayjg 01:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Any editor/IP that introduces the slashes is an open CGI proxy and is to be blocked immediately. Naconkantari 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet User:Fake CliffX

User:Fake CliffX appears to be a sockpuppet for blocked User:CliffX, based both on the name and on the fact that his first edit was to make a personal attack and his third was to post a message on my talk page alluding to returning from the dead.--Srleffler 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

email exposure

128.171.106.236 (talk · contribs) has been placing someone's email address on numerous pages. May be a privacy concern. JonHarder 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have warned him Alex Bakharev 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friggin sockpuppetry

Hi. I think that 24.54.220.114 (talk · contribs), 72.66.192.193 (talk · contribs), and Appalachia100 (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Davins111 (talk · contribs). It's probably just a little kid who doesn't understand Misplaced Pages, but the linkspamming and warning removals are driving me crazy...admittedly, crazier than I probably should let them, but crazy nonetheless. Would anyone happen to have any ideas about what I should do about it besides revert over and over again? Perhaps that isn't even the proper answer. --Takeel 02:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Make a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done...although I had to adjust my request. "Gut" feelings on IPs and accounts do not make good arguments, so I have done checkuser for accounts with more blatant evidence. --Takeel 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

linkspammer with sockpuppet?

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

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

The Sun newspaper's report on the Borat article

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

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

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

Fys (talk · contribs)

I have blocked Fys for breaking 3RR on Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) inspite of discussions going on here . The relevant post at AN3 can be seen here. After making the block I came across Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and saw that Fys (previously admin Dbiv (talk · contribs) is already under probation. I am not aware of the details of the case and hence cannot judge whether Dbiv has broken his probation with his edit-warring at Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency), or whether he needs to be banned from the article or blocked for a longer period of time. Can someone please review my block and make the appropriate entry at the arbcom case if required. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request of this user, as it is quite evident that he is wikilawyering and gaming the system. The user also evaded the block and revert-warred with another user as an anon IP. The evidence of which is here. This edit which he made after he was blocked. This edit establishes that it is indeed the same user, who was known as User:Dbiv earlier. The user is removing warnings and decline templates from his page. Feel free to block him for a longer duration. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: The block duration is now 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have banned Fys from editing Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all redirects to it for one week, per the terms of his probation. --Slowking Man 13:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

don't forget to log it on the arb case page. Thatcher131 13:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the reminder. --Slowking Man 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack 11:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages’s double standards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internal spam emergency

Hey admins, an intnernal spam campaign is currently underway with ANNOYING CAPITAL LETTER EDIT SUMMARIES. Please handle it as appropriate, cheers. – Chacor 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ALL EDITS REVERTED. If this short block doesn't stop him I'm going to block him indef and unblock as soon as he promises to stop. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 15:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee started to spam the same talk pages again. I have blocked him for 24 hours. If Deskana doesn't extend his block, and he continues to spam tomorrow, I will indef block him myself. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Looks like Deskana has already extended the block to a week. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Annoying non-civility

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

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

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

216.79.33.77

This user has been warned a number of times on his/her talk page about vandalising articles, and has continued to do so (see Wallace Stevens and C++) royblumy 16:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a high school prank. In future cases, it would be best to leave a message at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut: WP:AIV). Aecis 16:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack page for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Resysop_Tony_Sidaway, despite the title, is actually a page full of personal attacks. I saw this on WP:MfD, but an attack page of this nature shouldn't require a formal deletion process. Action against the creator should also be considered. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The article and its redirect have been deleted. This editor, FiLOyR5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), knows too much of wikipedia and its admin history for a newbie. This has to be someone's sock. But who? Aecis 16:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Fireblox (talk · contribs)? Username seems fishy and his edits too don't look as if he is new to wiki. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

FireFox (talk · contribs) impersonator, see Special:Listusers. Enter FireFox in the search box and you'll see an immense list of impersonators. Indefblockable as troll and vandalism-only account, as far as I'm concerned. Aecis 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user. See his latest edits claiming himself to me the communism vandal. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another related user blocked. See Moonstar12 (talk · contribs) - Aksi_great (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

24.128.220.169

The user at the above IP address was given a final warning earlier today about vandalism to the Liger article before his most recent vandalization of that same article. Badbilltucker 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mess at Church league soccer

Page was prod'd, removed by anon. Currently home to a number of attacks and ridicules. External link doesn't work, and googling suggests the entire organisation is made up or at least very nn. Content has been going back and forth between insulting different people courtesy of edits by IPs and new users. I humbly recommend deletion (may fall under CSD attack or nn), and watching for re-creation. --user:Qviri 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole page should be AfD'd due to non-notability, not to mention the article doesn't read like an article. Vpoko 19:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for AfD. Vpoko 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI.. again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• October 12-13 he edits with SQUIDWARD summaries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because he's made 74,000 contributions. Of which 40,000 are probably controversial page moves which have been corrected by new guidelines now.. :\ semper fi — Moe 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Afrika paprika

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

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

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

Mali

Please could somebody reverse the vandalism that has been done to this page? Many thanks 217.43.194.68 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards