Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:09, 11 July 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin 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

Provocative epitaph to Blu Aardvark as Wikipedian

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

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

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

If we're not prepared to make determinations of an editor's motivations, we should probably avoid any activity on Misplaced Pages (particularly administration) in which we will be required to do so as a matter of course. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Section break (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section break (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaquero100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I invite you to look at the archives. Ths is a very old argument. The question is not about self-description, it's about whether one should allow one particular sect (albeit the largest) to arrogate ownership of a description used by multiple other sects, on the basis of membership numbers. Take it to mediation by all means, but warring over redirects is not going to fix the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain, then, why particular sects are allowed to "arrogate ownership" of the descriptions Church of Christ and Apostolic Church which are used by multiple other sects? Why is the Church of England allowed to arrogate ownership of that description when it is clearly not the only Church of England? -SynKobiety 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site search indicates discussions of edit warring on the German sister project all the way back to 2004, where Tobias Conradi has been previously blocked, and "This user became closed" (banned) after his (Google translated) 19:44, 17 February 2006 edit summary "If your brain so for a long time needs is that not my problem. Go perhaps to your delete policeman coffee drinking...." Apparently, that means something inflammatory that was not tolerated there!

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi to which he refused to respond, refused mediation, and refused to respond to arbitration.

As he is long established user (2+ years) on multiple *pedia that is very familier with the dispute resolution process here, and has a long history everywhere of inflammatory edits and edit histories, sockpuppetry, page move vandalism, and previous blocks, please do not reduce his block to one week. Eight weeks is a good start.

--William Allen Simpson 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the mildest example from Tobias's talk page of a reaction to a perfectly civil and logical note:

but am now block by my new stalker Pschemp. I updated tango.info at 4:23 and Pschemp voted on Afd at 4:25. What else is this than stalking?

Seriously, you need to stop calling people stalkers. There is no stalking here and to say so shows either bad faith or a lack of understanding of what admins do to carry out what they are asked to do. You've demonstrated a history that suggests that it makes sense for admins to watch your contributions and see what you're up to. That's not stalking, that's admins doing what the community asks. You are hereby warned to stop using that term, or other pejorative terms, when referring to admins carrying out their duties, or I will consider you in further violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and will extend your block further (after presenting it for review from my peers). Do not remove this notice, and do not call it nonsense, as it is a formal warning from an admin. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If admins stalk it is not stalking? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to the apparent inability to discuss things in a rational way, (edit summaries such as this, putting words I never said into my mouth:)

(hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tobias Conradi (→Tobias Conradi - reply to Pschemp, who holds up wrong allegations and wants to force novice users to change their user name)

I have left a note to Tobias and will no longer attempt to reason with him. Anyone else in the community is welcome to.pschemp | talk 00:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The User:Gibraltarian problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murder and rape threats by 205.234.223.167

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • • On a side note, it would appear that this "person" just found out what the word "pedantic" meant and decided that he needed to use it as much as possible. Batman2005 03:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad username User:Doug E Fresh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oprah Winfrey sockpuppets

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

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

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

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

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

Update -- now using Borgengruft?

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

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

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

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

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

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

WOW socks, {{unblock}}, & more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts WP:PA WP:NPA WP:NOPA

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

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

What is considered to be a personal attack?

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

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

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

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

Why personal attacks are harmful

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

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

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

Avoiding personal attacks

• WP:AVOIDYOU

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

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

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

Responding to personal attacks

First offenses and isolated incidents

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

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

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

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

Recurring attacks

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

Removal of personal attacks

• WP:RPA

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

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

Off-wiki attacks

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

External links

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

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

Consequences of personal attacks

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

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

See also

Misplaced Pages policies and information pages

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

Misplaced Pages essays

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

Related content

• Wikimedia Foundation:Non-discrimination policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mywayyy

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

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

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

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User:Goodandevil/User:136.215.251.179

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

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

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

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

I don't understand the reason for the length of this block (two years, two months, two weeks, etc.). Goodandevil has problems with the NPOV policy, as do many editors, and has edit warred in the past. I have no idea if there has been any improvement, as I haven't been following his contributions. But he's not a banned user. He's just a user with a long block log. He's not blocked at the moment — at least not as Goodandevil. While IPs are sometimes tagged as sockpuppets, in my view that's more for identification purposes than for accuracy. If I get logged off and make an edit from my IP, that doesn't make me a sockpuppeteer. It's different if I make three reverts to an article using my username, and then deliberately log off so as to be able to make another three incognito. But Goodandevil last edited under his username on 5 May, so the IP was not being used to get round the three-revert rule. I recall a few months ago, after he had been editing from IPs for some time, he returned as Goodandevil, and said that there had been some problem, now solved, which had prevented him from logging on, but that he had never tried to conceal that he was Goodandevil when posting from IPs.

As I say, I haven't been following his contributions recently, but unless that IP did something that would warrent a ten-week block, I think the block should be undone. Blocking it because it's Goodandevil is not appropriate (unless I'm missing something), because Goodandevil is not blocked, and because the IP is not a puppet trying to split number of votes and reverts between two accounts. Can someone link me to the appropriate entry on the checkuser page, please? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 07:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly a violation of WP policy, but I find it worth mentioning that after the uproar over his IP edits, Goodandevil proceeded to begin editing as "himself" again as of July 8th. By a strange coincidence, his talk page, including all its old warnings, was archived and blanked immediately preceding these new edits. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Georgewiliamherbert and Todd Bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Charlesknight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Tojo

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

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

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

GENERAL TOJO WAS HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've added a section on GT on Long term abuse at Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse#General_Tojo. Please feel free to expand/update this information if necessary. 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

New puppets

• Todd_50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --  Netsnipe    15:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Tom Harrison 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Interminably General Tojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --  Netsnipe    16:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• DiamondPlus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please block --Dan 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

IP sock of banned user

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

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would just like to note that the individual responsible for the ZZZZ affair is the same that was responsible for Sunholm/Sunfazer and all the vandal socks associated therewith. IP continues to be 82.42.145.158 and should not be unblocked for any reason. This is a very slick individual who is trying everything he can to cause problems. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I've blocked this account for being created solely for either trolling or telling a bad joke. --cesarb 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

He sent me an email too. I didn't unblock because I couldn't be sure it wasn't the vandal. Were you sure? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ste4k being disruptive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Thanks for inviting me to the chat. Per the original matter under discussion, there are at least two, known to be three, and possibly more different types of material, books, courses, educational systems, etc. that are referred to as "A Course in Miracles". It doesn't help anyone to assume bad faith on my part simply because of a lack of research on anothers' part. Nor does it make much sense to simply add material that is nonsense, avoid discussing it rationally in the talk pages, and then run hither to the incident board to make false accusations. Thanks. Ste4k 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Per the second matter regarding the 48 Hourse material, as I mentioned earlier, if anyone would like to write an article using that source as reference, then they should include into the article material from the reference. Listing it as a reference to content without any context is misleading. The page in question is a biography and the article in question is seven years old and contains prophetic statements that have turned out to be untrue. Per the biography in question nominated for AfD, it is plain that there isn't even a reference to this man's date of birth, family status, hometown, importance to the community, etc., etc., According to the one reference that has information speaking about the man, it is a primary source, and it shows that the man was in the Marine Corp as Private First Class. That in itself is simply not notable enough for a biography. He hasn't earned any medals, and the story about Nagasaki takes up 90% of the article since there isn't anything else about this man that is known. Ste4k 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• KickahaOta, that RfM was not aborted, is still live there, and I have been waiting patiently to see what happens next. Ste4k 02:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you prepared well for the mediation, and I hope those preparations were useful in updating the articles. Unfortunately, unless Andrew decides to return to Misplaced Pages, the mediation won't happen, since it requires two active parties. That's what I meant when I said "aborted". Sorry I was unclear. Kickaha Ota 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaand the mediation just opened, proving once again that me == teh n00b. Kickaha Ota 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Real Life Stalker is Misplaced Pages Administrator!

I request administrative assistance in resolving a dispute with NYTheaterHistorian, whose talk page indicates that he/she is also known as Anonymous anonymous. This individual is a real life stalker, who most recently has attempted to divulge what they think is my current place of employment. This person, who is apparently an Administrator has harrassed me unmercilessly for days on end repeatedly posting slanderous remarks about both myself & my former place of business. They have also falsely represented themselves as having a legitimate affiliation with a close colleagues' corporation.

Based upon their remarks, (what they know and do not know),it is clear to both myself & others that this can be only one of two people (one male, one female). There is a Federal Court order against both of these individuals prohibiting them from harassing or slandering me in any way. Unfortunately, I have had to seek police protection from these individuals in the past. PLEASE, HELP ME!

The pages which have been vandalized are : Marilyn Majeski, Grove Street Playhouse and Gene Frankel.

Thank you, §--Theatrelog 02:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are gravely mistaken. All Anonymous Anonymous did was to welcome user:NYTheaterHistorian. You might want to refrain from making such wild accusations. You also appear to be a scokpuppet of MissMajesty and as such as I have blocked your account. pschemp | talk 02:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe this to be a real-life stalker, you should probably take the issue to your local police, rather than bringing it up here. Unlike us, they have the power to arrest people if they've broken any laws. Until then, though, please try to avoid labeling these edits as "vandalism" or "slander", since they seem to stem from a simple content dispute. -Hit bull, win steak 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This user {Theatrelog, who is herself a sock of an earlier account) has now spawned at least three sockpuppets editing the above articles disruptively. I'd ask any other admins who come across this to keep an eye on it. Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of MissMajesty. Thanks. pschemp | talk 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a children's theater company even notable? There are so many. Let alone the former director of a defunct childrens theater. Hort Graz 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD'd both articles. - Merzbow 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.pschemp | talk 11:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that she is making wild legal claims which are not substantiated, federal courts do not issue edicts prohibiting individuals from contacting others. If she is not banned for being a sock, she should be for the legal threats/claims. Batman2005 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indef block of User:BrittonLaRoche

This user has made it clear on his talk page that he intends to troll Misplaced Pages. I don't see why continuing to grant editing privilages to this account benefits the encyclopedia. I have indef blocked the account. Feel free to unblock if you wish. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. And since he was continuing to troll after being blocked, I protected his user talk page as well. Kimchi.sg 07:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suqport. -- Drini 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A welcome would've been nice

I really love your website and there are lots of people that don't like me in school that say I'm retarded. I think of you guys as my real friends and decided to use my real name from here on. PS if I see vandals in my school, I will report them.Jackie R. 07:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're here to help Jackie, tho this noticeboard is usually for things that need emergency help from our administrators. Anyway, let me welcome you to Misplaced Pages and I hope you enjoy your long stay =D--mboverload@ 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AN:I troll... --InShaneee 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice. (→ Netscott ←) 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Was that a bad faith block :(? Lapinmies 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Why would you assume so? User:Zoe| 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Very first post outside of their user page is to WP:ANI? (→Netscott) 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Standard AN:I troll MO. --InShaneee 22:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. Now if an {{unblock}} pops up though... probably cause for further review. :-) (→Netscott) 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not endorsed here. What part of Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy was relied on to block based on the two line post above? Disruption? Hardly justified for two contributions. Block was way too hasty in my view. It may turn out to be a troll as suggested, but assuming good faith should have suggested to wait for a bit longer than two non-vandalism contributions. Regards, MartinRe 23:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith from the admins who have to deal with the ANI troll on a daily basis? User:Zoe| 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for User:WP:ANI Troll to show up any day now. (→Netscott) 03:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we assume good faith, the contributions history is very sad. Was this user perhaps under another name before?--A Y Arktos\ 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Try looking under the block log for ANI troll. User:Zoe| 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Zoe, it's the same troll. was an earlier block I made tonight. Compare the posts, punctuation, style, etc. Duck test. Antandrus (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Cellpreference

I blocked Cellpreference (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Daloonik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Daloonik was blocked for a week for repeated personal attacks. Cellpreference uploaded images (such as Image:Glencedar.JPG that had previously been uploaded by Daloonik (and subsequently deleted), with Cellpreference claiming to be the author and releasing them under GFDL. In one of the edit summaries, he then admitted to being Daloonik. As a sockpuppet created to circumvent a block, I indefinitely blocked Cellpreference, and extended Daloonik's block by a further week.

As Cellpreference (a few sections up) complained about my speedy deletion of articles he recreated, it was brought to my attention that I should have let an uninvolved administrator carry out these actions. I agree, and so submit my actions for review. Please feel free to undo / reduce either block as you deem fit. Proto///type 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Today's WOW vandalism

I'm having difficulty undoing today's bout of WOW vandalism (here's the list) because Misplaced Pages keeps logging me out and I have to go to work now. Can other admins please look at the list? Thanks. -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 08:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the gruntwork Franc =D --mboverload@ 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Block requested following RFCU

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/HeadleyDown :

user:JHartley is behaviorally almost certainly a reincarnation of blocked sock-master user:HeadleyDown. There are a variety of strong indications to back this (due to HeadleyDown's long term abuse potential, I'm not listing the exact details here but will be glad to summarize by email if needed).

User:Mackensen replied that checkuser is inconclusive, but "Per Arbcom, if he's acting and editing like a HeadleyDown sock go ahead and block him." .

I have weighed up the evidence carefully... but the evidence is not all guesswork, and I still come down to the same conclusion that he's almost certainly a reincarnation, and requesting a block is appropriate.

FT2 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review and consideration I have blocked JHartley indefinitely as a sockpuppet/reincarnation of HeadleyDown. Mackensen (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay for civility!

I left a somewhat terse message for User:Janizary after having a look through his charming contribution history. I got back this charm-filled reply. What would the hivemind suggest in the case of this user? Collect suitable diffs, then what? - David Gerard 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

His message to you is unacceptable, but could you provide specific links to show why you warned him in the first place? --Sam Blanning 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I find that a normal "please follow the rules or you (will|may} be blocked" works quite well. You don't need all the brainpower to come up with individual responces. hehe. --mboverload@ 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

DavidGerard, his reply to you was unacceptable, but your "warning message" to him was a diplomatic train wreck. Please find a more congenial way to give people warnings than "work on the civility or go away". That's kind of asking for a negative response. It's possible to ask someone to be civil in a way that inclines them to do so. -GTBacchus 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would really recommend bookmarking Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace. I agree that David Gerard's note was not merely terse but undiplomatic. The default templates might help those who wish to warn or advise new users to keep cool.--A Y Arktos\ 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

rascist abuse by user

Feline1 (talk · contribs) has been in dispute with a number of Irish editors over the contents of the British Isles page. Put simply, the question as to whether Ireland is now regarded as one of the British Isles is controversial and disputed. He however insists on trying to erase any suggestion that there may be a question mark over it, and launches rascist attacks on Irish users who seek to try to draw attention to the fact that things are not as simple as he wants to claim.

Last night he was reported for 3RR. No admin was available immediately to deal with it. His response was to keep blanket reverting (up to 5 reverts and climbing) with taunts to all other editors who would not go beyond three). Given the mounting number of reverts, with taunts, I intervened to block him. As I had been one of the people involved in the edit war I put an explanation on the 3RR page, here, and elsewhere, and independent admins judged it the right intervention in the circumstances. Feline's reponse, as usual, as been to post rascist taunts. His most recent one (as well as nutty claims that 172 and I are sockpuppets!!!) involved accusations that I have made "barbed sectarian POV rants" (people who know me here know that I do not make sectarian attacks on people). He added in the (even by his standards) deeply offensive and provocative claim Frankly I imagine someone like him will never be happy until the entire article is replaced by a picture of the potato famine with the caption "YOU ENGLISH B@STARDS!!!!!!" (written in Irish, of course) He has called other Irish users "sectarian nitwits" and made numerous other derogatory comments.

Could someone please intervene with this individual. His rascism and bigotry has gone to far this time. It is bad enough to have him highjacking a page and deleting everything he disagrees with en masse, without accompanying it with a litany of rascist taunts. FearÉIREANN 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have been warned. --InShaneee 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User Leifern admits to having "no knowledge of it." Nevertheless, he pushes radical theory (July 6, 2006)

This user - Leifern - is a proven vandal in Misplaced Pages. Until he stops His ill-fated tactics - which clearly fight against Misplaced Pages's guidelines - his methods shall be used against himself, unless the administrators intervene.

Among his most recent foul play, the user Leifern has provably participated in pushing false information and improper tactics in relation to the wikipedia's Kven article, including pushing a splitting of that article, which attempt has now led to a new informational war in the Kven related articles - unnecessarily, as recently a much welcomed consensus had already been reached.

Advocating a mindless blocking of an innocent contributor for the Kven article is also going to backfire against Mr. Leifern, unless he makes a clear effort to correct things, or unless someone else comes for his rescue now.

Administrators, - please - do the right thing now: unblock the user Art Dominique immediately! That blocking has not been given any valid reason, only a false accusation of sockpuppetry. Remember, not guilty, unless proven guilty!

On behalf of the entire Misplaced Pages community - Stopping your vandalism 15:00, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

I refactored the above but when I hit 'Save page' someone had removed it. That may well have been the right thing to do and I won't object if it's removed again, but here's a more readable version if anyone wants it. Haukur 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What tool did you use to fix the capslock? Heh, the ultimate snub - asking how someone fixed their capslocked rant. --mboverload@ 12:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Word - Format - Change case - Sentence case, and then some manual fixes. Haukur 12:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• mboverload gives Haukurth a hug* --mboverload@ 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• From what I can tell Art Dominique isn't blocked at all. Anyway, regardless of Leifern's actions, someone should warn this user to not threaten to break policies in retaliation of someone else doing so. That is completely unacceptable. - Mgm| 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would invite anyone to visit the Kven and Kven (historical) pages. I have never advocated any point of view at all, only proposed that two related but distinct topics (the contemporary minority in Norway vs. the historical population of Kvenland) be separated into each their own article. This because the historical Kvens is a very contentious topic, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. I've been careful to maintain every single word about the historical Kvens in the new article. --Leifern 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The user initiating this discussion (Stopping your vandalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) has already, under earlier usernames, been the object of a a requests for comment and a request for checkuser. He (or she) uses multiple socks simultaneously to edit the same or related articles. There are a couple of dozen earlier usernames belonging to this user. The latest incarnations (all used over the last few days) appear to be:

• WhatHaveWeHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pravda10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Stepanov1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Hjalmar Berg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Maj-Britt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Stopping your vandalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Göteborg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It would actually be very useful if someone could run a quick checkuser on these names. Tupsharru 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Everyking

Recently I've been having discussions with user:Everyking at Talk:Ashlee_Simpson#Magazine_covers and Talk:Pieces_of_Me#Excess_detail about what I feel is excess detail in articles related to Ashlee Simpson. I know the history of these Ashlee Simpson articles and I don't want the situation to escalate like it did before, so I've been focussing my comments on the content of the articles, but Everyking's behaviour towards me has been very unsettling. He has become rather uncivil, both on those talk pages and at my RFA (see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Extraordinary Machine), and I'd previously told him about this but he doesn't seem to have listened; see also Talk:Invisible (Jaded Era song). I proposed that we invite users from outside the Simpson-related disputes to comment, but he seems uninterested.

Now I feel I have to say something here because of his most recent edits: he's started commenting on messages I write to other users , editing articles I've contributed to recently and now he's performing wholesale reverts of my edits to These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song) , He refuses to explain why he did so and doesn't seem to care that he is undoing useful changes I made to the article . I want to resolve these disputes with him, but I'm finding it extremely difficult dealing with his behaviour, which I feel is unacceptable. Extraordinary Machine 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, because I don't see Everyking using any of his admin tools against you. The only admin-related stuff I see would be his commenting on your RFA, and commenting on you being a new admin and pushing your weight around. Even though he's made these comments, he hasn't actually used any admin tools against you. Perhaps you should use the dispute resolution process. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd advice trying to make smaller edits at a time. For example your edits to These_Boots_Are_Made_for_Walkin'_(Jessica_Simpson_song) radically shrink down and rewrite the article, rather predictably causing James to do a wholesale revert. Haukur 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine, it's difficult to discuss this here, as Everyking himself is banned from posting on ANI. It's not clear to me from your post if any of your admin actions are involved in the comments Everyking's been writing to you and other users, but if there's anything beyond a pure content dispute, I think you'd better take it to the ArbCom rather than ANI, because of his ANI ban. There's no obvious place to post it on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 or WP:RFAR, I know. Perhaps at the "Requests for clarification" on WP:RFAR? I won't discuss any of it here myself, just supply these bare facts: per Everyking 3, Everyking is prohibited from commenting on other administrators' actions and is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it.. Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

Ooops, I missed this link, sorry. That's a violation of the Everyking 3 injunction right there. Take it to the ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

The injunction says: "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." (emphasis added by me). Haukur 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, the point is that if EM feels he is having a problem with Everyking (and can not work it out personally), it should probably be posted to the request for clarification section of WP:RFAR for the arbs to sort out. Thatcher131 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No one's going to like what I'm about to say, but it seems to me that a content RFC would be the "wider community input" on the articles. My suggestion would be that each of the sides (and I wish it weren't down to sides, but it really has been EK vs. World in a lot of this) state a view as clearly as possible and then get community input on an RFC. My view on the monomania is well known enough, but I have a lot of sympathy for EK and the way folks have mobbed him, too. Geogre 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Even I don't like what I said.)

Repeating the mantra: "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." Go ask for mediation from the cabal or from the com...thingy. --Avillia 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Everyking has a history of .. stuff relating to Ashlee Simpson articles. It might be a good idea to see if anything was ever decided relating to that. --Improv 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that content disputes aren't supposed to be listed here; it's the incivility and following me across pages that I was most troubled by, but I didn't know that this page was specifically for leaving a complaint about an admin's sysop tool-related edits rather than their general editing behaviour. So sorry about that, and I only mentioned the Simpson dispute to provide some background; I didn't mention it with the intent of parachuting in admins familiar with the history of these articles.

I didn't know about that RFAr, but although it says "Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting" (which I don't feel he did in this case) it doesn't say he can't comment about an admin's actions on their talk page. In fact, I probably would have written the message he was criticising me for if I wasn't an admin, though I do feel his intent was to antagonise me by commenting on it in the way he did. Also, he hasn't reverted at These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song) again.

As for a content RFC for the Simpson pages...well, I listed the Ashlee Simpson dispute at WP:RFC/ART, but nobody commented. Again, I know this page isn't for content disputes, so maybe this discussion should continue elsewhere. Extraordinary Machine 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dang, I was afraid you were going to say that. See, there are certain users who have exhausted community patience even though they're not people anyone wants to block, so no one wants to get involved, because it's a bad time guaranteed for all. I know that the oldsters who remember the Ashlee ... kerfuffle?... just hope to never speak of it again, and the youngsters probably don't understand the whole background and therefore give bland and obvious advice. I suppose it is up to behavior RFC, if a content one has failed. It's too bad. Geogre 12:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily, if an editor was being difficult, you would first try a user conduct request for comment. In this case, since he has apparently been before the arbitration committee 3 times, it seems (to me anyway) that you should take it to them, and if they want you to try an RFC first they will tell you. Arbcom doesn't deal with content so in your request to them, be sure to focus on how his conduct has been a problem. Thatcher131 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure about filing a user conduct RFC, because there doesn't appear to be anybody very involved in this situation that would certify it. Extraordinary Machine 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a netherworld situation. On the one hand, the issue is behavior about his interest, but, on the other, it is fairly obviously due to a somewhat excessive interest that the actions are taken, so ArbCom will have a hard time accepting and avoiding making a content ruling or a ruling on a person's excessive desires for writing about a particular subject. On the other hand, a conduct RFC would need involved parties, and there aren't many (because of the bad memories, maybe, and because the people who wanted to provoke Everyking have stopped). Geogre 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Scarbor

Scarbor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): I just blocked him indefinitely as a vandalism/troll-only account. Probably not controversial, but review is welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, in spite of the fact that you and Scarbor are BFF. KillerChihuahua 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Continuing his Torchwood vandalism again? Yes, I support the block. - Mgm| 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He must work for TTI, then, because, if you report about Torchwood, you get taken away in a straightjacket Will (message me!) 16:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RFAs closed as well. Will (message me!) 16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'd endorse the block as well. Could perhaps be a sock of Bling-chav ? (who he also nominated for adminship, and who's user page he edited). I've protected his user page to prevent against future abuse. _└/_talk 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero III

User:Vaquero100 posted a message to my talk page concerning the Roman v.s. Catholic naming dispute and another move he made. He asked for input by neutral administrators. I recommended he start a centralized discussion (like I did Gimmetrow) and let him know I'd post here. I would like to sollicit opinions from editors (with as little edits to religious articles as possible - to avoid bias) and administrators with experience in starting a centralized discussion to get this mess resolved. - Mgm| 15:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Be aware that he appears to now be SynKobiety, or at least to be motivating/controlling that account. If this is a second account or a "meat puppet," then I'll be disappointed, but SynKobiety has only edited on this one subject and seems to step in already knowing the history of the arguments. Note that I'm not suggesting any action be taken, else I'd have taken it, as both users are very civil. They're just very zealous and no doubt sincere. I remain unmoved, however: as I say often (and hope to get recognized as "Geogre's 2nd Law of Misplaced Pages"): Misplaced Pages is not the place for negotiating ultimate truth nor overcoming historical wrongs and slights. I suspect that these users are interested in correction of a usage employed by all other reference works. When they all respond by dropping the "Roman," we will. Until then, usefulness to our readers demands naming where expected, which is RCC, not "CC." Geogre 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I assure you that I am not Vaquero, nor do I know him. I realize that I have only edited relative to the Catholic Church naming issue - you have to start somewhere. I was moved to contribute when I saw the bias in Misplaced Pages related to this issue and when I researched relevant Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. I welcome you to discuss the most commonly used name for the Church in question and the most common understanding of "Catholic Church." I believe that it has been demonstrated that most readers expect that "Catholic Church" refers to the Church lead by the Pope and that the Church lead by the Pope is called the "Catholic Church." If you doubt this, please read what was written at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name and what Vaquero has compiled at CC vs RCC. I don't believe that you really intend for Misplaced Pages to be just an on-line re-compilation of printed reference works with its content determined by the editors of those works. SynKobiety 02:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I do, but I'm weird. (Actually, I think our content can be superior, is already more vast, but I think we serve readers conditioned by printed references and so, until our readers expect differently, we should name according to greatest use, and this is separate from the theological, historical, and political arguments, which, for me, also come down to using the longer name.) Geogre 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

George, I suspect that you are afraid to look intellictually sound arguments. You keep reasserting your own opinion without making reference to actual WP naming convensions or policies. This seems to me to be unbecoming of an administrator. If you are unwilling to engage the arguments based on WP standards, I would hope that you would simply refrain from expressing any opinion at all, because your present approach is fundamentally illinformed, and intellectually and morally dishonest. Vaquero100 03:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• If this User talk:Geogre#Nasty discussion represents the quality of thought of WP administrators, WP is in trouble. The refusal of WP editors and administrators to actually engage a dispute based on WP conventions and policy is evidence of an ingrained bias in the WP community. A more thorough supervision of administrators, their editing biases and the degree to which they base their editing on WP conventions and policies appears to be severely lacking on Misplaced Pages.Vaquero100 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, darn. I'm sorry that you're disappointed. Please do devote some time and energy in getting all other reference works to change to match your own preference, and then you will have a cast iron reason for us to change. However, the lack of other administrators rushing in here might in fact be evidence that Misplaced Pages is run by a purblind cabal that fears intellectualism. It could also be evidence that you are asking for everything to match your private view and no one else agrees or sees any profit in trying to prove the obvious. Geogre 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And still you fail to engage WP conventions and policies. Wierd indeed. Perhaps we should call the article "Papist" or some such thing. It might better reflect the perspective of some WP administrators. Vaquero100 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed said discussion, I will agree that it is not Misplaced Pages at its best. There has been a lot of sarcasm & emotion on both sides. However, I can't help thinking that no matter what Geogre wrote, both Vaquero & SynKobiety would reject it & reiterate their entrenched opinions. It's obvious that there is an impass here, & until someone can find a way to break thru to some kind of consensus the best thing for all parties to do is step away from this conflict & not do anything to further enflame either side -- including renaming the articles in question. -- llywrch 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment In 12 years of elementary and secondary education from priests and nuns, I never once heard anyone object to the term "Roman Catholic", or express the belief that it is in any way a derogatory term. I've asked a few others, and similarly can't find anyone who's ever even heard any objection to the term. I have to believe that those who object to it are a tiny minority. The simple fact is that there are other churches that also use "Catholic" in their name, including long independent bodies like the Assyrians, as well as traditionalist breakaway sects formed after both Vatican I and II. There are some who would argue that only one church has the right to use the word, but that is a POV which I believe has no place in an objective encyclopedia. Just my 2¢. Fan-1967 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing whether or not only one church has the right to use the word Catholic. I am arguing that there is one Church that uses the exact name "Catholic Church." Naming conventions explicitly state:

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

-SynKobiety 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know this was continuing here. All I can say is that I have most emphatically not been sarcastic. I am not interested in discussing the righteousness of the name change, either way. I don't think that we're in a position to follow dictionaries in descriptive definition, either. I was sincere in referring continually to the one argument that I think is the stopper: we have to be useful to our readers, and our readers need for us to use the most precise terminology. Therefore, as all other reference works use "Roman," we should, because that is where our articles can best be found. I do, indeed, have suspicions about why these two editors are motivated to have a name change, and I am quite, quite certain that such a change would offend readers. Therefore, I see no advantage to a change and a huge disadvantage, but I am not going to engage in discussing the personalities involved. My attempts to side-step their emotions were not sarcasm; they were, I hope, a refusal to engage. There is no way we're going to get anywhere at all if we start talking about personalities, ignorance, etc. It just won't move us forward, so, if I have someone say something nasty, you must expect a "I wish to subscribe to your newsletter" sort of response (a non-reply, in other words). I'm sorry that it has been perceived as an attempt to antagonize, as I am really just trying to avoid antagonism. Geogre 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

From above: "Oh, darn. I'm sorry that you're disappointed. " - Geogre 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Isn't this sarcasm? -SynKobiety 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't intended that way. It was perhaps dismissive, but that's what I've been saying: I will dismiss attempts at getting personal. I may start using H.L. Mencken's form letter response: "Dear Sir/Madam, you may be right." I.e. it's just not going to do any good to have people question my intelligence or motives and have me defend them, nor for me to attack your intelligence or motives and have you defend them. Those are keys to fights, not discussion. My comment was saying, "Think of you what I will. I wish you weren't disappointed, but there it is," with a little barb tossed in as payment for trying to take the discussion to the personal level. Geogre 13:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Hello? Is there anybody out there at all who is willing to engage a conversation based even remotely related to the WP policy and naming conventions? I am not asking for WP administrators to play the relativist or some Solomonic chop the baby in two. Can we find an administrator who will not play politician but used their intellect????Vaquero100 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

deeply inappropriate question?

I tried to post this at the RFA talk page but was autoblocked for using AOL - move it if you want.

Essjay removed my RFA question from many RFAa although many answered it and no one else complained. I dont want to be blocked so I will obey Essjay and not ask it again. Do you think it is OK if I use this AOL autoblocking question instead?

1. Is it better to let off nine guilty criminals than to incorrectly incarcerate one innocent person?

Hort Graz 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say what you mean? "Is it better to block an AOL IP temporarily to stop a vandal, if it may affect several potential AOL Misplaced Pages contributors?" Administrators aren't soldiers in Iraq, nor criminal judges. KWH 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that your RfA edits would be a lot less likely to be removed if you were to abandon the the real-world allegory and ask directly about AOL users or autoblocking. Jkelly 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Glad they were removed. Your questions add confusion where we are looking for clarity. RFA is already a stressful process. Your questions make more so. FloNight 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From the way you post this, I get the impression that you still have no idea why Essjay removed your question. I guess the point is that the question is either completely irrelevant, if the two situations (blocks and shooting in a war) are incomparable, or very distasteful and over the top if they imply that you consider the two situations comparable. As suggested above, just ask what you want to know in terms of the actual situation that you want to know about (AOL blocks). I can understand your frustrations with those autoblocks, but let's keep things in perspective here. --JoanneB 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Essjay. I was uncomfortable with the question but felt a pressure to answer all the questions. --mboverload@ 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Question marked optional, RFA not close, you never hesitate to speak your mind. I would believe it from others but from you I dont believe your comment here. How you deal with questions is part of how we judge you. Hort Graz 08:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't share your interpretation of optional. I'm not comfortable with unanswered questions on RfA. --mboverload@ 10:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:71.125.96.208

I'm not entirely certain if this should go here or on the reporting vandalism page or not, but this user has made continued vandalism on the articles for Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, my user page, and violated WP:NPA on my talk page. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 16:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If the vandalism has been reverted, you're pretty much done, really. If you check blocking policy, it'll show that IP blocks are to be capped at 24 hours (under "Expiry times and application"). Sadly, if you're going to try to work to remove vandalism, the best thing to do is to grow a very thick skin. If I only had a dollar for every time they left a note or vandalized my userpage... :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough. I've dealt with vandalism before, but this one is just a bit annoying, and no one's ever gone on PA before against me. I probably jumped the gun on this one. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wear it as a badge of honor; when they start attacking you directly, you know you're doing something right. Welcome to the club. :) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee. Thanks! :-) MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:ImaGhost

Ima Ghost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has today added {{NPOV}} to some 50 articles. Aside from some edits to his or her user page, these are Ima Ghost's only contributions. None of these NPOV tags is accompanied by an explanation on the associated talk page. I have requested clarification at User talk:Ima Ghost, and the user claims to be combatting "media bias". However, looking at the articles tagged, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find any "bias". See, for example, Kylie Belling and Grigory Ugryumov. Has anyone encountered this user before (perhaps as an anon)? Does this warrant any action? — BrianSmithson 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the tags and left a note on their talk page. Naconkantari 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling and sockpuppetry on Muhammad Iqbal

Hi - I request administrative action against 66.25.124.237 (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppet user:Gufran), who has over one week, been constantly violating WP:NPA, WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, and been making edits violating WP:NPOV and WP:CITE on Muhammad Iqbal - he has been revert warring while attempting to dodge WP:3RR.

The content issue is whether Iqbal, the spiritual founder of Pakistan should be described as Indian despite the fact that he never lived in Pakistan. Unlike the civil and technical discussion pursued here and here, this anon IP user has constantly attacked me, people who've disagreed with him, and has revert warred, thus classifying (IMO) as a WP:TROLL.

Relevant Diffs:,,,,,,,,,,,

Warnings:,,,

POV edits to Islam in India, showing that this user is trying to prove a WP:POINT:

Evidence of sockpuppetry as Gufran (talk · contribs): The same exact edit that 66.25.124.237 kept fighting about is made on this user's first edit to Misplaced Pages. Gufran was created to dodge a 24-hr 3RR block imposed by user:Ragib.

I don't want to engage in revert wars, nor put up with more personal attacks. Please let me know if I'm doing something wrong, but this is my belief that this anon user is a troll, now using a sockpuppet. This Fire Burns.....Always 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the evidence points to a troll using User:Gufran as a sockpuppet. I'll warn User:Gufran about this. If the editor repeats the edits then it will be reasonable for one of us to block him for a bit.--Alabamaboy 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a firmer action possible? This user has been acting as a troll and POV-pusher over many days. Obviously he's just waiting out his 24-hr block. This Fire Burns.....Always 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon 66.25.124.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has definitely been troling there. After I gave him a 3RR warning, he claimed that he is "forced to revert", and then did his 5+th revert, for which I gave him a 24 hour 3RR block.

The article in question is an FA, and I think this trolling should be handled. Perhaps a checkuser can be done on Gufran (talk · contribs) to check for sockpuppetry, and if found to be true, longer blocks should be given. --Ragib 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Gufran has only one contribution after the 3RR block on the IP address, and I also noted recommendations on the IP's talk page that he should register. Not very sporting to tell someone to register and then accuse him of being a sockpuppet. I politely advised him that if he is that IP editor, he should sit out the rest of the 24 hour block. I suggest waiting a bit to see if he will observe this or not. Thatcher131 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That request to register was made amidst a barrage of warnings and revert-warring. Please note that the anon IP did not register until after he was blocked over 3RR. Being a WP:TROLL ain't very sporting, either. This Fire Burns.....Always 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the IP was blocked at 07:00 and Gufran has only one edit since then. If he starts up again before 07:00 tomorrow you will certainly have a stronger case. Thatcher131 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm only too happy to wait. I'm only wanting to emphasize that this fellow has done a lot more than just sockpuppeting, so a firm response is necessary if the violations continue. This Fire Burns.....Always 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see - user:Essjay found Gufran and the anon IP unrelated. This Fire Burns.....Always 06:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Abdeikweli

Recently an account name abdeikweli but typed AbdeIkweli with a capitalized i instead of l for abdel was created. This person vandalized several pages including the Abdelkweli-Charlesknight incident. It could be the action of an isolated person. take care. Abdelkweli 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That actually sounds like the work of the Doppleganger vandal. Everyone with a lowercase "l", be careful. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Swell. Anyone care to pre-emptively block the following: User:IIywrch, User:Ilywrch, & User:lIywrch? -- llywrch 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD backlog

Just want you admins to know that there's quite a nasty backlog over at CAT:CSD. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Log cleared. JDoorjam Talk 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment, User:Dyslexic agnostic and User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

I'm looking at Dyslexic agnostic (talk · contribs)'s recent contributions and believe that he is harrassing User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. I have just advised him of this belief, and noted that he should act within the bounds of his parole, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. I'm concerned since Harrassment is not tolerated. , , and , are examples. Also, T-Man has attempted to document this at User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow/Vandalism & Harassment although it was blanked by Dyslexic agnostic, with a legal threat in the first edit summary, . I just blocked DA for a personal attack against T-Man in this edit, is it right to block him again for something somewhat dated now? I'd ask that his comments to T-Man in this edit be looked at, I find myself troubled that he attempted to broach a deal with T-Man in which he could revert changes to wikis I created, which I believe means articles, and is counter to WP:OWN. Also see this edit, where he notes to T-Man that I do monitor your edits. I also appreciate there are two sides to this dispute, and that T-Man is another troublesome user, but even so, he is under moderation and this level of harrassment isn't fair, is it? Two wrongs have never made a right, yes? Steve block Talk 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. --InShaneee 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Salman01

I recently blocked Salman01 (talk · contribs) for 3RR (edit warring in an article). This is the user that secretly nominated himself for adminship recently. I think his removal of any message he doesn't like (no matter how polite) is getting out of hand. —Quarl 2006-07-06 22:01Z

This individual unfortunately is getting off on the wrong foot. I issued a {{canvass}} warning myself about internal spamming relative to him notifying en masse a group of folks about his RfA that he removed but I didn't give him a hard time and insist that the warning remain because I saw his act as an honest mistake. Hopefully he'll get the message about 3RR and not get into any more trouble. (→Netscott) 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Never trust anyone named after a fish--152.163.100.65 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• He's not named after a salmon. It sounds more like he's named after Salman Rushdie or something. Anyway, someone who notifies people en masse, isn't all that secretive about his nomination in my opinion. Anyway, nominations by people like this commonly fail. Leave a note about this post and I'm not worrying anymore. - Mgm| 07:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Salman tends to be a very common Muslim name - see Salman Khan and Salman Butt.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:TruthbringerToronto

User:TruthbringerToronto has on numerous occassions as of late taken perfectly legitimate speedy deletion candidates and prodded them instead: are a few examples. I've told the user to try using the hangon tag to which s/he responded that hangon isn't effective .

In addition to this prod v. CSD dispute, the user has also userfied numerous doomed articles. I can understand ones like this User:Pmannin2 (note this was just copy and pasted by Truthbringer which s/he now understands violates GFDL so now s/he moves them instead of simple copy and pastes. But I can't understand userfying articles like User:Kim_722, User:Notlm4life, User:Yarra_Tax, , User:Ajpowers, among numerous others. Userfying what seems like an autobiography is one thing, but userfying doomed articles, especially those that appear to be vandalism (like the Ajpowers example), just doesn't make sense.

I've already been through this with him/her on the user pages of myself and the user, but this was to no avail. Can anyone offer any advice and perhaps try to talk to the user about policies? Metros232 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The first 2 links are very borderline so I agree with the prod there, I deleted the third article as nn-band A7, the userfing everything thing is very worriesome though. Thanks Jaranda 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much the fact it's being done...it's the fact that it's being done out of process that concerns me. We have the hangon tag for a reason. We also have a check & balance system in place already. If the administrator who is patrolling speedy deletions at the time feels it could possibly be a prod instead, they'll switch it to that. I don't think that it is appropriate for this user to change speedy deletes to prods just in case someone might want to edit it in the next five days. We have deletion review if a user feels a deletion of an article is out of process. Metros232 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The userfication bit looks like an attempted runaround end-run of the article speedy-deletion policies. User pages are supposed to be for actual editors, not some sort Wikipedian substitute for MySpace, so they don't belong. And, since some of them were created by TruthbringerToronto cutting-and-pasting the text of the doomed articles, they're immediately in violation of the GFDL, to boot. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

...AND it looks like, based on this fresh edit, User:TruthbringerToronto still hasn't figured out the GFDL thing. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I've been trying to clean up, but it doesn't look like TruthbringerToronto doesn't understand what an encyclopedia is, based on his reaction to my un-userfying Kiera Halliday), a stub describing someone's puppy:

User:Calton moved the puppy biography User:K84lfc back to Kiera Halliday where it will inevitably be deleted with the comment "Revert inappropriate userfication". I had originally userfied the article, but User:Calton disapproved. I noticed that you had commented on the article at User talk:K84lfc.

Oh, for Pete's sake! "It's not so much the fact it's being done...it's the fact that it's being done out of process that concerns me. We have the hangon tag for a reason. We also have a check & balance system in place already. If the administrator who is patrolling speedy deletions at the time feels it could possibly be a prod instead, they'll switch it to that." This is— and there is a nicer way to say it, but it does not, alas, spring to mind— pure, unadorned bollocks. Removing speedy tags for an article that any user other than the article's original author feels is not a speedy is perfectly appropriate. We have {{hangon}} for a reason, but that reason has been repeatedly obscured by people who make idiotic comments like Metros232's quoted. Lookit, if you feel like saying the sorts of things that Metros232 says in this section, stay the hell away from speedy deletions, because you cannot be trusted to do the Right Thing and therefore do not belong there. Aargh! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me, then, why it is appropriate to change something to a {{prod}} instead of the speedy delete tag in the manner s/he is doing? To change something that's listed as speedy deletion as a non-notable biography to a prod tag that says "nn-biography". What does that mean? "You're right, it's non-notable, so we'll wait 5 days to delete it as non-notable". If TruthBringer was removing the tags in order to say "no, you're wrong, this subject is notable and here's why" that's one thing and I would have absolutely no problem with someone removing a speedy delete tag I was wrong on, but to just simply say it's non-notable is inappropriate. Metros232 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. Ready?

• Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion!
• TruthbringerToronto is trying to Do The Right Thing By Those Who Tag Articles Inappropriately by changing to {{PROD}}, so that the delete-it-delete-it-delete-it-waaaah brigade still get their precious deletion, but an inappropriate speedy is not committed.
• Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion!
• {{hangon}} exists only so that the original author of an article can object to a speedy tag inappropriately applied. That is the sole extent of its scope. The rest of us don't need to use it, and should not be told to use it.
• Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion!
• Administrators do not have special status. You should not be reverting a non-admin action and telling the person concerned, "only admins may make that decision", that's terrible behaviour. We are not the only ones who can remove an improper speedy tag.
• Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion!
• Someone removing a speedy tag is not saying "this is not deletable", and shouldn't be expected to be saying such a thing. What they're saying is "hey, this is not a speedy candidate, maybe we should think about it for a little bit in case someone actually cares about this article."

We do a pretty good job of making sure we don't accidentally delete too much rubbish. I'm baffled as to why people insist on ruining that by insisting we follow ridiculous policies that don't exist except as the Chinese Whispers-sponsored folly of their own imaginations. And then complain on AN/I when people don't pay these silly notions sufficient heed! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A7:Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.

{{db-bio}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-group}} : CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject.

From the WP:CSD page. I don't see where your point that notability isn't a criteria for speedy deletion comes from. I see where you're coming from on a lot of your points, and I'm sorry it appears that I won't be on your Christmas card list this year, but I don't think that the articles I tag are inappropriately tagged. It's not like I see a band page, say "Oh, I've never heard them on the radio before, DELETE." I know some users do, yes, but please don't lump me in with that category, I think that I research and try to find independent sources and other coverage that is necessary. Metros232 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed lump you into that category, and I apologise if you don't belong. Please understand that saying things to the effect of, "Only an admin may remove speedy tags, non-admins must use {{hangon}}, no matter how stupid the speedy is," instantly sticks you into the "utter morons" category until you prove otherwise. Of course, if you can promise never to say something like that again (and not to drool on the carpet), there might be a way back into my Christmas card list after all...

As for notability, please read the CSD again. Pay particular attention to certain words that start with the letter 'a', end with the letter 't', and have a number of other fine letters (namely an 's', an 'e', and an 'r') in between. If I write an article that says "Metros232 is a popular author with many pubished books to his name", then that cannot be speedied under A7. AfD may reveal that Metros232 being "popular" means "his mother loves him", and "published books" means "vanity press", but you can't say "despite this asseriton, he's non-notable" and speedy him. The subject of an article need not be immediately obvious as notable in the sense we use on AfD to avoid being speedied: there just has to be an assertion of notability. And we set the bar very, very low. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very true statement you make about the assertion aspect. Take a look at this article for example Guillaume_Buckley. It is quite obviously a hoax, but that doesn't fall under CSD G1 as patent nonsense. And while the person who is the subject of the article is clearly not notable in reality, his article says he is, so we must go based on that. Such a double-edged sword sometimes. Metros232 15:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Guillaume Buckley is hardly the poster child for the view that people should think before they insist on an article being speedy deleted. It's a case of an article so blatantly detrimental to Misplaced Pages that we can, using Common Sense™, get rid of the bastard with a clear conscience. It's not Policy Says X or Policy Says Y that dictates our decision on whether to speedy, PROD, or AfD an article. The best example might be an article about a band. "Me and Skazz just put a band together. People would probably like us, if we could just get a gig." is an obvious speedy; there's no assertion of notability there. A decent article, but the subject fails WP:MUSIC and you really doubt we should have an article, well, that's AfD material. In-between it gets a bit trickier, but {{prod}} is there to ease the strain on those who just can't face the idea of nominating a bad article for AfD. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And not to drool on the carpet...I maintain my drooling to just on the furniture, is that okay or should I work on that too? :) Metros232 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As with many things in life, it depends. Is the furniture of high quality? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion. However Lack of notability assertion is. AS in everything, add some common sense. -- Drini 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a trite saying, I know. But when someone is saying "how can something I think is non-notable not be speedied, when the bloke who removes the tag is happy to prod it?", then it's quite appropriate. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sulpicius

This person deleted 7 of my category additions without giving any reasons. These are conservative groups by definition and this user removed without any reason many of my recent changes. Isn't this in violation of some rules? C56C 05:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a content disagreement; that is not the purpose of this noticeboard. I have responded at your Talk page. —Centrx→talk • 06:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OS 0 1 2

I am shocked you deleted a page that once you requested cleaning up! I protest this action and wish to have a discussion regarding this page for entry OS 0 1 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56 robust (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We did already. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OS 0 1 2. Please sign your name by putting ~~~~ at the end of your posts. --Sam Blanning 08:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Karl Meier is blanking articles

1. Tactics of Kurdistan Workers Party
   • 00:32, 6 July 2006
   • 13:17, 5 July 2006
2. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict
   • 02:08, 15 May 2006
   • 11:34, 13 May 2006

I find such things disruptive and this appears to be a repetive pattern. I havent looked hard enough to find other similar edits. --Cat out 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He is not blanking articles, and you know it. Please don't make disruptive false vandalism claims. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I felt it was vandalism I would report it at the vandalism page. This isnt a vandalism claim, just a disruptive editing behavior I was told about. --Cat out 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about the Casualties article but it appears that User:FrancisTyers agreed with User:Karl Meier on the Tactics article to the point of actually submitting it for deletion. (→Netscott) 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I do no mind afding of pages (which is a conensus gathering process). I do mind however the blanking. There is a great difference. --Cat out 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if User:FrancisTyers's contention that, " 4. article is a POV fork of Kurdistan Workers Party where the timelines were rejected countless times for inclusion." is correct regarding the Tactics article being a pov fork then User:Karl Meier was right in redirecting it. (→Netscott) 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FrancisTyers is entitled to his opinion. Thats fine. Redirecting a page like that however is not aproporate. We have a {{Merge}} and {{afd}} for a reason don't we? Why the rush? --Cat out 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the rush? Many times being bold is more efficient... obviously there was contention over the redirection and Misplaced Pages is proceeding normally regarding such contention. The point you're making is evident but specifically utilizing the term "blanking" is associated with vandalism and in this case such a term is not applicable... redirecting is what was being done... if it were not for good faith the appearance of admin baiting in the utilization of such terminology would seem a likely explanation. (→Netscott) 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not baiting admins. I am merely relying something posted on my talk page to the proper place. My initial invenstigation rvealed similar behaviour by Karl Meier on at least one other article of similar content (both about Kurdistan Workers Party). --Cat out 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User removing comments on article pages due to "foul language:

User:Vesther is removing comments on article talk pages due to them containing what he sees as "foul language" - in one case, the word "shit" which is, at least here, about as far from profane as possible, and again for the word "crap" (see above...).

His justification is that "little children" or "minors" might see it. Now, if the article space is not censored for the protection of minors, why should the article talk space be? He stated: "I can't allow young children to see it, others might be offended by it.", which is definately an attempt to censor for the protection of minors.

His warnings to those that use language that offends him also seems to suggest that its Misplaced Pages policy to remove comments containing "foul language" . Considering its policy to, at worst, refactor personal attacks rather than remove the entire comment containing them, this is also miles off the mark again.

I see this as vandalism, if slightly strange vandalism. Can an admin take him to one side and reiterate WP:NOT to him? --Kiand 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if done in good faith; nevertheless, I've left another note on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RadioKirk (if I'd got in a little quicker, I'd be able to say he agrees with me; alas, it was not to be). Vesther (talk · contribs)'s concern is touching, and in another context I'd applaud his attempts — but removing otherwise fine comments because they happen to contain certain words is not appropriate behaviour on Misplaced Pages. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, vandalism, and it's long past time we stopped making these "if you squint a bit, you know, and read between the lines, maybe after looking at it in ultraviolet, the policy might just stretch to allow me to use the word 'vandalism' one more time"-type comments. Vesther needs to understand what is and is not an appropriate way to Clean Up Misplaced Pages (RadioKirk has left a good message there), and also how he can better redirect his energy. Labelling him a "vandal" is not going to help here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm now involved in this, so I'll take no futher action with this editor, but now I, fuddlemark and Theresa Knott have all "insulted" this editor by "carrying out Kiand's request". Vesther is now removing from his talk page everything that is "insulting" after making it clear that "Once they insulted me, they strike out. I hate them for the rest of my life, and I will never under any circumstance accept any of their apologies whatsoever." There is no longer anything Wikipedic about this editor. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

He's upset, obviously doesn't take well to be chastised or even advised, and acts a bit childishly. However, all he is doing is removing our comments from his own talk page. All the time he limits himself to doing that, let's leave him be. i don't care if he hates me. If he goes back to removing/altering people's comments elsewhere, them that is a different matter. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem, though, is, upset for what? His threshold for "insult" is, at least for the moment, so low that his ability to work together with anyone in the spirit of a Wiki is severely compromised. I have no problem with a leash at this point, but it's going to have to be a very short one, lest he encounter someone less forgiving than you or I... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Xed blocked indefinitely

I have indefinitely blocked Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his latest comment following a long and storied history of personal attacks, disruption, edit warring, etc. He's had many warnings and never reformed, and his latest was simply the straw that broke the Jimbo's back :-P Please review. --Cyde↔Weys 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Though no one cares what I think. --Avillia 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. While Xed is capable of some phenomenal work when he wants to, it happens so rarely these days that he's well and truly become a net negative. I couldn't find anything useful he's actually done since the start of May, despite regular edits and a myriad of conflicts during that period. Rebecca 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is this because he was critical of Jimbo, and Jimbos friend Ann Coulter? --Irishpunktom\ 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Obviously. We're all really big fans of Ann Coulter around here. Wha...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Anyone who thinks that Xed's reporting in this case is accurate, and for whom any of this raises any concerns, should be very aware that I welcome inquiry about this privately or in any public forum. Put simply: Xed's spin on my chance meeting with Ann Coulter as "hanging out" and my subsequent editing of her article as "sticking up for her" is transparently false.--Jimbo Wales 16:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  We'll see your Ann Coulter and raise you Gillian McKeith—Phil | Talk 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• The block log for Xed makes my endorsement rather evident. — Jul. 7, '06 <freak|talk>

• Endorse From the very beginning Xed has been more trouble than he is worth. He will not reform, anyone can see that. We have been far too soft for far too long. He needs to go. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. A long history of personal attacks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. As one of the people that Theresa Knott referred to (someone who was "soft" with Xed), I too have found his disruptiveness to be unconstructive and harmful to the community. --LV 15:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Long overdue. SlimVirgin 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Seems as though endorsement is a given... let's start a do not endorse section: (→Netscott) 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Xed began his tenure at Misplaced Pages by attacking Jimbo, and nothing has changed. User:Zoe| 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see a problem with people stateing their opion that certian wikia projects are going to have issues. Based on[REDACTED] experence we know that project is going to have problems.Geni 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Xed has already been given too many warnings, he appears to have a case of the crazies that is not going to go away.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• A blatent troll that bases his efforts upon the encyclopedia in a destructive and slanderous manner. He must be silenced for the good of the project. This editor is not present to build an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true and in any case if find it interesting you belive we have the power to silce people. Did we take over serveral major goverments whiles I wasn't looking?Geni 22:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I beg to differ. A quick check of his contributions is sufficient verification of his intent on the encyclopedia. Trolling isn't permitted at wikiepdia. -Randall Brackett 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your explantion of how Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is trolling should be interesting. Details of how it is destructive and slanderous would be nice because there are 163 people who would probably like to know what they have gotten themselves into.Geni 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Xed's comments were not merely constructive critisisim. They were shameful, blatent, malicious personal attacks and misaccusations. Please don't compare these two. Xed was an obvious troll who was unrepentant in his actions. -Randall Brackett 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Xed was rather heavily involved in the early stages of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Of course he does have authority issues but ignoreing him generaly solves that one.Geni 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. User:Zscout370 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reduce to maximum of 30 days without an ArbComm ruling (or Jimbo acting himself) indvidual editors should not block a user for more than 30 days. 72.60.226.29 05:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse—After reviewing the reason why Cyde had to ban Xed indefinitely, I felt that Cyde had no other choice but to do so—It just had to be done because Xed was indeed "user-crapping" (Attempting to discredit and/or ruin the image of the user). It may be possible that Xed might be using sockpuppets in the future, so Xed's past actions should be sent to the ArbComm ASAP. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has unblocked. See Xed's talk page and the block log for explanation. Let's see if he can restrain himself. Just letting all interested in this discussion aware. Thanks. --LV 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have warned Xed that this is the last time I will protect him. I have felt that since he is getting blocked for personal attacks on me, he should be given much more latitude than if he was treating anyone else in the same way... I am me, and somehow I signed up for this job in a way that other people have not. I do not mind criticism, and I do not mind trolling, in the way that other people might. But I am finished protecting him. I think I have done my fair share here to make sure that he can not with any plausibility claim that he is being blocked merely for expressing respectful dissent. If he engages in vicious personal attacks not based in facts but rather in falsehoods, well, at some point there is nothing more I can do to assist him.--Jimbo Wales 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox

SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole as can be found here. However, he has recently posted this insultingmessage by which he says that User:Hagiographer must be a sock puppet of mine as his English messages are written in poor Spanish just like those by me. As I explained in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas/Evidence, SqueakBox has frequently criticized unpleasently my English as I am a native speaker of Spanish. Zapatancas 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you Hagiographer? i believe you are and urge the arbcom to investigate and do a check user test as if he is Hagiographer he clearly is breaking the arbcom final decision. I am not editing the Zapatero articles and nor should he be. Calling my post insulting is breaking his no attack parole. I am certainly not attacking either Zapatancas or Hagiographer but by describing my question and conclusions as insulting he is again engaged in attacking me, SqueakBox 16:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox, you have to ask the Arbcom yourself. Try posting a brief polite notice at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. I don't see anything that really qualifies as a personal attack here but I'm not sensitized to the situation. You should probably post your request and then go play frisbee with your dogs. If I knew what Zap did to relax I would make a similar suggestion to him. Thatcher131 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to "Here is my attack"

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. I sincerely apologize for my actions.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who originally gave Encyclopedist the indefinite block, and I did so only because, at the time, he asked for that. He has now been blocked for almost two months. On the talk page of the MyApology account I have just asked him to apologize for his past vandalisms and commit to not doing any more vandalisms in the future. If he does these, I am willing to remove my block. He would be under close scrutiny, and would be known to admins as an previous vandal. But in his non-vandal time he was a valuable contributer, and I think it would be worthwile to have him back. However, when this possibility was mentioned before, there were some strong opinions made against his return, so I wanted to give a chance here for someone to again argue against this action before I took it. - TexasAndroid 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can it be known that I did apologize: and do again: I am very sorry. .εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Endose unblock. Highly valuable contributor, even if he did go a bit postal back then. - FrancisTyers · 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to give him a second chance, but only a very brief one, if he returns to his bad behavior, then reblock immediately. User:Zoe| 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I will make it very clear to him that he is effectively on a last chance. He has promised not to vandalize again, and if he breaks that promise, it's over for him. - TexasAndroid 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Like TexasAndroid correctly points out, I take his obvious love for the project and will to recognize his past mistakes, combined with his previous extensive efforts, as a sign that at least granting a probation time can only be for the best in his case. If the community wishes to give Encyclopedist another chance, and if it may serve to reassure his behavior, I personally wish to offer myself as his mentor. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also willing to give him another chance, since I think he's an amazing contributor, as long as he doesn't let his occasional anger get the better of him. On the strength of contributions like this one -- the first draft of this large article -- we need people like Encyclopedist. Antandrus (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock seems reasonable, continuing with his original account is at least honest as to the problems and issues he has faced in the past. --pgk 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It might be worth trying to steer clear of the situation which led to the original problems. Perhaps Phaedriel could investigate what these were before starting the mentoring rôle. Stephen B Streater 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just unblocked the account, giving user one last chance, me and another user should mentor him. Thanks Jaranda 18:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems good. To be frank, I was extremely surprised when I heard about the vandalism. I knew he'd gone through some WikiStress but it was still extremely surprising. Welcome back, Encyclopedist. I hope you can return to being the excellent contributor that you were before. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome back, I support another chance for V. Molotov / Encyclopedist. After all he could just have registered a new account without our knowledge anyway. Prodego 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was personally disgusted to see him submit a self-nomination for adminship less than 2 hours after being unbanned by Jaranda. This exceeds my (admittedly limited) ability to assume good faith, so I closed it as patent disruption and per WP:SNOW at a tally of five neys. — Jul. 7, '06 <freak|talk>

I'd give him a bit of time and space to adjust to life here again. Let his mentors work their magic. Kindness is the greatest wisdom. Stephen B Streater 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

please investigate vandal administrator KillerChihuahua

The following pertinent and highly researched links keep getting removed by birdmessenger. I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: KillerChihuahua

• www.catholic-jhb.org.za/articles/prayers.html List of Catholic Prayers
• www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=39909 Prayer in Judaism
• www.bahaiprayers.org/ Bahá'í prayers - a list of prayers from the Bahá'í faith.
• www.sacredspace.ie Sacred Space a daily prayer site by the Irish Jesuits, using the Ignatian tradition, a branch of Catholic spirituality dating from the sixteenth century
• www.tlpn.org Live Prayer Network - The largest prayer system on the net, in minutes add live prayer to your site
• www.epray.org Prayer Software - Get prayer, prayer for others and have it sent to any mobile device
• www.liveprayer.com Live Prayer with Bill Keller Live Prayer with Bill Keller

Someone please investigate KillerChihuahua's history in reference to the prayer page.Spicynugget 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you should have posted this at the bottom instead of placing it on the middle of the page. Second, KillerChihuahua has not blocked you at any time, from what can be observed on your block log; you have been blocked for disruption and 3RR by other admins. Checking your contributions and your talk page, it is easy to see that you have been repeatedly warned not to include commercial links at a number of pages, Prayer being one of them. Considering these circumstances, reversion of changes made by you both under this account and several IP addresses to "avoid" breach of 3RR after being warned in several occasions, consitutes no vandalism whatsoever. I sincerely suggest you to engage in discussion and listen to reasons expressed to you both at your Talk page and those of the articles where you have posted the afforementioned commercial links. Regards, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Complaint is duplicated here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#please_investigate_administrator_KillerChihuahua. --kingboyk 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Admin noticeboard:

You have never been blocked by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), unless it has been under a different account or IP. Jkelly 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a rouge chihuahua. I've only ever seen sorrel ones. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Phaedriel, that's very good advice, but first of all: Spicynugget, nobody's going to take you seriously if you use phrasing like "rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: KillerChihuahua." It's spelled rouge, for one thing. HTH. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

• KC has blocked a number of IP addresses as suspected socks of Spicynugget evading blocks for 3RR and IP sockpuppetry. Thatcher131 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a very rouge Chihuahua, Malbar. I walk softly and carry a big chew toy! KillerChihuahua 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So by "I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator" Spicynugget refers to his/her unacknowledged socks being blocked..? LOL, that's a new one. I suggest a good long block for this abusive "contributor". Seriously...! Happy birthday, Puppy! Bishonen | talk 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

from every situation I have ever had to deal with KillerChihuahua he has been a well behaved, model administrator, this person is obviously upset that his sock puppetry accounts were blocked. Batman2005 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking for popular support.

Hello, as you can see, I’ve just registered here in Misplaced Pages. I would like to get approval for an idea I would like to carry out. I see there are a lot of conflicts here on Misplaced Pages (editwaring, vandals, reverts, etc.). I would like to act as sort of a lawyer for users involved in conflicts, and speak on their behalf, so they can contribute more without getting bogged down by “small things.” I wouldn’t contribute to content myself, in order to avoid conflicts, and I would try to stay neutral on issues until someone asks me for consultation or representation. What do you think? Wiki Laywer 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a pleasure to hear from people who want to help the project but please know that such a concept tends to be rather frowned up. ;-) (→Netscott) 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, This wouldn’t be like formal cases or strict interpretation of Wiki Policy. More or less, consultation and assistance, or meditation of disputes. Wiki Laywer 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we've got just the place for folks like yourself, check out Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for possible avenues that you could take towards such goals. Also have a peek over at third opinon. Just out of curiosity... how did you locate WP:ANI?... this is not a typical first stop for new users. (→Netscott) 17:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll check them out. By the way, I not new, I just started a new account for this puorpose ;) Wiki Laywer 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, well the line, "Hello, as you can see, I’ve just registered here in Misplaced Pages." inclines others (like myself) to think otherwise. If you have another account be sure that you use them both in accord with Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see User:Samuel Blanning has advised you relative to your username (and it's clear he had the same impression I did about your "newness"). I'd follow all of his advice if I were you. (→Netscott) 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it's pedantic Wiki lawyering which is discouraged, not Wiki laywering ;-) Stephen B Streater 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Netscott, there are avenues, such as the mediation committee, the mediation cabal, esperanza, etc. where advocacy and/or mediation would be welcome. People will be more open to your help after you have established an account in good standing with good edits to a variety of areas (articles, user talk, village pump, articles for deletion, etc) and no problems (such as uncivil behavior). Thatcher131 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In concurrence with everyone I would like to say this: You are all JERKS. I come here, try to help out, and all you do is give me putdowns and make fun of me (I have a bad name, helping others is looked down upon, etc.). I suggest you all have a look at yourselves a your hearts. You NEED to be more welcoming to newcomers like me. GOT IT??? Wiki Laywer 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI troll? (→Netscott) 19:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NO NO Netscott is WP:ANI MUSLEM DUMBASS. Wiki Laywer 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There we go, definitely our "friend"! :-) (→Netscott) 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely, as someone would have had to eventually anyway for the username. Not 100% convinced it's the 'ANI troll'. --Sam Blanning 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First post here and then all of that afterwards? Fits the M.O. i.m.h.o. (→Netscott) 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, my thought too, just after I saved my post above. His old tricks don't work anymore, so why not try something new? Thatcher131 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-professed nonnewcommer got indefblocked.... -- Drini 19:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because some people demand we 'assume good faith' :P --InShaneee 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

About a month ago, there was an IP who committed vandalism for about a week on and off, then came out and said he was really an admin on an alternate account, and did the vandalism as part of an experiment. It turned out he was really a troll starting trouble with the Admin elections. It ended up a big issue. I say you check user them. Grasstoper 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, if he has problems with the people on ANI, he'll have some real problems sorting out some of the more hostile areas. Stephen B Streater 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the VANDAL referenced by Grasstoper. I have reformed my ways and now I am contributing positively under the username Nookdog. Please don’t confuse me with Wiki Laywer. Thanks. 216.164.203.90 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre personal attacks inserted into Gary Weiss

New user WordBomb, in his very first edits on Misplaced Pages, inserted a libelous attack on the subject of the article and myself in Gary Weiss (see ). I deleted the offensive materials, placed a warning on Wordbomb's user page, and the user re-inserted the scurillous, and libelous to Weiss, personal attack . WordBomb also inserted a lengthy section making unsubstantiated, unsourced claims against Weiss concerning a libel suit. WordBomb repeatedly reverted this unsourced derogatory information, after it was pointed out by myself and another editor that unsourced derogatory information cannot be inserted into articles about living persons.

Wordbomb also placed an improper vandalism warning on another user who properly removed unsourced derogatory materials from Weiss article . This new user has posted on only this one article and obviously is here to pursue some kind of agenda concerning Weiss, and not to make good faith contributions to the project. User should be indefinitely blocked. --Mantanmoreland 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to block indefinitely, and if it's some kind of mistake, he can explain and be unblocked. SlimVirgin 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Please note that WordBomb did not read your block notice too carefully, as he just posted on his user page a vicious, libelous accusation against Weiss, me and another user. I guess that resolves the issue of whether this was an innocent mistake or not. I think the indefinite block should apply to his user page as well, given his latest behavior.--Mantanmoreland 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this user has re-emerged as what must surely the most obvious sockpuppet in the history of Misplaced Pages. I request that this sockpuppet ID "FloydBarbour" be indefinitely blocked and that this IP be blocked as well.--Mantanmoreland 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

block for a first timer

Hi, I have a 'block' placed on me. Is this because I am a first time editor? All I did was correct the birthdate of "Michael Bergin". His actual birthdate is posted in his bio on his website. The link is:

http://www.mbergin.com/components.php?file=page_info.php&comp=articles&aID=1

I'd like to understand what I did wrong, please.

Thank you, Jennifer djsaad|at|aol]dot]com — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLa (talk • contribs)

You may have been caught in an AOL autoblock having nothing to do with you or your editing. Jkelly 21:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We are VERY sorry this happened Jennifer. Anyway, I hope an admin would reverse the block. --mboverload@ 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The account that posted here is not blocked, and we have no way of knowing what IP AOL will next assign to this user. Jkelly 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, from what I have seen sometimes the user uses the same IP for a long time, or gets a new one all the time. Since she came here to complain, I assumed it was one of the people who keep their IP for awhile. Is that just me? --mboverload@ 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL proxy block. Tonight, I have been blocked now four times since signing on. Each time, the block was aimed at a named account, but the collateral damage rates are getting incredibly high. Geogre 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:F.O.E.

This user has been uncivil towards many people so far. Notably IP addresses whether or not they vandalize or not. This user engages in incivil comments, removal of warnings from his talk page, WP:BITEs every IP he sees, and makes votes at WP:RFA in violation of WP:POINT. Can someone talk to this editor. I think someone tried to explain the rules to him before, but I guess they were disregarded because it was an IP address. — The King of Kings 22:20 July 07 '06

Given the number of comments at User talk:F.O.E. just from today, I suggest that it should not be hard to find two editors willing to endorse an user-conduct RfC. Jkelly 22:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will start an RFC now unless someone disagrees. — The King of Kings 23:12 July 07 '06

Sorry

I really fu*ked up. Wingmanattack 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, we all make mistakes :) 216.164.203.90 23:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure lets go with that. :-D — The King of Kings 23:15 July 07 '06

Simon Hackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (putting this here because WP:RFP is sprotected)

Out of control vandalism, please protect/sprotect--152.163.100.65 23:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

One word (acronymn) AOL :) Nookdog 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Block :15 at a time, folks. Do not reach for a range block for longer than that. It's aggravating as hell, but the stakes are high (I'm now up to three blocks this editing session, myself). Geogre 03:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• um, this has nothing to do with an AOL vandal, a plain old regular vandal kept targeting the same article, I requested sprotection, luckily since WP:RFP is itself sprotected, the only place I could take the request was right here--205.188.116.65 04:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please help resolve an edit dispute at the Oprah board?

I'm sure Harro5 is a good and competent administrator but he's suddenly been monitoring the Oprah board and has been deleting many of the nice Oprah pics Cardriver and I have uploaded. Instead of explaining why the photos I uploaded are unacceptable, he prefers to just call me a sockpuppet, a troll, a vandal, and tell me I'll be blocked. The current intro photo of Oprah is not very good and kind of undignified to her more elderly fans. In addition it has no source information. I uploaded a colorful dignified intro photo of Oprah with her dogs and Harro5 removed it, calling it junk in his edit summary. He sent me a message warning me not to upload unsourced photos, but the photo he prefers his unsourced as are most of these promotional celebrity photos in[REDACTED] articles. I'm trying really hard to improve the look of the article and learn the standards of[REDACTED] so I don't understand why Harro5 feels one unsourced image is valid, while a more clear colorful and dignified one is not.Zorklift 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the image I wish to use in the intro is this one: Image:Oprah with dogs.jpg But administrator Harro5 tells me its unsourced keeps reinserting this one Image:Oprah.PNG which is also unsourced and much less dignified. It doesn't make any sense and it's very confusing for us new users who are trying desperately to learn the standards of wikipedia.Zorklift 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The image you want to use looks like it was cut from a magazine (since there are remains of some words on it that look like a magazine cover). If this is the case, it's a copyrighted work and can't be used under fair use to illustrate the Oprah article, but only an article about the magazine it is the cover for. User:Zoe| 23:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

All that needs saying. Harro5 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But the image Harro5 is using is from Oprah's 20 year DVD collection which is not only not the subject of the article, but mentioned nowhere in the article. We're also having a dispute over images from Letterman. As usual mine is considered unsourced, but the existing image is equally unsourced. I would very much like to expirement with more images but he has threatened to block me if I do so. I feel a neutral administrator should do blockings, not one who is embroiled in an edit war. ThanksZorklift 00:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My feeling on the matter is just get rid of ALL of the photos from this article and start anew. We got the image undeletion, we got Oprah's website. Except for the first pic, which is used in the infobox, none have sources. But the first pic was altered and cropped, and going by Zoe's response, that infobox pic should go. User:Zscout370 02:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed a solution to the images problem here with a list of images to keep or to delete from the article. Please look and comment. Thanks. Harro5 05:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

God damn it, this really pisses me off.

All of AOL is blocked by some administrator asshole, and I have to go to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Main_Page to edit, but I hate it because it's fucking slow and for every single page asks me if I want to display nonsecure items.--172.195.244.34 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be writing through AOL right now? Nookdog 00:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the SSL certificate for Misplaced Pages was obtained from "CAcert", which is a new and not widely recognized certificate authority. --John Nagle 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, we apologize if you were part of the collateral damage caused by an AOL vandal that we needed to stop, but we hope you'll address your anger where it belongs and assume good faith on our part. RadioKirk 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, gee, I wonder which fellow admin didn't appreciate the joke... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Wikiquote MAJOR problem.

I would like to report a problem spanning Misplaced Pages and Wikiquote. User:Crestville is causing sever vandalism on Wikiquote, and ignoring talk page warnings. So, I tried to contact him here. He is very arrogant in his responses and tried to blame it on an imposter. However, there is no imposter. I need him blocked here, and I am working on blocking him on Wikiquote. You can contact me on Wikiquote under the same username I am using here. Good day. Wazzawazzawaz 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay this any mind. I suspect Waz is a sockpuppet himself - that's probalby why he has pasted here, following the link on his own userpage, rather than go to the proper page which would be the vandal page. Has created an account - User:CrestvilIe - with a name similar to mine (in lowercase it is indistinguishable but in upper case you can see I am CRESTVILLE while he is CRESTVILIE). He has then proceeded to vandelise pages on wikiquote.

Despite the obvious silly trick I then proceeded to recieve messages from a new user called User:Wazzawazzawaz - who had not even taken the time to create a convincing userpage - accusing me of the vandelism, despite the fact that if they had followed the link on the history page it would have taken them to the imposters page. This continued with my imposter vandelising something, then a few minites later wazzer would reappear and chastise me for it. It seems clear to me that wazzawazzawaz or whatever is a sockpuppet for my impersonater and this is just some silly joke. I must say, however, it is flattering to have both an imposter and a stalker. I must be a mini-wiki celeb.--Crestville 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How are you sure crestvilie and wazzawazzawaz are the same user. Wazzawazzawazza is a MAJOR contributer over on Wikiquote. Wingmanattack 00:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Crestville's explanation I feel this should still be neutrally investigated. Wazzawazzawaz seem to be correct in calling Crestville arrogant, because as you can see on User:CrestvilIe's page Crestville has called him a "jacko loving sockpuppet.” Wingmanattack 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to discuss it with an admin on Wikiquote. User:Zoe| 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say have CRESTVILIE if they committed vandalism on WikiQuote and investigate any possible incivility by CRESTVILLE on Misplaced Pages separately. Can checkuser requests span projects? - Mgm| 11:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Erasure: Germany National Football Team

Dear Guys, User:Matthead has recently deleted an entire section from Talk:Germany national football team. I wondered whether the erasure of any part of the talk page, regardless of the quality of the comments, is considered vandalism? I can't find any policy document on this point. I wanted some advice before I reverted the talk page and asked User:Matthead for an explanation. --die Baumfabrik 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually, asking (nicely) for the explanation is the first step. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI possibly violating newest probation

User:SPUI has violated several tennants of his newest probation on Category talk:Ontario provincial highways. Specifically he's violating points 2.1 and 7 of the probation which deal with controversial highway edits being prohibited and civility respectively. Please review said probation here. All parties should have to adhere to this equally. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Point 7 is a warning, not probation. That being said, there is incivility there to the point where some may consider it disruption of the article. --Avillia 01:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Munson

Two anons, 68.106.125.28 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and 38.118.8.26 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (probably the same person) keep inserting unreferenced and libellous material into the article on Chuck Munson. This is a page that few people have watched I believe, so if someone else can keep an eye on it, or semi-protect it, that would be nice. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Their IPs appear to be static. Why not try a warning? - Mgm| 11:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Warning Templates By Merzbow

Merzbow has repeatedly added an unwarranted 'personal attack' warning template on my talk page User_talk:His_excellency. He is neither an admin, nor has his addition of the template been founded on any consensus. He has not explained why content he considers to be violations of WP:NPA are indeed violations. This is an abuse of the function of the template, in my opinion, and I removed them accordingly. When I remove it, he adds it back on, and in addition warns that the removal of his judgement amounts to 'vandalism. I have a long standing dispute with him on several articles, and I know that he has been consulting other users on getting me blocked permenantly on Misplaced Pages.I personally find his work on Islam-related pages to be POV-motivated, and I believe his actions in regards to myself is a result of his desire to promote a POV. On his talk page, it is apparent that he's issued similar warnings, followed with accusations of vandalism for removing his warnings. He has also dismissed other good-faith edits as 'vandalism' in edit summaries. I believe his intention is to intimidate editors with views different than his own. I request an admin to take a look at this and suggest a course of action. He has repeatedly spoken in favor of blocking me on previous occasions. The fact that he is exploiting WP rules as a means of intimidating users, with the probable intention of using such unfounded claims of violation to appeal to an admin who would affect a block (this has been done before) itself suggests some measure should be taken against such a motivated attack. His Excellency... 00:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E. has just come back from a week-long block (reduced to indefinite) for numerous personal attacks, which was the latest in a long string of blocks under that username and his previous username for the same thing. In the day and a half since, he has resumed his uncivil and confrontative behavior with two brand-new personal attacks (one against me) that I feel clearly fall within WP:NPA: and , plus a near-personal attack on 'some editors' of the Dhimmi page (and it's obvious to whom he his referring): .

I then warned him as appropriate on his talk page for the two attacks. He removed the warning, and I properly warned him for vandalism with wr3 and wr4, both of which he removed, accusing me of harrassment on my talk page. H.E. should have been on his best behavior after coming off his block, which narrowly escaped being indefinite. Instead, he has returned to his old behavior. Hasn't community patience with this user finally been exhausted? - Merzbow 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually a careful look at past blocks would reveal ALOT of debate on the credibility of the blocks. Personal attacks that weren't personal attacks, 3RRs that werent 3RRs. Merzbow's contributions to the Islam-related pages have been extremely POV-biased, and he's suggested already a desire to 'nuke' sections that I have newly added. Needless to say, there's an obvious content dispute that spans across several pages, most notably Dhimmi and Criticisms of Islam. In the past, blocks have been placed that have later been debated, where the majority felt the accusations were unfounded. Sometimes, as a result, blocks were reduced, and sometimes removed. Merzbow is clearly settings things up to appeal for another block, and almost certainly some trigger-happy admin would respond by affecting such a block. That is why I am bringing this here now. I am critical of Merzbow's contributions here, and I am vocal in that criticism. Criticism of a user's contribution is not in of itself a 'personal attack'. The use of templates and talk page warnings to intimidate a user IS however an attack, and I would like to see this matter addressed. This is lawyering, baiting, and malevolent opportunism. His Excellency... 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed User:Merzbow's diffs and while H.E.'s words are heated I see no personal attacks there. (→Netscott) 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. His words were clearly personal attacks. To Hypnosadist: "If anything, it seems I and 'my children' need to work here to teach you a thing or two, particularly on the topic of intellectual honesty, which you're demonstrating here you know nothing about." To me: "I'm merely suggesting that a level amount of skepticism be directed at all entries, regardless of who inserts them. I've been familiar with your work long enough to know not to bother directing the same suggestion to you." Guys, this is not a newbie we're talking about here. This is a user with a long and storied history of incivility, disruption, and personal attacks who has been blocked numerous times. It has been a day and a half since his last block. How much longer do the editors who are expected to work with him need to put up with this? - Merzbow 01:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Those comments are about conduct. Nowhere is H.E. saying you're a jerk, or you're this or you're that. There is a difference. The only thing that is perhaps borderline is the civility question but even here I don't see a particular level of incivility that merits any sort of warning or admin action. (→Netscott) 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To put things in context, allow me to post the content I was responding to:

"H.E. let me answer your last point first as to why there is endemic bias to the western view on wikipedia, The West Built it!, thats the answer, a guy called Jimbo(what an american name!) started this project. Based on HTML which was created at CERN and given free to you so that you and your children learn more and be better off. Built on a model of working not even thought about before the existance of the open source movement in the late 80's, that being the Bazar model. This project and the entire west stand on the shoulders of something called the industrial revolution that was brought about by the new thoughts that britons were the first to think, or at least not be burnt at the stake for thinking then acting on them." His Excellency... 01:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are clearly wrong here. He said that Hypnosadist "intellectual honesty, which you're demonstrating here you know nothing about". That is CLEARLY a personal statement accusing Hypnosadist of being intellectually dishonest. To me: "I've been familiar with your work long enough to know not to bother directing the same suggestion to you", accusing me of being congenitally incapable of taking suggestions. - Merzbow 01:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And I leave the hysterical tone and accusations leveled by H.E. in this AN/I and recents edits to various talk pages to speak for themselves. - Merzbow 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you kindly review my user page? There's a little part about insulting my edit(s)/argument(s)/view(s)... the logic there is the same as here. (→Netscott) 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. You are unhappy that somebody is disagreeing with you in a civil manner? - Merzbow 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See, Merzbow, the issue is not at least as obvious as you thought and this is a good reason you shouldn't have use harsh advanced warnings. --Aminz 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I can verify that this user has a history of personal attacks (under this and other usernames, most recently in fashions such as this), and should probably be warned for his comments in this thread if nothing else. --InShaneee 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had discussions with you on your interpretation of the phrase 'personal attack'. I honestly do not believe you know what a personal attack is. You've blocked me before and warned me before, and you've been quick to issue warnings, even with others failed to see what you considered 'personal attacks'. This is suggestive that in the case of at least one of your warnings, your warning wasn't a product of an action on my part, but that you desired to issue a 'final warning' and that you went about fishing for a justification for it. As your warning was erased by another admin, you apparently picked up a small fish in this instance. His Excellency... 01:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that making personal attacks to prove that you don't make personal attacks won't get you far. --InShaneee 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the comments. The comments are not explicit personal attacks, but tend to be understood as personal attacks. They don't "establish" the personal attacks on the part of H.E. But anyhow, they are not constructive of course and harm the community and should be refained. I also agree with H.E. that Merzbow's use of those "harsh" warning templates was very inappropriate. --Aminz 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd think it didn't need saying that opinions don't acquire any miraculous virtue or special immunity against removal by being expressed in the form of a template, and yet I seem to spend a lot of my time lately saying it. Too many people have got the idea that if only they use a template, they're free to harass users by endlessly reverting their talkpages and threatening them. Planting warning templates frivolously and then triumpantly accusing the person who removes them of "vandalism" is misuse of process. Bishonen | talk 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

I suggest an admin take appropriate measures against Merzbow in regards to using these tactics as a means of silencing editors with whom he has a POV dispute. Relevant information on this matter can be found on: User_talk:Merzbow, User_talk:Aminz, and yours truly: User_talk:His_excellency. Edit summaries and past warnings are also noteworthy. On User talk:Salman01, I believe the use of this same tactic of unfounded/unsupported warnings were also used. His Excellency... 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am totally agree with His Excellency, I have tried explaining that the reason I am deleting some of the comments from my talk page is because I want to keep my talk page as short (I just want current articles and issues to be on my talk page) as possible but Merzbow keeps on interfering my talk page and putting tags on my talk page. He blamed me for doing something, which he has also done in the past, but he was not punished for doing it because he is an administrator. I believe that Merzbow should be warned and other administrators should learn a lesson from Merzbow’s case. They can’t misuse their powers. Thank You--Salman 01:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you've been warned by admins not to do this and yet continued to do it anyways. - Merzbow 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And Merzbow you forgot that you made the same mistake remember, and you were not warned or blocked, but i was warned and blocked from editing. I don't understand why administrators block wikipedians from editing at[REDACTED] for 24hrs and during that time they say things about him that are not true, and the wikipedians who is accused can not even defend himself since he can not reply to those accusations. Administrators power should be limited they should tell someone who is above them before they can block someone from editing. And even if they block someone from editing then they should not post those comments until the 24 hrs ban goes by.--Salman 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow is not an admin! lol --Aminz 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for correcting me brother Aminz. Well I thought he was one, but if he isn’t an administrator then he should be posting those unnecessary tags on my talk page and he should tell an administrator about the problem he has with my edits. Then the administrator should come to me to hear my side of the story. He can not put unnecessary tags on my page if he is not an administrator. Wikipedians shouldn’t be allowed to go around and put tags on other wikipedians talk pages if they don’t like their edits. I mean I am a wikipedian I shouldn’t be going around to others wikipedians talk pages and placing tags if I disagree with their edits and/or their performance at wikipedia. I just don’t understand why isn’t its okay if I want to make my talk page shorter by deleting unnecessary and old comments. I only like to keep comments about current article that I am working on, I feel comfortable that way. But according to Merzbow is cannot delete any comments from my talk page because it helps other wikipedians decide how am I as an editor. Let me tell Merzbow that if other wikipedians want to find out how I am as an editor then they can always go to the history page of my talk page and find out from there. I just want those tags removed from my talk page and[REDACTED] should have some strict policies regarding administrators as well as other wikipedians. For more details see my talk page ]--Salman 01:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And admins aren't the only ones who can place warnings. In fact, before one can register a vandal or personal attack complaint on AN, one must have issued those warnings first. How somebody can criticize me for following the required process before registering these complaints is beyond me. - Merzbow 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it? Then I recommend a read of the pages Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering, Abuse of process, and Vexatious litigation. Please note also that it's not open season on an editor simply because he has recently returned from a (controversial) block. Bishonen | talk 01:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

You're hardly unbiased in this discussion, having saved H.E. from indefinite blocks twice. - Merzbow 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By now, I think it fair to observe that Bishonen has acted as H.E.'s dedicated enabler and champion on Misplaced Pages.Timothy Usher 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, should we also note you have been stalking Bishonen and harassing her on her talk page? That your edits have been deleted by other admins and that you have been threatened with blocks for continuing this behavior? If you take issue with Bishonen's actions, address the actions, not her. So far you have failed to do that. Same goes for you, Merzbow. This ANI is about you, you should probably defend yourself instead of taking pot shots at others. You are obliged to assume that her descisions are founded in her evaluation of the circumstances, evaluations and conclusions which she has an obligation as an admin to make for herself. It's amazing how people who've made a sport out of reporting 'personal attacks', seem so unaware of they're committing them. His Excellency... 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel the need to defend Bishonen here. And mind you, my block is the one Bishonen shortened. I have absolutely no problem with one of my decisions being changed or shortened. I usually figure that admins checking up on each other is one of the best checks we have against unlimited power on Misplaced Pages.

Did I necessarily agree with the shortening? Not really. But I don't feel that it showed "bias" on Bishonen's part. I think that's the main thing that irks me about how people treat admins here. There's an assumption out there that when we make a decision, that we're "taking sides". Because Bishonen shortened the block, then somehow Bishonen has taken his excellency's "side". It's like when I've blocked one party in an edit war and not other parties. I've been told that I'm taking their "side". "Side" has nothing to do with it. Upholding policy is. I've had differences with Bishonen recently. But she is a good admin. I would much rather see an admin be too lenient than too harsh. And as I said, she isn't showing bias here. She just felt like the block was too harsh. Period. Reading more into that action shows the bias of the person making the comment more than any perceived bias that the admin might have. She's just doing her job as an admin. --Woohookitty 14:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't allege "bias" - what would be the point? But Bishonen undid both his indef blocks, not just this one, and has consistently popped up to defend him whatever the issue at hand. She did not just stumble across it - her association with H.E. stems from the FairNBalanced dispute, where she argued for a summary permanent ban, with no warning, of a user with no block log - for uploading a photo of a farm animal labelled "God" into his user space. I opposed this proposed permaban, at which point H.E. jumped in under his new username and starting attacking me. When H.E. was subsequently indef blocked for the first time, Bishonen sprung to his defense and suggested his conduct ought be viewed in light of the FairNBalanced discussion - the logical connection between which was never quite explained, beyond saying that H.E. might feel "besieged as a Muslim editor." Since then, she's acted as his patron on Misplaced Pages. Now she and H.E. are accusing me of "stalking" her - never mind that I've never even seen her username beyond this specific series of incidents.Timothy Usher 00:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell -- and it's difficult to tell, since as always you are levelling accusations without bothering with niceties like diffs -- this description of things is almost entirely wrong. You didn't allege "bias" but Merzbow did and your response to that clearly was intended to support the allegation. You claim Bishonen undid both his indef blocks but a simple look at the block log disproves that. I didn't follow the FnB thing closely, but your description doesn't match my recollections -- diffs? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I always? I used to be pretty handy with diffs when I had the time to sink into it. When it becomes clear that nothing comes of it anyhow, it's a less appealing use of one's time. Suppose I produce diffs supporting every word of every sentence I'd written: what then? What difference would it make? Despite this observation, I may do so, but it'll have to wait a bit.Timothy Usher 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Are ad hominem attacks on me all the two of you have at this point, Merzbow and Timothy Usher? No logic, no argument, no, you know, response to what I say, just "you're arguing for HE, but you argued for HE before, haha!" is your whole case? Shrug. I'm done, I won't follow you into that pit of illogic. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

What! "take appropriate measures against Merzbow"! I thought H.E. is the one who is accused. H.E.'s comments were definitely harming the community and discouraging good editors like Merzbow, but Merzbow just lost his cool a bit and posted "harsh" warning templates that was very inappropriate. But just a reminder solves the whole issue. --Aminz 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, look at the title of this entry. I filed it. My accusation is that Merzbow is using the NPA warning template and subsequent Vandalism warning templates as measures of threat and intimidation. I do not know what the policy is on actions such as these, but the evidence of bad faith in these actions are clear. The accusation was a false one, and the warnings were acts of vandalism on my talk page, entered in bad faith. His Excellency... 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

'In addition to that, my response which makes up the second alleged 'personal attack' was to a user's statement that suggested Misplaced Pages was MEANT to be biased because it was invented in the West, as a gift so that people like myself and my children can 'learn'. For me to take issue with THAT statement amounts to something 'harming the community and discouraging good editors like Merzbow"? I believe you an I may have very different views here as to what benefits the WP community. His Excellency... 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again harsh comments beget harsh comments. (→Netscott) 01:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to run now, but hope this conflict is peacefully closed by when I come back. :P. Uncle Merzbow, my scary-admin {icon of devil} , I wish you didn't have raised this issue after I removed it. --Aminz 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First i would like to say that i know nothing about any templates. Second i now know that H.E. misunderstood what i had said in my answer to him. I did not meen that was MEANT to be biased as a propaganda tool to indoctrinate his kids, i meant that as[REDACTED] is mostly made by white /male /geek /westerner's (delette as appropriate) it concentrates on the interests of those groups. I'm still pissed by his later comments though!Hypnosadist 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that the parties involved here, who have more than proven themselves entrenched in long-term conflict by now, take their issues to Requests for arbitration. It says right up at the top of this page that admins are not referees, and it is a fact that long threaded arguments like this are inappropriate on this noticeboard. If H.E. is half the malfeasant his opponents assert, a favorable ArbCom outcome should be assured for them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just might, as soon as other involved parties return from break. I would suggest that everyone who shares his POV on articles consider whether in the long run they are doing Misplaced Pages a favor by giving him the benefit of the doubt. Consider carefully that you're not the one that, by all previous behavior, is going to be subject to months of additional incivility and possible personal attacks, and hysterical rants about his opponents' incurable POV bias. Has he apologized at all for any of his behavior in the past? - Merzbow 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a little comment here. I have no opinion on this matter but...you don't have to be an admin to warn someone. That's another myth that seems to have taken hold. --Woohookitty 04:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe your comment is a little too little. Clearly what's being discussed here is more than just a warning. It's the use of a warning, based on obviously bad-faith mischaracterizations, and subsequent threats of blocks with the intent to threaten and intimidate, and then affect a block by appealing to a trigger-happy admin (of which we have an abundance of). It's a trick that's been used before. His Excellency... 04:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone tell me how a description of a fellow editor as 'intellectually dishonest' doesn't count as a personal attack or at LEAST a good-faith interpretation as one and I'll admit the warning was unjustified. Oh, I forget, his attack was justified because he was 'provoked'. (Not to mention the other attack wasn't). Anyways, see you in ArbComm, I suppose. Grapes is right that neither of us are going to get what we want here. - Merzbow 05:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend Arbcom. --Woohookitty 10:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems that half of the effort around here goes towards a handful of persistent problem users - in this case, one that had already been indef blocked twice. What a waste of time.Timothy Usher 00:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain something to you for the fifth time or so. It is ArbCom's job around here to deliberate upon how best to deal with those some allege to be "persistent problem users". It is only when there is complete and unambiguous agreement that community-based bans should be made. It is obvious that such agreement does not exist here. Those who would have HE banned are wasting our time by not opening an ArbCom request. I am not giving you this advice to try to get you to go away or to brush you off. I have participated in the ArbCom process several times and have found it to be effective at identifying and sanctioning disruptive or problematic editors. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher's anti-Bishonen campaign

I've been ignoring Timothy Usher's misdirection campaign against me as best I can, after once posting my view that what he calls our "dispute" is all on his side, but when he posts outright lies in a place this public, I suppose I should respond. I didn't undo His Excellency's second block. Timothy Usher, as I reminded you on your talkpage a few days ago, I didnt shorten or offer to shorten that block, as I thought it wrong to be the one to do it again for the same user. "If nobody else out of 900 admins would unblock/shorten, I would rather have let the block stand. But WooHooKitty reinstated week block. Again, if you have a problem with my admin actions (and you seem to have an enormous, overshadowing, obsessive problem with them), please consider an RfC against me. I would be most interested in seeing your repertoire of accusations complemented with links to things I've actually said or done. Bishonen | talk 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

My "enormous, overshadowing, obsessive problem" with your administrative actions is entirely limited to your ongoing patronage of His excellency.Timothy Usher 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As a completely disinterested party in this dispute, it's pretty clear from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:His_excellency that yes, Bishonen, you have unblocked His excellency indefinite blocks twice. User:Zoe| 21:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not. The log shows a mere technical problem, which like several other admins I tried to fix but failed. (The person who finally fixed it, also shown in the log, was more tech savvy than me: User:Raul654.) I'm not very happy about Zoe's comment sitting here, with such a respected user expressing that I've been saying the thing which is not, but Zoe hasn't been editing for a while. When she does, I'm hoping she'll withdraw it, per HE's explanation below and my own post on her talkpage. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen has explained the situation on my Talk page, and I'm willing to redact my comments above. User:Zoe| 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As an interested party: actually the last block removal was on my request. The block was for 1 week, and as you see, she did what she did after the block was supposed to have expired. The autoblock system kept extending the block on me because of some error (something to do with autoblock choking on caps or spaces or underscores in the ID), and though I my block was supposed to have expired on July 5th, autoblock was pushing it forward into the 7th. She wasn't reversing anything, just undoing a system problem because she happened to be on the IRC channel when I made the request. Several other admins tried to fix it before her and couldn't.The block prior to that has an ANI entry regarding it, and the vast majority of observers in that situation agreed the block was unreasonable given the offense (the single use of the word 'bigot).

On the rest of this nonsense (all of this is irrelevant to this ANI entry), on every single instance where Bishonen either reversed a block or questioned the validity on it, several if not a majority of others observing the ANI entry on the blocks in question noted the same things she did: that the blocks were unreasonably harsh considering the alleged violations they're founded on, or that the violations they were grounded in were not actual WP: violations at all. Bishonen was simply doing her job, and an objective view of her decisions would suggest she made the right choices. It should be noted that Timothy Usher has a long standing conflict with me, and that he has made it a point to go from talk page to talk page where I had participated and make remarks against me. Another behavior characterized these actions as 'stalking'. Indeed, Timothy Usher had apparently gone so far as to 'google' my old ID, begging the question of what he intended to do with any information he'd recieve.Clearly, he's made his grudge against me a personal matter separate from any 'content dispute'. Amongst the blocks Bishonen commented on, criticized, reduced or reversed, are those that were put in place on Timothy's request. It is apparent he has taken these personally as well, and is now stalking Bishonen too. It is clear he is now using the same offensive methods against Bishonen. Perhaps this deserves an ANI entry of its own. His Excellency... 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen's pro-His excellency campaign

Some recent comments by Bishonen's protogé His excellency: , . Bishonen, you've every right to take pride in your tireless efforts to keep such posts coming. They really improve the encyclopedia, and they couldn’t have happened without you. Good work.Timothy Usher 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's lucky sarcasm can fix problems like this. Stephen B Streater 09:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher's comment here is unambiguously a personal attack in my view. It must be nice to have no shame. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If your point is that no personnal attack justifies another, I agree. His excellency is blocked for a year, and I support that. Unless there are necessary records to be completed, I suggest we drop it and move on. Tom Harrison 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Raul has unblocked His excellency again. User:Zoe| 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Raul has done so at the request of Bishonen, according to His excellency . Its more like a wheel war now. Kevin_b_er 21:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refer rather to Raul654's own message on His excellency's page, that's the horse's mouth here. Uh, how is it anything like a wheel war? Bishonen | talk 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

I don't know anything about this situation, but I'd just like to add that Bishonen is a very good admin and a reasonable person, so Timothy, I hope you'll try persuasion if you disagree with her in future, and not allow any more animosity to build up between you. SlimVirgin 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion about Bishonen, or any basis for forming one, outside of her work on behalf of His excellency. In aiding him, she is knowingly, and by now it would seem quite wilfully, subjecting other editors to his relentless personal attacks and copious streams of racist, sectarian, anti-Semitic and homophobic invective. Her reasons for doing so have never been clearly and overtly expressed, and by this time I've given up any expectation that I'll ever hear them. I've asked her not to keep bringing him back, but she's refused. I can think of nothing else to discuss, and have nothing much to express other than the strong desire not to partipate in any forum to which HE is also invited.Timothy Usher 01:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That kind of misstatement has to come from either malice or incomprehension. There has been no work by anybody "on behalf of HE," so cut that nonsense out right now. If Bishonen hadn't shortened the block, I would have. If I wouldn't have, someone else would have. Had that person not, someone else would have. Give it up. The reason the blocks have been shortened is that they were out of process. That's it. No statements for or against the user, only a discussion by admins with admins on whether the block for "personal attacks" was appropriate. One person seems to think it was. Several don't. The Personal Attack "policy" merely says that it is our policy not to launch personal attacks. There are no sanctions specified. Further, the speech you consider yourself so maligned by appears to several other readers to be inflammatory but not insulting, and the rest of us see your own words as being pretty inflammatory, too. You're not getting your way. That's too bad, but it has nothing to do with anyone working for or on behalf of your bete noir (or is that Bishonen now?). Geogre 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I reject the implication that there is some sort of moral equivalence between Timothy Useher's conduct and His excelleny's. As far as the propriety of the many blocks, "One person seems to think it was. Several don't" is also a misstatement; I'm sure it is no more from malice or incomprehension than Timothy Usher's. If you find his conduct so worthy of condemnation, follow the process you recommend: start an RfC. It's astonishing to me that some are eager to bend over backward to give His excellency every possible benefit of process, but are quick to condemn Timothy Usher for, apparently, having the temerity to protest sustained and vicious attacks. Every time Amibidhrohi/His excellency has been unblocked, or his block has expired, the attacks have resumed, and have gotten worse. After this has happened two or three times, it's hard for me, and maybe harder for Timothy Usher, to see how a reasonable person expects a different result the next time. Tom Harrison 03:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Read what I responded to, Tom. Timothy's behavior is certainly crossing the line between sense and disruption, but I, unlike some people, don't believe in blocking and blocking and blocking some more because of "insults." The equivalency is on the offense: HE provokes Usher, and Usher provokes HE. That's the only thing that unilateral blocking is concerned with. I responded, though, to Usher's continuing accusations that anyone insisting on process is working "on behalf of HE." He has gotten obsessed with Bishonen as HE's friend. He is continuing to accuse everyone who doesn't do as he wishes of being on HE's "side." That's nonsense, and now you're effectively repeating the same gesture by saying that we must all be in favor of HE because we're in favor of following the rules. The choice is not Usher and HE. The choice is behaving like responsible administrators who know that there are rules and apply them fairly and evenly and taking sides. Geogre 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested that the ArbCom review Timothy Usher's conduct in this matter. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

User:Dollarfifty is vandal and manipulates the outcome of voting

UserDollarfifty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeats vandal reverts in Tsushima Basin and unilaterally changed the outcome of the vote at Talk:Tsushima Basin. I beleive he should be blocked for a while.--Questionfromjapan 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition;I suppose that his/her behavior is a sort of vandalism such as "Changing people's comments" or "Talk page vandalism".

S/He has already changed the outcome of voting three times even after alert. Now, I did final alert on His/her talk page. If S/he violates the final alert, I would like to report it on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Questionfromjapan 11:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Some of the pages that were reverted aren't going to the correct page and are creating circular redirects or linking to the correct article with the vandal's name. Most of these can't be reverted by normal users and the list is too extensive to list here. For all the moves see here. Yanksox 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Strike this everything looks fine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanksox (talk • contribs)

I'm under attack by AOL vandal

Hello, my User page is under attack by an AOL vandal. The vandal wants to insert a claim that Texas Tech University is a "flagship" university, which has a defined meaning in Texas and is not a matter of opinion. There is consensus on the article talk page that it is not a flagship university. His beef with me is that I reverted him/her on Texas Tech University and then blocked him/her for vandalism and personal attacks. He is now in violation of WP:3RR on Texas Tech University, and has begun vandalizing my user page. I have to step out for a while, so I am requesting assistance with reverting these two pages. Thanks, Johntex\ 01:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• They have now spread their vandalism to my school University of Texas at Austin, which *is* defined as a flagship by the state. They may appear next at other Texas schools. Johntex\ 01:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got your page "watched" Johntex... as far as the article on your University above I see Tawkerbot4's working overtime. :-) (→Netscott) 01:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of personal attacks, blackmail, and threats of the sort "if you don't blah blah I will make everything a hundred times worse for you!!" from both your talk page and the Talk:Texas Tech University page. If others would also keep an eye on this as well it would be helpful. Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching the pages for now. Naconkantari 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

The latest page moves, which targetted me, were as far as I can see reversed when I got a message on my talk page from a User:Spahbod, who happened to blame me for the page moves. He has virtually no contributions and is blocked for now. Agree/disagree? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand what Spahbod did to be blocked, but it is clear he is a sockpuppet of some user. He has only 4 edits and they were to: (1) blank his talk page (2) blank his user page (3) join a wikiproject (3) message you about a page move. This is not the behavior of a new user. Johntex\ 05:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think he's WoW, trolling. To put this in context, see WoW's edits Additionally, there's no unblock request yet. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Something related to note here: I've recently been checkusering WOW accounts to discover sleeper accounts used by the same user, and I've noticed that many of them make what seem to be legit contributions (some even report their own previous WOW actions) and then go on a WOW spree. Not much that can be done in most cases, but if you notice anyone who has a borderline WOW username asking for an unblock, have that in mind. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Omicronpersei8 (talk · contribs)

This over-zealous RCP member unblanked my talk page (a talkpage for a dynamic IP adress) twice. He probably didn't check what he did and restored {helpme} and {unblock} templates, bringing me a warning for misuse of {helpme}. I have only been blocked for one hour for not knowing the guidelines about straw polls, and there were no warnings on the talk page (before Omicronpersei8 restored it with the {helpme} tag). This IP is shared on a router by several individuals and it is a dynamic IP, i.e. can change after the next router reset, I don't find comments hanging on the talkpage appropriate. I have archived the contents of the talk page now (however I find this redundant because the information could be found in history). Please advise this over-zealous user not to change my talkpage again. 85.70.5.66 06:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)_{resolved 85.70.5.66 07:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)}

Don't worry, I won't. The re-adding of the aforementioned tags was my absent-minded fault. I also felt the reversions were cover-ups, but I guess that's something I should, decidedly, be less zealous about. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Omicronpersei8 is actually being noble. Omi asked for advice at the Village Pump to which I responded, and I believe the actions taken were based on my advice. To the best of my knowledge Omicronpersei8's hasn't actually violated any policy, or even guideline. --Doc Tropics 07:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.134 and Same-sex marriage

User:64.12.116.134 has repeatedly introduced biased (and mostly nonsensical) material into the Same-sex marriage article. I've just hit three reverts, and I'm going to bed, but someone might want to take a look and maybe semi-protect the article temporarily. Unfortunately it's an AOL IP. Opabinia regalis 07:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why stop after hitting three reverts? If the edits are vandalism, there's nothing wrong with reverting 'til doomsday (as one Wikipedian once infamously said); if the edits are not, then how did you manage to get to three in less than twenty-four hours? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't quite vandalism, just stupidity. More importantly, it was three-thirty in the morning. At any rate, someone else took over till he stopped. Opabinia regalis 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Community ban on User:Hogeye

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

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

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

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

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

Is this spam?

I have found many hundreds of links to the website sacred-texts.com, from almost every conceivable religion-related article on Misplaced Pages, in multiple languages. I am unsure whether this is a reliable source (despite its .com domain) or mass linkspamming. Unsurprisingly Alexa lists Misplaced Pages among the top sites linking in. Any thoughts? Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to look at the website and see if they provide anything meanful that the articles cannot provide. If that is the case, keep'em. If not, whack away my friend. User:Zscout370 11:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's good stuff - I often link to it. Of course there may well be some superfluous links but there's no need for a mass purge. Haukur 11:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's sad that the standards above can't be applied to fisheatersDotCom. Someone should re-investigate the blacklisting of that site. 64.12.116.65 14:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a free site similar to the Gutenberg Project (or Wikibooks), providing full texts of out-of-copyright works on religion an mythology. Of course, the site should not be referenced directly; the direct reference should be to the book itself. For example, "Joseph Ford Newton, The Builders: A story and study of Masonry. Cedar Rapids:The Torch Press, 1914. Online version hosted at " I've seen a lot of lazy embedded URLs used as references that will be useless if the link changes or the site goes down. Giving full bibliographic details is also part of the citing sources policy. But the site seems good. Thatcher131 12:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of these texts are public domain, which means that they're suitable for Wikisource. I wouldn't consider them spam, but if the text exists on Wikisource, there's really no reason to include a link to some other external source. The majority of LDS texts, for example, are on Wikisource, so the links to http://scriptures.lds.org can, for the most part, be replaced with interwiki links to Wikisource.

There's also a template, {{Sourcetext}}, for ease of interwiki. :-) Jude (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That site provides interlinear versions of some texts like the Qur'an, and so is very useful to link to for that purpose. - Merzbow 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Afrobean attack page

This page has been speedied twice as an attack page, but has just been recreated with the same content. This page may need temporary protection against re-creation, to save speedying it again in the future. RandyWang (/_rants) 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've delted it again, and protected it from recreation. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. RandyWang (/_rants) 14:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just protected the talk page from recreation as well. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Neoballmon (talk · contribs)

This petition (permalink) against yours truly doesn't strike me as appropriate content for a user page. Third party intervention appreciated. The "invasions to our privacy" probably refers to my vandalism warnings to this user who tests how far he can go goofing around, adding nonsense, and playing dumb. Femto 15:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message on each of your talk pages. --bainer (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It never stops, does it...

In the continuing Sunholm saga, the individual responsible for the debacle (see above) as well as quite a bit of WOW and Communisim vandalism, among other things, is continuing to use the talk pages of his/her various accounts to cause disruption with the {{unblock}} template. Just a heads up for anyone who checks the category; there are a lot that you might not recognize. Most of the original Sunholm blocks were done by Theresa Knott with WOW in the reason. Additionally, I've done several checkuser blocks of suspected socks; if you have any reason to suspect they may have been errors, see me and I can offer more information. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've been hit by more than enough autoblocks with the words "..on Wheels" in them to know that occasionally WoW and WiC vandals sometimes come from sharedips, is this taken into consideration when enforcing checkuser blocks?--152.163.100.65 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And this is not an AOL-type situation, and it's not a dynamic IP. This user has been on the same IP, doing the same thing, for a month now. He's abused every trick he can think of to disrupt the site, and the next step will be contacting the ISP. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay and Pschemp revert warring to improperly speedy keep {{unblockabuse}}

See the history of Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 8. None of the conditions satisfied in Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep is met. --SPUI (T - C) 16:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention Psy Guy. If you disagree, the proper thing to do is to take this to DRV. pschemp | talk 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is currently under not one but *two* Arbitration Committee imposed probations for being an unrepentant disruptive user. I strongly encourage someone to remind him of the provisions of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#SPUI, preferably with a ban from the page he is disrupting and a suitable block. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, probation is not a "get your whacks in free" card for SPUI's opponents, use your judgment and good sense and warn him first even if you don't have to, and don't dismiss his opinion just because he gets on your nerves. Mindspillage --SPUI (T - C) 16:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"And as for SPUI, don't deliberately test our patience or I won't have any sympathy when you're blocked again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)" Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a complaint with me or are you just assuming bad faith? --SPUI (T - C) 16:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you disruptively and deliberately nominated the template in bad faith, and then revert warred with not one but three admins on the closing of it as a speedy keep after overwhelaming demonstration of your disruptive intention. And now, you're attempting to further disrupt the site here because you can't revert anymore. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming bad faith. I came across the template, was disgusted by it, and nominated it for deletion. What's bad faith about that? --SPUI (T - C) 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't seen some of our more tenacious vandals post highly offensive personal attacks and repeatedly but up the unblock template with nasty messages in it. For those of use trying to clear out the unblock category and help those who genuinely need unblocked, it is quite disturbing and disruptive behavior to deal with. pschemp | talk 16:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with an unblock request, leave it and say so below. Deleting it just escalates it into a revert war. --SPUI (T - C) 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed clear that none of the conditions for "speedy keep" were satisfied. That said you probably didn't have much of a chance to get this deleted even if the nomination had been allowed to run its course. Haukur 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't excuse the speedy close, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, someone neutral stepping in here: I don't see anything improper in what Essjay did. The debate was closed, by pschemp, someone who didn't participate in the debate, and you reverted her to reopen it. If you disagreed with the closure then you should have taken it to DRV. Admittedly the decision to speedy keep here was unusual, but it was a speedy keep by overwhelming consensus, and in any event, the nomination was equally unusual in itself. As a final point, *fD is not a place to debate policy, that's what talk pages are for. --bainer (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

TFD is a place to delete templates. Thus I took this template there. What should I have done? --SPUI (T - C) 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The point continues to be that the speedy close was without merit. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So tak it to DRV if you disagree. Easy simple solution, no reverting needed. pschemp | talk 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this suggests that SPUI is continuing the pattern of provocative behavior that earned him his probation. No action on this occasion, but a firm warning that our patience is not limitless. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow... I see something I don't like, I attempt to get it fixed, and I'm accused of disruption and threatened with banning. You really know how to make people want to contribute. --SPUI (T - C) 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong SPUI, but I think what you were actually intending to do was to change the practice of protecting the talk pages of people who overuse the unblock template. Obviously trying to have a template deleted is the wrong way to go about this. And Jeff, the speedy close process is indeed normally for certain situations. But here there was already a fairly clear consensus to speedily keep the template, and as I said before, an unusual nomination makes an unusual closure less out of place. --bainer (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as that practice is both a bad one and not in the protection policy. Where would you suggest I go to get said practice ended, given that it's not actually allowed anywhere? --SPUI (T - C) 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Protecting the talk page of a blocked user covers the protection of a talk page if the talk page is abused. Repeated re-posting of the unblock template is exactly that. Deleting administrative templates is definitely the wrong way to go about changing administrative practice—maybe a discussion on WP:AN or the village pump would've been in order? -- 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, if users abuse this feature, and continue with vandalism on their own User Talk pages, they can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage." Are you saying that placing an {{unblock}} template on one's own talk page can be vandalism? --SPUI (T - C) 17:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, raising the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy would be a good start, or Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), or the mailing list. Or discuss the practice directly with the people who engage in it. I don't feel strongly about this issue myself, but I'm sure that there are plenty of others who'd be interested in discussing it. --bainer (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So you can judge how a community consensus is going to turn out in a atter of hours for a process that takes a little less than a week? That's interesting. I'm quite aware as to when a speedy keep is viable - this wasn't it. Agree with the nomination or not (and I don't), there was no reason to work out of process here, and the complaint is absolutely valid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, If you disagree, take it to DRV. Simple. No revert war needed. pschemp | talk 17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is there, where the expected endorsing of the improper speedy keep is happening. --SPUI (T - C) 17:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, it is exactly where you should have put it in the first place. pschemp | talk 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, the deletion policy includes the possibility of closing any debate early where a consensus is apparent, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Early closure. I would think that the consensus was pretty obvious here. Besides, there's nothing that the folks at DRV love more than out of process closures, and it's the proper place to contest the decision. I think though the fundamental point remains that TfD is not a place to debate policy or practice. --bainer (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that page you cite also says: "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." Haukur 17:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if they fulfill the obvious criteria. This, of course, did not. DRV also loves applauding out-of-process decisions they agree with, so the point, unfortunately, still stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In practice, closures of this type are covered by the Snowball clause. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, we now have parallel discussions and separate fiefdoms. <sigh> On DRV, there is significant objection to the speedy keep, even though no one among them (well, almost) thinks that the thing should be deleted. The point is that "speedy keep" is rapidly turning into a weapon. I think, personally, that 24 hours would be a speedy keep or speedy delete. We really ought not be removing listings before the earth has done a half a turn, if nothing else. For all Tony knows, there is going to be someone in Jakarta with a compelling argument for the delete. The point is that we can't know if there is unanimity if we don't give .75 of the earth a chance to be awake. Is SPUI making a point? Probably. Is there reason to remove a nomination in twenty minutes? No. The futher debate is going to be supermajority anyway, so let it run. So far as I know, SPUI's not on an instant revert ban. Again, though, this isn't about him or you or you or you: it's about what a "speedy" decision is, and a speedy decision should at least let the world turn. Geogre 17:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Since hardly anyone thinks the thing should be deleted, the review is a complete waste of time. Procedures are fine when used sensibly, but abusing them in this way is very bad for Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Tony, claiming it as a fait d'accompli and then saying that the discussion's length of time proves you were right does not make it right. DRV is necessary for admins and regular users, and AfD, CfD, and TfD are necessary for regular users and admins alike. Announcing that your opinion is sufficient to shortcircuit the world is not appropriate. If nothing else, I hope you'll take from the discussions here and DRV the message that you handled it incorrectly and, in the future, will allow 24 hours and have some faith in Wikipedians to decide for themselves. Rely on the strength of your arguments and the obvious logic, not on power and coercion. Geogre 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

About the use of Template:Unblockabuse and protecting talk pages

I've cut this into a separate heading, because it doesn't have anything to do with the dispute discussed above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

While it serves a valid purpose I'm not a big fan of this template and protecting talk pages of blocked users because I've seen it used to enforce questionable blocks without impartial review in the past. Maybe we can come up with an alternate process to discourage both that and the continuing use of 'unblock' in obvious cases. Perhaps requiring that any protecting of a blocked user's talk page needs to be listed in a central location until the block/protection expires - for review that the block and protection are legitimate. In theory this should be happening on the list of protected pages already, but it generally doesn't. Perhaps just a matter of firming up the instructions? --CBD 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that until as recently as about a year ago, blocked users couldn't edit anywhere on Misplaced Pages, period. Blocked editors had to use the mailing list, IRC, or email to the blocking (or another) admin. The sky didn't fall, and blocks still got discussed. In other words, in our worst-case scenario here (protecting the talk page of a blocked editor) all those other avenues are still open, and those options represented the only choices for blocked editors until quite recently.

I'd say that in general we should discourage (but not bar) admins from protecting the talk pages of editors that they have blocked. I'm also curious to know if anyone has examined the use of {{unblockabuse}} in a systematic way, to determine if there really is a problem here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to create a category, perhaps something like Category:Protected from unblock requests - so that admins can quickly scan where the template is being used and determine if its use in each case is proper. FCYTravis 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. pschemp | talk 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG Continues to Accuse me of an Having an "Agenda"

JzG has repeatedly accused me (and three others) of having an agenda, but provides no evidence to back his claim. Here is the latest example. Do I have any recourse here? He has been acting this way towards us, who don't share his view on the way that PRT should be presented, despite the fact that he has provided no verifiable evidence to support his position and we have provided many sources. I'm looking for advice as to how to proceed here, since no amount of discussion with JzG will convince him that we don't have ulterior motives. It's going on four months now of endless circular debate. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Though, in the same sentence he says that he has an agenda as well. This seems to be a content dispute. JDoorjam Talk 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The name A Transportation Enthusiast might be partly to blame. (You may also know that Transportation has a different meaning in England). I'll start looking at the content and see what I come up with. Stephen B Streater 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does "transportation" mean in England? I was not aware until this very moment that my username might be offensive.

Furthermore, I don't appreciate the incivility of this edit comment. I had made a set of good faith edits, one to summarize a wordy point, another to add a point with cited source, and JzG responded with this harsh revert. Now, I realize that these debates can get frustrating, but there's no reason for the harshness of this response. This is just one more example of the long history of hostility by JzG, towards anyone who happens to disagree with him on these pages. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that it's a meaning in current use, but in the 1600s, 1700s, and early 1800s, "transportation" meant the exiling of petty criminals from England to colonies such as the Americas or Australia. --Carnildo 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

TrevorMay

TervorMay has vandalized at least two pages (Fernand Petzl and Jason Ellison) recently by inserting a photo of someone other than the subject. When the photos are removed, TrevorMay responds by placing a "User is gay" tag on that user's personal page, amongst other things. See TrevorMay's talk and contrib pages for the history. What is the appropriate action to take? Ian mckenzie 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidents like this response on TrevorMay's talk page makes it hard to Assume Good Faith. I was about to post a warning, but Mgm beat me to it. -- llywrch 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've posted warning and asked him to read the welcome message. If he continues with personal attacks or vandalous edits, I support a temp block to get his attention. -Mgm| 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL Vandalbot

We have an AOL vandalbot active on the 207.200 range, and I'm finding quite a few unreverted edits, since it has been running for a while.

Please look for edits from this range (and potentially others) in groups of three. This is typical. It inserts minor typos, evidently in a manner calculated to bypass our anti-vandalbots. I tried a brief range block but it came right back. Antandrus (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Having discussed this further with Antandrus, we have come to the conclusion that the majority of vandalism is coming from the 207.200.116 range (and some from 207.200.112). Vandalism begins again as soon as the block expires. Longer blocks on 207.200.116.0/24 and 207.200.112.0/24 may be appropriate (I recently range blocked 207.200.116/24 for 30 minutes). Thanks TigerShark 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The 116/24 block seemed to stop it for the duration, but it started again as soon as the block ended. I have now blocked 116/24 for 1 hour. Thanks TigerShark 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The weird thing about that is that it would need to be an AOL user who remains connected via dialup, as I think their broadband issues stable IP's. This means that some vandal is actually dialing in and leaving it going or there is an open relay somewhere. I wonder if that's possible. Geogre 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're not affected by this particular range-block. The bot seems to be set to run non-stop, and immediately detects when the block lifts: you will see it return immediately at 02:35 UTC, unless the vandal has given up for the time being. Don't AOL users get a new IP on each page load, in some cases? I wish I understood how AOL assigns its proxies but it's not obvious to me.

Another thing I wish some more of us had was SQL access: I want to query and check all 207.200 edits from the last 36 hours, but it's hard to do just using recent changes. Antandrus (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the talk pages of AOL IPs, and other IPs, were labeled as stable, regular dynamic (changing with each session) or super dynamic (changing with every page load), if it is possible to get the information. It would help a lot with blocks and talk page messages and warnings. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, if we have a real -bot going, we have to range block. What I don't want to see is out of process blocks for days and weeks and months and (as one person decided to do), indefinite. I'm using an AOL-owned ISP for the time being, and I'm not at all fond of it; however, I can't figure out when and how I get a new IP, either. AOL doesn't appear to assign with every page load, but it doesn't appear to assign at timed intervals, either. I'm sure, if I were more knowledgeable about TCP/IP, there might be some resource call that I could figure out is triggering it (or just AOL's servers are working on their clock, so they reassign themselves based on their server load). It appears that each region of AOL's domain (and we all know that a region might not be geographic, given the looping of backbone resources) gets a different range for some period of time, and that's why some AOL users have never been collaterally blocked, while I'm getting a collateral block 3-4 times a day. We all wish the vandals straight to their high school principal's office, but there are good users who suffer for their sins. Additionally, at this point we can't get any legitimate AOL accounts, as the vandals are registering names so fast that an AOL user can't even sign up, much less get a single edit in. If I weren't an admin, I'd be unable to contribute at all. Geogre 13:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of months ago there was great excitement and discussion of a range of semi-static (172., I think) AOL IPs that individuals could use based on some kind of configuration. Not being an AOL user myself, I've obviously never tried it, but unless I've totally lost my mind, this was supposed to be at least a partial solution. I can testify that I do sometimes run into AOL addresses in the 172. range, and that it does appear they are far more stable than the normal AOL IPs. Is this something that just never got wide enough disclosure, or is there a problem with the solution that I just missed? (Someone who actually remembers what the details were and how to set it up filling in the gaps here would be greatly appreciated.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I'm working a lot, so I may finally afford DSL, but I hope I can still be a nag when I see people inappropriately throwing long blocks at our poor friends at AOL. Geogre 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I range blocked 207.200.116.0/24 for 12 hours last night but, of course, it started back one minute after the block expired. I ranged blocked for another 12 hours a few minutes ago (there is little point blocking for very short periods of time but at least with a medium length block we can regularly check to see if it is still running). I have also raised a request for an ISP abuse report here. When it is not blocked, the RC patrollers don't seem able to keep up with all of the vandalism, so I think that we will need to keep blocking for now. Another thought that occurred to me was whether we could have a bot that reverts all edits made in this range. There would be the problem that it would revert some good edits, but at least logged in users would be unaffected. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Cheers TigerShark 10:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, you know, we could just block all of AOL and force their hand. Pretty please? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I really think this is some other business, here. It's possible that someone is just busying a phone line for days at a time, but it's much more likely that someone with an always-on connection is hooking into AOL's rolling system. Would anyone be shocked to think there is a backdoor to AOL? More to the point, I suspect that an open relay is being used for someone to log into his AOL account from another, always-on connection. Geogre 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The block has now expired and there is no sign of the vandalbot, at least on the 207.200.116 range. TigerShark 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Has started again. Blocked range for 10 hours. Delay might indicate that it is not running completely automatically. TigerShark 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cacophony removal of warning notices

Cacophony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently removed his warning notices with the edit summary: removing unwarrented comments from jerk. This is explicitly prohibited.

The 3 notices were about repeated removal of CfD templates during discussion from categories that he'd created. This is explicitly vandalism at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Types of vandalism Avoidant vandalism.

He also added a recent note to my Talk with the edit summary: because he is a prick.

He has been here almost 2 years, since 2004-08-20, but writes and behaves like a newbie.

Please block for the remaining time on the CfD for these categories, 6 days.

--William Allen Simpson 20:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain what the conflict was about rather than quote policies? Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. What reasons did Cacaphony give for removing the CfD templates, were the templates appropriate CfD candidates? That kind of thing. It's only if a user's actions are blatant, indubitable vandalism that you should post warnings on his/her page. Don't post them as part of a dispute with another user. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

Actually, Misplaced Pages is a bureaucracy, with several layers of administration, and your citation does not say otherwise. We rely on these "administrators" to enforce policy, and the policy in this case is extremely clear.

1. The "conflict":
   1. This user created several categories (I'll just list one example), with names that do not conform to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories) policy, and
   2. moved all the entries from the existing correctly named categories without going through the CfD process for renaming categories (see contributions), and
   3. page blanked the old categories.
2. They were properly nominated for deletion by ProveIt.
3. The tags were reverted without explanation by Cacophony.
4. This was noted on the CfD page, and restored by Musicpvm.
5. As a non-involved party dealing with CfD, I properly posted warning on the user talk page.
6. Rinse and repeat (several times).
7. As for not posting warnings as part of a dispute, please note the cited policy assumes dispute: Avoidant vandalism -- "Removing ... tags in order to conceal or avoid entries to risk deletion."
8. Likewise, WP:CIVIL clearly violated in the edit summaries.