Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:00, 8 August 2006 view sourceRobJ1981 (talk | contribs)32,546 editsm →Loss of Patience← Previous edit Revision as of 21:01, 8 August 2006 view source Ackoz (talk | contribs)799 edits →CrzrussianNext edit →
Line 831: Line 831:
==Crzrussian== ==Crzrussian==
I have blocked {{Userlinks|Crzrussian}} for one day based on this . ] 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC) I have blocked {{Userlinks|Crzrussian}} for one day based on this . ] 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Yet another example of inappropriate blocking for minor/dubious PA. The policy says clearly '''in extreme cases'''. Why don't the admins stick to the policies? Ackoz 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
*FB! You completely misunderstood me! *FB! You completely misunderstood me!
**Yas and I have settled our differences earlier, see s/his talk. **Yas and I have settled our differences earlier, see s/his talk.

Revision as of 21:01, 8 August 2006

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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)

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    YourCousin sockpuppeteering

    Current accounts
    List of IPs
    Added possible socks as they are both related to vandal User:Repmart which is also him, see AfD edits and talk messages of them.--Andeh 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    Add 86.29.118.28 too! WhisperToMe 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    This user appears to be a sockpuppet of YourCousin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Repmart (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). And appears to have lead a personal regime against Ryulong who currently has an RfA going. Reverted most of the vandals edits, users RfA may have sockpuppets under oppose votes.--Andeh 15:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I just struck out an oppose vote from an anonymous user on Ryulong's RfA claiming to be YourCousin. Put 86.29.113.71 on the sockpuppet list too. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    YourOtherCousin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) another one of the users accounts going after the RfA.--Andeh 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    I have extended YourCousin's block by a week and indef blocked YourOtherCousin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    86.29.124.77 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) another one of the users IPs.--Andeh 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Don't forget 81.174.216.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), too. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    This could go on for pages; he claims to have access to over 30 IPs. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Have blocked 2 so far, will monitor but I'm not here for too much longer. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    Let him, there's always semi-protection. Don't know if there's much point in blocking the users IPs if they are dynamic and have generated a new IP since.--Andeh 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    He's posting to a bunch of talk pages trying to curry support in his favor - he posted to my talk page. Let's just say that ploy won't work. WhisperToMe 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Hi, I am 'YourCousin'. This mess stems from a small group of Anti American editors that monitor the Jeremy Clarkson page. I noticed on the 3rd of August that this Jeremy Clarkson quote had been added: "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what do.". I looked on GOOGLE and The BBC and could not find any such quote so I deleted it as the editor had NO SOURCE. I believe that if you are going to quote someone as saying that an entire nation is INCESTUOS, that you should CITE THE SOURCE and back it up.

    User Ryulong did not agree. Ryulong began to revert my edits and said that Jeremy 'probably did say it" and that "It sounds like something he'd say". Jeremy had his admin buddies block my username and he reverted the article back to the status where it said that ALL AMERICANS ARE INCESTUOS. The actual quote is "if you buy an American car you're gonna have to commit acts of love with your cousin". The actual quote as you can see is VERY different than the SPICED UP version that Ryulong tried to edit into a factual document. He insisited and went to great lengths spending over 3 hours trying to get it to stick. The page now has the correct quote AND the source. I'd say that my contribution to the page far outweighs RYULONG's politically and ego motivated contributions.

    You wanna block me and count up my thousands of IPs and block them then be my guest. I am only writing this because I think it's wrong that such a WIKIBULLY could possibly be considered for ADMIN. It's a joke. INCEST IS NEVER FUNNY and falsely claiming that an entire nation is incestuous and going to great lengths to keep it that way, is nothing but XENOPHOBIC.

    I have a proper USER ID with nearly 2,000 edits. I will never use it to edit pages with politi-wiki-bullies monitoring them. I prefer it this way.

    You don't have to doubt my story OR wonder about it. Go to Jeremy Clarkson and look at the history and also the DISCUSSION history. You will see no holes in my story. Make ADMIN out of that guy? TOO CROOKED!


    Thanks for reading.

    YourCousin - --86.29.116.209 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe a dose of WP:POINT will hopefully show YourCousin that his activities only worsen his reputation. WhisperToMe 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Like I have explained, there is no reputation. I noticed that when you edit the Anti American rhetoric out of theJeremy Clarkson page that the Anti-American editors chase you down undoing your work, marking you articles for deletion and haveing you blocked for fictional violations. I would never affiliate my real username with nearly 2,000 edits with this mess. I went to battle with some people that were using the page for their own political purposes and I have succeeded. The fictional INCEST quote has been fixed. I have no beef anymore. I'm just watching all you busybodies having some good fun pretending to block me. You guys are soooo cool to hang out with. Thanks for the smug little comment WhisperTome... I'll think about the 'YourCousin' reputation tonight when I'm laughing myself to sleep.

    YourCousin--86.29.118.28 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    There is no fictional incest quote. Jeremy Clarkson said everything about Americans and incest on his show. No one is being Anti-American (other than Clarkson, himself). I am, in fact, American. I don't use "coloured" pencils, I use "colored" pencils. I don't go to the "cinema" I go to the "movie theater". I drive on the right (not left) side of the road. I was born in New York, and I have never left the North American continent. If you continue to harass me, as well as do vandalous edits at pages I watch, you will continue to be blocked for your actions. Ryūlóng 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hey everybody! I found his ISP - It is "NTL" - If he continues, we can contact NTL. WhisperToMe 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


    Ok FOLKS! Ryulong is determined to confuse this issue with word trickery. Here it is in plain English. When I looked at the Jeremy Clarkson page the quote said : "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what do." -

    JEREMY NEVER SAID THIS - But what it does say is that "THAT's WHAT AMERICANS DO", in English, this means THAT's WHAT AMERICANS DO... anyone confused? It says that all Americans have incest VERY CLEARLY.

    The ACTUAL quote is (the one on the page now thanks to ME): "if you buy an American car you're gonna have to commit acts of love with your cousin". see? anyone confused? The ACTUAL quote does not say anything about what Americans do... See the difference?

    So, Ryulong, wrong again. The misquote that you tried so hard to uphold, the one that I was suspended for reverting, is exactly what I said it is, UNTRUE. You fought hard and long stating that "HE PROBABLY SIAD IT" and that "IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING HE WOULD'VE SAID"... these are not the decisive words of Misplaced Pages Admin.

    Your rebuttal above shows that you are craft, devious, dishonest and that you intend to use Misplaced Pages for your own POLITICAL agenda and to bully people with opinons different to yours... in my case, my opinion was fact...yours was politically and egotistically motivated. You are a WIKI-THUG... and definietly not ADMIN material.

    YourCousin--86.29.118.28 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    He gave me a threat on my talk page - See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=cur - And contact NTL here http://bbplus.ntlworld.com/NetReport/index.php WhisperToMe 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    YourCousin: you need to learn about citing quotes. When something is between brackets (like these: ) then that means the information within the brackets is being clarified. Clarkson may not have said "Americans" on his show for that clip, but he did mean it. Ryūlóng 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    He gave me another threat at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=67707541&oldid=67706514 WhisperToMe 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    It's not a threat. I've found the NOTICEBOARD to be inneffective and emailing "The BOARD" results in computer generated emails when dealing with crooked people, so I devised my own method for punishing bullies. It's VERY effective. I have already had 3 bullies abandon their accounts, one with more than 7,000 edits. I have never vandalised a page once, but I have upset certain politically motivated wiki-bullies with fact backed up by sources. I advise anyone else to do the same. Get tons of ISP accounts!!! They're free and they nullify WIki-Bully blocks. It's a good bit of fun. Now stop bullying me and look at the history taht I so eloquently described above so that you can see what has been going on on the histroy pages. THE TRUTH KICKS ASS!

    P.S. to Charlie Chan who discovered that NTL (BRITAINS LARGEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY) is the ISP provider to DIXONS, TSCO, PC WORLD, CURRYS, COMET, BOOTS and MANY MORE!! GOOD WORK BOY WONDER!! GOOD LUCK!

    YourLovinCousin--81.174.209.116 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    WhisperToMe 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


    Ryulong, I tried to communicate with you last night. That didn't work so I tried to open a TOPIC on the discussion page at Jeremy Clarkson and you just deleted it SEVEN TIMES so that nobody could talk about it then had me blocked!!...

    Now that we have an audience you're a lovely gentleman.. this is much better!

    Well I'm sorry .. it's too little, too late. You proved that you're crooked time and time again. It's even in the histories. I don't care what kind of quotes are used for what... one paragrpah above that you were claiming that there was no FICTIONAL QUOTE... now that I've pasted it you are saying.. 'yeh there was one but the brakcets blah blah blah..." ... you are making it worse for yourself. It's two paragrpahs up.,.. now you are arguing with yourself?

    No fictional quote? Now you say "Yeah but"?... I'm sorry... you are clearly not WIKI ADMIN material. You are dishonest, weaselly and devious.

    It's not only above in YOUR own words, but also in the histories of the pages that I have referred to above. Don't try so hard. It doesn't pay to be a crooked bully. Dishonesty always gets found out. How long did you think you could keep the page like that? you must know that Americans would be looking at it.

    You may have turned the tables and had me suspended etc.,.. but you are the liar. You have contradicted yourself HEAVILY on this very page.

    YourCousin--86.29.112.67 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Why do you constantly say I'm not American? And I did not delete it seven times. And even in each time it was a rant against me. I have watched the clip about the Dodge Charger, and the video does not continue to where Clarkson would have said anything. The part where it mentions "sexual acts with your cousin" is gone. However, he did mention incest when he was talking about the Ford F150, and that quote will stay. Your actions are not proving you to be a serious editor with evading your block by constantly changing your IP, and with your constant harassments of myself, WhisperToMe, and any user who did anything at my RFA, you will find your ISP pulled. Ryūlóng 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    I have tried to resolve the issue with the anon IP on his talk page, but am waiting for a reply. --TheM62Manchester 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ryulong LIES AGAIN when he says he didn't delete my TOPIC seven times. It's right on the DISCUSSION HISTORY of the Jeremy Clarkson page. I even started to note the amount of times he deleted it within the EDIT SUMMARY and at the top of the TOPIC each time.

    Also, RYULONG opens the above statement with "Why do you constantly say I'm not American?"... I have NEVER said this and you won't find him pointing you to any HISTORY page to say I did because this is the exact calibre of MIS-INFORMATION that this ADMIN NOMINEE thrives on!

    This guy is lying now. You only have to look at the HISTORY OF THE PAGE to see who is telling the truth. Please people.... you just have to look! Ryulong tried desperately to make the page say that ALL AMERICANS PRACTICE incest. It's CLEAR for all to see in the history.

    For the new people, I was suspended for reverting this quote that Ryulong FOUGHT HEAVILY to preserve: "when you buy an American car, you must afterwards have sex with your cousin, because that's what do."

    I told him many, many times that the quote was wrong and tried to get him to find the real quote and cite the source (ITS ALL IN THE HISTORY)... he refused, deleted it and had his admin buddies block me and even made SMUG remarks about me, JASON SMITH in the edit history. Yes, He put MY NAME in the edit history! ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS LOOK!! This person is WAAAY too devious to be ADMIN... lies on the page here.. and all the lies I've claimed he's said, are SUBSTANTIATED IN THE HISTORY... you only have to look.

    Thanks TheM62Manchester! You are the first person to contact me that didn't want to bully, threaten or make a smug comment. It's nice to see a productive and polite Wikipedian. I will take your advice and I look forward to a long future editing. I have contributed to 41 articles today under my real account. Thanks again mate... You calmed things a bit...

    RYULONG... You have lied 3 times on this page.. challenge me to point them out? I can cite sources if you like?

    Wiki-bullies are weak.

    This guym TheM62Manchester should be nominated for ADMIN, he is cool calm and collected... seems like an honest chap too!

    Peace everybody, even the corrupt and egotistical.

    YourCousin--86.29.112.67 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I have apologized to you, including removing the content you questioned, and this is the response you gave me on my talk page and this is your response here? I did not remove the information seven times. I only did it twice. You should check the history. I am not Blah3. I am not a wikibully. You are with your constant false accusations. Ryūlóng 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


    OK CHECK THIS OUT!!!: RYULONG has just emailed me to say that actually NEITHER QUOTES ARE TRUE!!! THIS IS CLASSIC!! WHY THE HELL AM I SUSPENDED??? Because Ryulong had has Admin buddies do it to me... here is what he JUST pasted on my page:


    “ I watched the clip that ChicosBailBonds cited as to have the comment about "when you buy an American car..." and the quote was not in the video clip. I have removed that quote, per your constant wishes and (constant) attacks on my status as a good editor. However, the "Whatever they do..." from the Ford F150 clip will remain, as that is explicity stated in the clip. I hope that now that I have discovered the truth about this whole nonsense (for now), that you can stop slandering me. Ryūlóng 21:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) ”

    So BOTH QUOTES are bogus AND the source that they CITED NEVER SAID IT!!!

    Anyone? apologies?

    THIS GUY IS A WEASEL!! ANYONE THAT VOTES FOR HIM IS PROBABLY HIS BUDDY ALREADY!! THE FACTS ARE SCREAMING!!!

    ALL THIS MESS FOR NOTHING!!! CLARKSON NEVER SAID ANY OF IT!! THESE GUYS MADE IT UP AND HAD ME SUSPENDED FOR POINTING IT OUT!!!

    WHEN THE HEAT GOT HOT, RYULONG, ADMIN NOMNINEE CAME CLEAN!!

    It took 2516 blocks, but look... he has admitted that IT WAS NEVER SAID AT ALL!!

    YourHonestCousin(I'm still standing you BULLY!)--86.29.112.67 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I did not say that both quotes are bogus. I said that the original quote that was questioned is not in the video clip that was cited for it. Read closer. Watch the video for the Ford F150 clip. Ryūlóng 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    RYULONG, not only were you wrong the WHOLE time, but you had your admin friends suspend me for trying to correct your anti-american sentiments that you and your friends made up. the quote cannot be sourced because you made it up. Everytime I tried to start a discussion you deleted it 7 TIMES@!! IT'S IN THE HISTORY ON THE JEREMY CLARKSON PAGE!!

    You didn't like to be corrected for your fictional fantasies so you had your friends block and ban me for removing mis-information that you yourelf have just removed!!

    ANYONE THAT VOTES FOR THIS GUY TO BE ADMIN IS PROBABLY RELATED TO HIM!!

    Does that mean they have to commit sexual acts with him? Bishonen | talk 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

    CROOKED WIKI BULLY!!! BEWARE!!! DONT LET THE HIGH NUMBER OF EDITS FOOL YOU!!

    QUALITY NOT QUANTITY!!!

    Ryulong, everytime you respond you leak out another little lie or cover up... why don't you just go away now... I do not require a response from you. The page has been corrected, yet you are still bitchin! wjy not let it rest!? We can see by this page alone that you are dishonest, that you operate with mis-information and that you like a rigged deck... you like to move the goal posts.... NOT IF I CAN HELP IT!

    BOOK 'IM DAN-O!!

    YourGloriusCousinStillEditingUnderMyRealIdSoF.O.--86.29.119.4 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I did not say that both quotes were never said. I merely said that the quote that was cited from the Dodge Charger segment was not seen in the video clip that ChicosBailBond provided. Ryūlóng 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    FOR ANYONE JUST TUNING IN, I HAVE BEEN BLOCKED AND SUSPENDED FOR REVERTING VANDALISM THAT RYULONG AND HIS FRIENDS MADE UP! NOW THAT THE ISSUE IS ON THIS PAGE, RYULONG HAS DECIDED TO ADMIT THAT THE QUOTE ABOUT ALL AMERICANS PRACTICING INCEST IS FALSE AND TOTALLY FICTIONAL. THIS PERSON IS ALSO CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED FOR ADMIN! FUNNY WORLD HUH!!

    LOOK AT THE TOP OF THIS COLUMN, LOOK AT ALL THE TIME WASTED BLOCKING ALL THOSE IPs JUST BECAUSE THIS GUY WANTED HIS FICTIONAL INCEST FANTASIES TO BE REPRESENTED IN THE JEREMY CLARKSON ARTICLE! THIS TIME WASTING, DISHONEST USER DOES NOT CONSITUTE[REDACTED] ADMIN MATERIAL!

    YOURDAMNCOUSIN--86.29.126.132 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    This guy is now vandalizing articles that I watch. See the history at Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Ryūlóng 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I watch Jeremy Clarkson and you and your friends made up a QUOTE and cited it is AUTHENTIC when you knew that the source DIDN't CONTAIN the quote. The quote involved INCEST... yeh very funny! So you are VANDALISING the Jeremy Clarkson page AND you are a nominee for ADMIN? I think that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    You have lied countless times on this page alone... if people bother to check the history of the Jeremy Clarkson and it's discussion page, we can see what fun you are when your comments are not appearing on the ADMIN NOTICEBOARD. You made up two different quotes and then cited a source that didn't substantiate your PHONEY quote... YOU ARE THE VANDAL! Only difference is...l you think you are admin material... which after people look at the history I speak of, will be a laughing matter.

    So why not LEAVE ME ALONE Ryulong and stop sending stupid threats that you can't uphold to me... it's innane... You lost. The quote that you insisted was true has now been corrected by yourself solely because of MY comments on this page and your fear of it affecting your ADMIN nomination.

    Go away little boy... go away!

    YourCousin--86.29.113.26 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Damn, this guy has gone back and reverted legitimate edits of mine in the last few minutes, calling them vandalism. Ryūlóng 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    I've placed another rangeblock. Hopefully this will stop for now. Naconkantari 00:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    This guy has several ranges that he can utilize.

    • 81.174.200.0/24 through 81.174.220.0/24
    • 86.29.110.0/24 though 81.174.130.0/24
    • The only one that appears unrelated is 82.17.33.199

    There has to be a way to keep him blocked, but still allow the most amount of users to be unblocked. I think the last time there was such a vandal an /18 was used. Ryūlóng 00:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    He's recently editted under another subnet completely, 213.130.142.5. Ryūlóng 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Don't worry Ryulong!!! You won't distract too many people from the fact that you FALSIFIED AN INCEST QUOTE AND HAD ME SUSPENDED FOR REVERTING IT AND CHALLENGING YOU! WHEN I TRIED TO BRING IT UP ON THE Jeremy Clarkson DISCUSSION PAGE YOU DLETED IT SEVEN TIMES(IT'S IN THE HISTORY) TO PREVENT ME FROM BLOCKING IT AND YOUR LITTLE FRIENDS HAVE EVEN TRIED TO DELETE THIS THREAD OF THIS PAGE (IT'S ION THE HISTORY) CROOKED/CROOKED/CROOKED

    LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE THE PATIENCE.... READ THE ABOVE AND YOU WILL SEE THE INNER WORKINGS OF A TRUE WEASEL...

    THIS GUY IS TRYING TO DISTRACT FROM THE FACT THAT HE IS A WIKI-BULLY UP FOR ADMIN NOMINATION RIGHT NOW BUT THIS PAGE GIVES AWAY THE TRUTH THAT HE IS A WIKI BULLY THAT USES THE SITE FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND THAT HIS EDITS ARE OF A QUANTITY NATURE RATHER THAN QUALITY.

    PLEASE READ ABOVE AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE HISTORY SECTION OF THE JEREMY CLARKSON ARTICLE AND DISCUSSION SHOWS THAT THIS USER IS A MILLION MILES FROM ADMIN MATERIAL!! A REAL EGOMANIAC STALKER AND BULLY!

    DONT LET THE COVER-UP GANG DELETE THIS THREAD!!! PUT IT ON YOUR WATCHLIST!! IT HAS BEEN DELETeD ONCE, UNLIKE MY DISCUSSION TOPIC ON THE JEREMY CLARKSON PAGE WHICH WAS DELETED SEVEN TIMES BY RYULONG WHO WANTED HIS FALSE INCEST QUOTE TO REMAIN!!!

    yOURcOUSIN--80.225.141.223 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Wonderful, another IP this guy is using...and he screwed up his caps. Ryūlóng 02:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    This guy is Repmart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He just sent me a very inappropriate email from repmart at repmart.com. Ryūlóng 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    And this is the Repmart website http://www.repmart.com/ WhisperToMe 16:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    He threatened me again - I wonder if "Jason Smith" is his real name. WhisperToMe 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    WhisperToMe 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    By the way, people, people, people - The more you scream and yell and be an ass on the internet, the less people listen to you. WhisperToMe 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Errr. yea, i rangeblocked a bunch. Sasquatch t|c 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    This user has the ability to edit from the following ranges: 81.174.208.0/21, 213.130.140.0/20, 86.29.0.0/16, 80.225.0.0/16, and 194.164.0.0/16 so far. He claims to have "31 ISPs" and these appear to be only five, so far. Ryūlóng 01:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Newest range: 62.249.253.0/24 Ryūlóng 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Status update - The user in question is requesting an unblock (I recommend against it, obviously) and feels that I am stalking him. Please review the conversation at User_talk:YourCousin to review his unblock request and review my conduct. He seems to feel that I am part of a conspiracy and that I am bullying him. I don't think that's the case, but I welcome outside scrutiny, especially if any of you would be willing to address some of his concerns as he does not appear to hold my words in any type of regard at the moment. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I blocked the user indef for obvious troll, attacks, etc. Jaranda 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    • endorse block (as said on the talk page of the user . This user does not seem interested in contributing constructively, and the lengthy and somewhat incoherent diatribes take significant time to process, time that we all could use more constructively elsewhere... ++Lar: t/c 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Endorse - I've been trying hard to help this user come back from the depths, but he/she does not appear to be interested and has instead focused on me as the cause to his/her problems. With great reluctance, I think it's time to stop spending time on someone who is not interested in anything but retribution for imagined slights. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support - I think it's the inflammatory edit summaries which have irked me the most. (Admittedly, this probably didn't improve my opinion of him.) I've started an ISP abuse report relating to the user's use of multiple ISPs, etc.; if someone wants to work on that, that'd be great. --Emufarmers 06:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


    I have been blocked INDEFINIETLY simply for requesting to have my two week block undone. I have proved with GREAT abundance on my USER PAGE that Chairboy has tried to rig the vote.

    He challenged me to prove that he is a liar and I did with considerable ease.

    I have been blocked indefinitely for requesting a to be unblocked. It's unbelievable that you want this to GO ON AND ON AND ON... why?

    The original edit war ended. I won. I was correct. Ryulong treid to uphold a phoney quote with a phoney source... I prved him wrong.. he didn't like it and here we all are.

    Since I have done NO sockpuppeting (since my block was put in place) and was VERY, VERY careful not to personally attack anyone (SEE MY TALK PAGE).. I find it odd that suddenly my block is INDEFINETLY extended because supposedly I "cannot remain civil and coherent, and continues to make inflammatory attacking comments with incivil edit summaries".

    Chairboy the #2 supporter for the RFA of Ryulong said that "I have had one interaction with Ryulong, and only one." ... I then went on to prpve that it was 9 to which he said WHOOPS.


    This is why his friends have some along to suspend me. On the pag you can see that in his incivility, he constantly tried to upset me with , false claims and sarcasm. I believe that when you punish an reaction to a personal attack, that you must first punish the instigator or you yourself are untoward.

    I am having my vote silenced AND my talk page has now been 'protected' so that I cannot defend muyself anywhere. This is not an Iranian court.

    DELETION OF THIS ENTRY WILL ONLY CONFIRM MY ABOVE STATEMENT EVEN FURTHER!

    YourCousin--86.29.124.102 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Howdy, I wish you better luck in your future non-wikipedia ventures, and hope you can find a project to contribute to without disruption. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


    Thanks Chairboy. Unfortunately in your whimisical involvement in this issue, you have over looked that 'YourCousin' specifically refers to the bogus quote that Ryulong tried to uphold that concerned incest and COUSINS...

    I was trying to get the account unblocked early so that I could vote under that name, YourCousin... that would have been class!!

    As it is, I have done 56 edits today under my real account. I'm into classic rock and 80s action movies... stuff like that.

    I must say, it was good fun taking up your 'PROVE I'm A LIAR' challenge here last night! Ha... what a roasting!!

    Even if you and I were the only ones that ever saw it... (which we weren't)..

    As Ryulong would say I was actually, "LAUGHING OUT LOUD".

    When I see that Jaranda has indefinitely blocked my 'DISPOSABLE' account, 'YourCousin' and then Lar endoreses the block... I find myself, "LAUGHING OUT LOUD" again.

    You guys and your BLOCKS(wishful gestures) are adorable. I love them! It's the best summer ever!!

    I'm gonna hit 2,000 edits within the next few days.. I've been on for seven months... I wonder if I should nominate myself for ADMIN soon... hmm.. I might wait 1 more month. I can't wait to get a hold of those tools! FUN FUN FUN!

    But hey!! You guys enjoy yourself, I know that I am!

    It's always gret to see a bunch of wishful thinkers (Iranian Court) patting each other on the back!! nice going!! haha!!

    Ryulong! RFA for you stands for ROYALLY ^#!&*# in the #&*#@@#

    EVERYTIME I GET READY TO DISAPPEAR SOMEONE GETS IT ALL GOING AGAIN! IT's FANTASTIC!! BETTER THAN THE SIMS, EBAY OR MYSPACE!! THANKS!

    It WOULD have been funny for MyCousin to show up and vote on the RFA page... Classic actually..

    Have a nice time brainiacs!

    YourCousin--81.174.211.220 18:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Talk page protected

    User_talk:YourCousin#Page_has_been_protected. I invite review. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    NOTE: Just to let everyone know, I'm no longer reporting the user to AIV or adding to the sockpuppet list or reverting the users unique vandalism anymore as the bureaucrats at RfC have been suprisingly unhelpful, I'm not spending time reverting stuff and the same users edits from 100's of IPs/accounts then being denied a checkuser later, seems quite pointless.--Andeh 19:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    They're all IP addresses. What do you think the checkusers should do? Thatcher131 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Blocking User:Homeontherange sockpuppets

    On July 23 User:Homeontherange claimed to have left Misplaced Pages and asked to have his account blocked, in order to avoid an arbitration case that was being brought against him for various abuses, including sockpuppeting. As it turns out, even while the case was being considered, and before he claimed to have left, he was creating even more sockpuppets, and since then this has continued. In all he has created at least a dozen sockpuppets, some of which he has used to harass former "enemies", and some of which ended up being blocked for various kinds of disruptive behavior. Yesterday, while following up on one of the accounts that had been blocked as a sockpuppet of WordBomb, I discovered the extent of Homeontherange's behavior. I consulted with the Arbitration Committee list, and in agreement with them I have now tagged and blocked all of his sockpuppets (well, all the sockuppets that weren't already blocked by others). The entire list of sockpuppets can be found here: Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Homeontherange. Jayjg 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Good move. FeloniousMonk 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    It'd be helpful if one of the checkuser clerks would open a case page on this (or append to an existing one, if there is one). Essjay (Talk) 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    You rang? Thatcher131 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    This info has been added by Thather131 to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Homeontherange. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I've noticed Homeontherange has been desysopped. Was this at his request or was it an emergency measure? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    It was at his request, see his talk page. --TheM62Manchester 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


    a) User:Homeontherange is a defunct account, I do not have access to it since I don't have the password. The account was never banned but was blocked and desysopped on my request as I no longer had access to it and as I suspected someone else had gained access to it at some point meaning it was not secure.

    b) Jay is incorrect to say that I left[REDACTED] to avoid an RFA, I explicitly said that the RFA should not be discontinued because I was leaving and that if it continued I'd be happy to stay and fight it. However, since I no longer had access to the account and since there were several imposters, one of whom I believe was User:Dervish Tsaddik (who posted as "daughterofzion" and signed several anon IP posts as "sonofzion" and may have also been the original User:Sonofzion) there was no way to be certain on which of the IPs posting to the RFA were actually "Homeontherange".

    c) the Homeonetherange account was not banned and was not going to be banned (the RFA was on desysopping) hence it is absurd to accuse that account of having sockpuppets, particularly when the account is defunct.

    d) Jayjg is completely mischaracterising the behaviour of the alleged sockpuppets. If one actually looks at their edits they are not controversial. Jay wrongly implies that numerous of the accounts were blocked because they were being "disruptive". In fact, only one of these alleged sockpuppets was blocked and that was because it was, incorrectly, accused of belonging to Wordbomb since it asked whether the checkuser for Mantanmoreland was going to be posted (it's beyond me why such a query is considered "disruptive" as a checkuser was run on Mantanmoreland and came out positive).

    e) the alleged sockpuppets were not editing the same articles and were not doing anything in violation of WP:SOCK

    f) the accounts were not being operated by a single person though they were using a shared semi-public IP in the computer room of a co-op. User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish and User:4thright, for instance, were not the same person who used User:Homeontherange. I did use a few of the alleged sockpuppets after I junked Homeontherange but did so on a temporary basis (ie one day each) without bothering to retain the password as I do not wish to return to[REDACTED] permanently. 69.158.191.248 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    At some point, this spinning will have to stop. User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish just happened to find and question PinchasC's mediation nomination. PinchasC was one of the admins who filed the recent RfAr against Homeontherange. Why would a new user who was not a sock or meat puppet of Homeontherange home in on precisely that page? User:Hunting Thomas also just happened to find PETA, an article Homeontherange had stalked me to before. Hunting Thomas then posted on Talk:William Connolley pretending to be a new user who didn't understand 3RR, which makes the use of the account deceptive and a violation of WP:SOCK. And there's no question that User:Sonofzion was Homeontherange evading his block for 3RR. SlimVirgin 02:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    And what was the question asked of PinchasC? Whether he'd ever informally mediated, wasn't it? That's hardly an abusive question slim, the way it came about was I mentioned to Fluffy that Pinchas didn't strike me as suited for mediation and so he asked if he had ever mediated before. As for the edits to PETA, your exact comment about the Hunting Thomas edit was:
    Yes, I agree that this is a legitimate section, and well written. It's good so long as the references are, which I haven't checked, because these comments are about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. When writing up references, please use the ref tag, and enter: Name of author, URL, headline, name of publication, date of publication if available, and date you retrieved it if you can be bothered (the last thing isn't necessary). Otherwise, it's good. Thank you for writing it. SlimVirgin 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    If the edit was abusive or harassing you would have hardly thanked one for it. Editing one article of yours is hardly stalking, stop being so proprietorial, particularly when the edit improved the article and resulted in your thanks. Edits that improve[REDACTED] are hardly abuses.72.60.227.118 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    You won't believe me, but I wrote that because I knew it was you, and I guessed that the thing that'd annoy you more than anything was if I thanked you for the edit that you were hoping I'd object to. There is something quite distinctive that you almost always do, Homey, when you post, even when you're trying to hide it. SlimVirgin 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Which doesn't mean I didn't think the edit was fine, because I did. SlimVirgin 08:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    SV has a point about the 3RR, I shouldn't have asked William Connelly to review whether or not there had been a violation and used feigned newbiness as a conceit - I should have just asked him to review the edits or filed a 3RR report directly without any pretence. My apologies. However, I did not keep up the pretence and when you asked whether the account belonged to an existing user I said it was an alternate account as permitted under SOCK.. 72.60.227.118 05:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Homey, an apology is not enough. Your actions have been disruptive. Myself and other admins spent hours of our time trying sort out your sockpuppet accounts. Your actions confused the situation, making it more difficult to accurately enforce a ban against WordBomb, an indef banned user. Sorry but I agree with a community ban. You can ask the Arbcomm and Jimbo to review it. --FloNight 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Proposed community ban

    I propose that we declare a community ban of User:Homeontherange, in all past, present and future incarnations, whether sockpuppet or single purpose account, for exhausting our patience. That should remove any further need for wikilawyering about Jayjg's blocking your accounts, whether they are technically socks by the letter of the policy, etc. ad nauseum. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Actually, I think it's you who is doing the wikilawyering and retroactively trying to justify an unjustified ban. See Post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you want to ban me then go to the ArbComm rather than trying to sneak it in by the back door (I've opened an RFA on Jay and Pinchas' behaviour). The so-called sock puppets were non-abusive - if you want me to only edit with one account fine, I'll do that (though my edits have been tapering off, actually, and will continue to do so) but retroactively declaring Homeontherange banned is an abuse of process as is trying to distort policy to justify an action - it's pretty easy to throw out the concept of due process and rule of law by arguing that these things are "lawyerly" traits but it's a dangerous route for[REDACTED] to go down Thatcher131. 72.60.227.118 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Home is clearing attempting to still edit while avoid going through his ArbCom. The chutzpah to accuses the admins trying to deal with the situation of wikilawyering is outstanding. He has already attempted to bring his own RfAr (which of course is on his terms). I support a community ban and an end to this nonsense. JoshuaZ 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    You are misrepresenting things Joshua. The RFA against me had to do *only* with being an admin - as PinchasC wrote in the confirmation section "Not applicable. This is a request for review of admin status." I am no longer an admin by my own request so that RFA is moot. If you don't want an RFA to be avoided then let's go to the ArbComm by all means rather than acting arbitrarily against non-abusive edits. Anyway, as you should well know, an RFA is really never on anyone's terms but the ArbComm so your commont "of course is on his terms" is nonsense. If you think I'm trying to edit while "avoid going through his ArbCom" then fine, lets go to the ArbComm. Given User:Homeontherange's long history and the relatively good status that account enjoyed until just a few months ago acting in an arbitrary manner without going to an RFA is unjustified, particularly given the fact that we are not dealing with personal attacks but with edits which even SV conceded were "legitimate" and "good" in the case of the PETA article. Again, if you want to ban me then go to ArbComm rather than banning through the back door. 72.60.227.118 04:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Homey, as I wrote above, an apology is not good enough this time to get you out of trouble. I support a community ban for disruptive sockpuppets. Your actions interfered with other editors and admins ability to go about their business writing the encyclopedia. --FloNight 05:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    I am very serious against this. This is a typical case that needs to be done by the ArbCom. -- Kim van der Linde 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    The sockpuppetry was seriously abusive. There were RfArs being filed, then withdrawn; requests for desysopping that no one knew whether to trust; interference in trying to keep track of WordBomb, an abusive user who was engaged in on- and off-wiki harassment; one of the sockpuppets accused me of admin abuse because I blocked a WordBomb account after he had tried to "out" an editor; the attempt to interfere with PinchasC's nomination. I can't see why a ban would not be appropriate, because these things drain trust. SlimVirgin 08:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just wonder what is Kim van der Linde role in all this: She came in as "neutral" honset mediator but clearly tried tio tilt the mediation to one side, eventually, after causing much disruption to the mediation process (deadedned) she ended the dragged on mediation and joined one side, filled nomerous "evidence" trying to cause great hardship to admins and editors who tried to resolve the situation. In the process she tried again to absolve some sock puppets by using some non public "tools" that no one but her can see the results. All this time the Misplaced Pages article on "israeli partheid" gained in number of google popularity something (that if I remeber correctly and if i am mistaken I appologize on the spot) Kim at some point argued that it is favorable result. This whole set of articles by Homey (with the support he got from Kim) has resulted in great great disruption to everyone involved. maybe Kim should just censor her self fro a month or two and let the disruption clear itself out ? Zeq 08:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    PS this is also part of the sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=70.48.89.229 Zeq 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Zeq, thank you, you made very clear why this should not go by community support, but by ArbCom. The case is way to complicated for a simple community ban. -- Kim van der Linde 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Kim: Your own contribution is indeed complex. This is why I wondered what is your own role ? I suggested you save everyone some time and censor yourself for 1-2 month. As for Homey, it is pretty simple. A person that has over dozen sockppupets is not acting in good faith. Zeq 09:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    As I recall, Jayjg posted on the check-user page that he had consulted with the Arbitration Committee before taking action against the accounts, so they're aware of the situation. SlimVirgin 09:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, not on the CU page, but above. Jayjg wrote: "I consulted with the Arbitration Committee list, and in agreement with them I have now tagged and blocked all of his sockpuppets (well, all the sockuppets that weren't already blocked by others)." And they did already know that Homey said he couldn't use user:Homeontherange anymore, so they presumably understood that this meant all his accounts were being blocked. SlimVirgin 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Let me point out that in the past, he had said he was leaving, but obviously has not done so. He has posted from IPs and then claimed they were impersonating him. He says he has used single purpose accounts to make constructive edits, but at least one of them (User:Barbamama) was highly disruptive, and others have targeted his previous foes' edits. In fact, if it were not for Barbamama, the rest of his accounts probably never would have been found out, so he only has himself to blame. However, since there are admins who still defend him, Arbitration is probably the best route. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    This is a situation that is not simple, and I think that a community ban should be used only in cases where the story is clear. As such, yes I oppose this proposed community ban. Whether they for that reason want to start a ArbCom case is their decision, although I have added a note to the pending ArbCom case about that this proposed community ban, and suggested it should be merged. -- Kim van der Linde 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    I believe it should be all too obvious that Kim has her own reasons for not wanting a community ban of Homey. She has found herself on the same side of him in every single situation where they have come into contact, and they were the only ones that supported one another's terribly one-sided proposals in the apartheid arbitration case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Regardless, the definition of a community ban is "no one objects." Thatcher131 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    It can't be the definition that not a single person objects, because there are always one or two who object to these things. The question is whether there's consensus. SlimVirgin 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community. -- Kim van der Linde 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Ban#Decision_to_ban "The Misplaced Pages community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Misplaced Pages would ever want to unblock them." and from the arbcom decision it does not say that Kim may not disagree for the ban to take affect. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed, and for me, the reactions I get that are not dealing with the substance, but contain all kind of baseless accusations towards me to justify that I should have no voice in this makes it very clear that this case has gone way beyond a simple community ban. -- Kim van der Linde 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    You defend Homey no matter what. We know that he has recently posted using 15 sockpuppets and 20 anon IPs. These are only the ones we know about; and still you defend him. That's why your credibility has been reduced. SlimVirgin 14:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Wrong, but I am sure it will be near imposible to convice you of my motivations in anything I do, as you have clearly made up your mind about me (and Homey for that matter). -- Kim van der Linde 14:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    You've done nothing but cause trouble for weeks. You've teamed up with Homeontherange to try to impose sanctions on editors who tried to oppose his disruption. You claim to have left but still hang around to propose arbcom cases, make snide remarks, and edit your user subpages. You're an admin and yet you support a highly disruptive user who engages in abusive sockpuppetry. I don't see how my knowing your intentions would change what I can see you actually doing. SlimVirgin 14:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Let me see, was I banned from Misplaced Pages? Was I desysoped? No, neither, so I have the full right to be here, and to act as an admin, regardless of what you think about me. -- Kim van der Linde 16:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    You have a habit of not reading the posts you respond to. SlimVirgin 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Kim, I find it odd that you have first tried to defend Homey's fringe political views (during after the mediation in which you were supposed to the honest broker) and continued to defend his behaviour. Is it really his behaviour that you find justifiable ? or is that you share his political views and to push such views in[REDACTED] you willling to accept any kind of behaviour ? Zeq 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    This is a copy of my statement put on ArbCase that EX-Homey filed.

    IMO that User:Homeontherange is currently under a community ban. All of User:Homeontherange's user accounts are indef blocked on sight by myself and other admins. No other admins have undone these blocks. This type of behavior by the community is by definition a community ban. If they so desire, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can review our ban. If the Arb com wants to open a case and modify the community ban they can. Until an admin reverses one of User:Homeontherange's blocked account, hopefully with full community consensus, I consider him under a community ban and will continue to block his sockpuppet user accounts. FloNight 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Can anyone explain what the situation is in full so I can try and get an overview of it?? --TheM62Manchester 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's simple. A user was blocked indefinitely and is evading the block by editing via sockpuppets.--Mantanmoreland 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not exactly. First, the user was in an RfAr over abuse of their admin tools. Then the user quit Wiki and asked to be desysopped and their standard account indefinitely blocked. About simultaneously it was discovered that the Home had been using abusive sockpuppets. Home then proceeded to edit using various other accounts. Due to the previous sockpuppets and disruption, many admins have been blocking his new puppets on site. But his original indef block was at his own request. Someone please correct me if I am missing any major details. JoshuaZ 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation. I will email an ArbCom member about this. --TheM62Manchester 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    They already know about it and have oppened a case (see below). JoshuaZ 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    OK. My involvement in this was tangential, as I was harassed by a sockpuppet of Homeontherange, with whom I have no history whatsoever. To me it seems fairly simple and I don't understand why it has generated such a big fuss.--Mantanmoreland 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    After quite a bit of thought, I have to support the community ban. At this point Homey is deliberately subverting any attempt at process and order on Misplaced Pages. I'd allow him the opportunity to explain himself, but until then he - in all his manifestations - should be banned. And good riddance. --Leifern 02:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    I would like to add my support for a community ban, as his army of sockpuppets have demonstrated that he does not care much about Misplaced Pages and he will do what he could to disrupt it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    I agree with Leifern. I haven't had much interaction with Homey (some on AfD, a few comments on talk pages), but from what I've seen of his behavior so far, this person should be banned. He has had numerous chances to reform, and he has avoided attempts at reconciliation, choosing to puppetmaster, harrass other users, and even delete his own user page. —Viriditas | Talk 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Obviously I support this. He still continues to sockpuppet, having created several sockpuppets since then, including ones not yet identified as sockpuppets. Jayjg 04:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked ExHomey

    Move up the page so discussion is together. Blocked ExHomey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Claims to be Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Blocked as imposter/username problem among other reasons such as abusive socks. --FloNight 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    I have unblocked him to participate in the arbitration case. He has been requested to limit his editing to arbitration pages. Fred Bauder 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    No you haven't, Fred. That's because, along with the rest of the nonsense, there are at least two ExHomey accounts, and you unblocked a different one. Jayjg 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    It looks like ExHomey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) remains blocked while Ex-Homey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was unblocked. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    IP 12.10.34.242

    That IP is held by a large law firm. It seems someone at the firm has recently discovered how to edit Misplaced Pages articles. Most of their edits are really vandalism ast listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.10.34.242 I sent an email to the law firm and someone else warned them on their talk page.

    User:Tchadienne

    I'm being harassed by several users, which is nothing new. So far today, an admin actually did something in response to a complaint I posted (against User:Arbiteroftruth who was posting personal attacks on several users' pages), which is more than I can say for any admin I have ever encountered on Misplaced Pages.

    Now, I once again ask the admins of Misplaced Pages, to do something. User:JzG, who somehow got elected to adminship, continues to threaten to indefinitely block me and says he will protect my talkpage if I continue to revert supposed "warnings" against my "vandalism." I have already proven, at length on User talk:Daduzi, that I am right, and others are wrong. JzG continues to engage in personal attacks against User:Incorrect, vandalizes The Guardian, and vandalizes my talkpage. Block him and warn him about wikistalking. Tchadienne 18:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    JzG appears to be doing the best he can toward the goal of trying to get you to cease your blatant assumptions of bad faith and breaches of civility. I cannot say I envy him the job. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Tchadienne, can some admin please do something? On Talk:The Guardian, there has been made a clear threat to edit war, and to game the system w.r.t. 3RR. As for the rest, it is a content dispute; bring it to WP:RFC if you must; not here. Content disputes should not be solved with admin powers. Eugène van der Pijll 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    I don't know a great deal about the specifics of this incident, but just from your tone it's not difficult to see why users aren't rushing to assist you. In two short paragrahps, you've managed to accuse others of vandalizing articles and making personal attacks, insisted that you've proven yourself to be correct, insulted all Misplaced Pages admins (singling out JzG) as well as demanding that JzG be blocked. Have you considered that perhaps a less aggressive tone would lead to better results? Aren't I Obscure? 18:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Tchadienne is intent on inserting a criticism section into The Guardian based on the "fact" that an article castigating Mel Gibson for a drunken outburst is somehow antisemitism. Or something. His failure to persuade others of the merits of his case (essentially the result of a mixture of WP:OR and failure to cite any reliable sources) led him to edit war over an NPOV tag; per policy it's pretty clear that failure to persuade others of the merit of your case is not grounds for tagging an article. I have just blocked Tchadienne for 24h for removing {{wr}} from his talkpage, which is blatant WP:POINT. Our interaction thus far is brief enough that an assertion of harrassment is risible. I fear that what we have hear is a Bearer of Truth with all the problems that usually entails. Just zis Guy you know? 18:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    A Jeanne d’Arc, actually. Anyway, User:Tchadienne doesn’t like not being able to edit, check out 4.249.3.40 (talk · contribs). —xyzzyn 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well if you thought that removing {{wr}} was blatant, try this edit summary: Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Regarding the preventive value of a 24h block, see also the user’s old accounts: , . The user is not just a troll—there are many good edits—, but occasionally somewhat lacking in the area of WP:CIVIL and liable to misinterpret WP:V. HTH. —xyzzyn 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed - this bears all the hallmarks of a frustrated bearer of The Truth; as usual when the reliable sources fail to back The Truth the only possible solution is to use the sources we have and explain how they are reliable, honest they are, even if they are blogs. It's not so much that he doesn't take kindly to threats, it's that he doesn't take kindly to being thwarted, and apparently interprets anything that prevents him geting his way as a threat, thus alowing him (in his eyes) to ignore it. This busines sof The Guardian being antisemitic because it had a Jerusalem correspondent who was critical of the Israeli Government is pretty typical stuff; without wanting to venture into political debate I think it's not exactly a secret that some people accuse anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel of being antisemitic rather than anti-Israeli Government, because antisemitism has such uniquely atrocious connotations. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Its no secret that anyone saying "without getting into anything political" is about to get into something political. Although in your case it was also wrong and inappropriate to bring it up here as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Where did that come from? A tendentious editor has accused a long-established British newspaper of anti-semitism, despite its history of support for the existence of the state of Israel, because it had the temerity to publish reports critical of the Israeli government. No reliable sources have been presented to back the assertion that this paper is anti-semitic. The anti-semitism in question appears to be entirely restricted to the portrayal of comtemporary Israeli government policy. A barrow is being pushed, in other words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    I really have no desire to get invovled with this dispute. However, I found the above statement- "I think it's not exactly a secret that some people accuse anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel of being antisemitic" was inappropriate to bring up here. Since it very much relates to divisive and emotive issues. Your comment was needlessly inflammatory.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well, it wasn't inflammatory until you actually inflamed it -- providing, unintentionally, I'm sure, evidence by example for JzG's statement. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    I generally agree with your comments, Calton (and JzG's for that matter), but in this case I cannot. The statement was simply inflammatory and unnecessary. I didn't agree with Tchadienne's edits, and told him so, but if JzG really didn't want to "enter into a political debate", then he shouldn't have. Jayjg 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    "Silence those who oppose freedom of speech!" ;-) Just zis Guy you know?
    I for one do not feel inflamed. This whole affair demonstrates that editors should not edit articles unless they can detach themselves from them emotionally. Stephen B Streater 08:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    And I agree with JzG's characterisation of the origin of the dispute. It is impossible to describe the conflict without mentioning the political misunderstanding that Tchadienne appears to be labouring under; that any criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Semitism. It does not. --Guinnog 12:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Tchadienne is now posting as User:NOBS, as he says himself: "this is in use until the block wears off" --Guinnog 19:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Historical note: iirc, the last time, someone had to block 4.249.0.0/16 to stop the user. —xyzzyn 19:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    It must be approaching that stage again, one would think? --Guinnog 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    I've blocked NOBS indefinitely, and extended Tchadienne's block to 72 hours from now. If it happens again, I would endorse the above range block. Ral315 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    This is tedious and unacceptable behaviour and the time is approaching when we should consider doing something mroe permanent about it. Just zis Guy you know? 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    OK, per Tchadienne is still playing silly buggers, so I porpose to enact the rangeblock above. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    I support the rangeblock proposal; it's really unfortunate, as this user has many good edits.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Same here. Many good edits, but I think he would benefit from a block. --Guinnog 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sure, many good edits. And quite a few bad ones. And above all an absolute contempt for any attempt to enforce policy Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed, the bad far outweighs the good. I agree with Ra1315 that if he does it again it should be a range block. I would urge consideration of a permanent ban as well, unless there is real evidence that the user has changed his ways. It's an awful waste of everybody's time and energy to have to babysit like this when we could be doing something more useful. Let's wait and see for a day or two for now. --Guinnog 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    First of all I want to say that as a long time collaborator of Tchadienne, my opinion may be biased, even if I hope it's not. That said, I know Tchadienne and I can tell what he isn't - a troll. In the wikiproject we both work on, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chad, I have never had to revert his edits, or introduce radical changes; and I have never had any problems reverting my friends if their edits did not comply with WP:NPOV or WP:V (I edit also a lot on problematic articles concerning the Balkans, so this happens very often). And I believe that Tchadienne's concerns regarding the Guardian article were legitimate and founded, even if I must admit Tchadienne's solution, a criticism section, was not a great idea. I also know that Tchadienne often has a difficult character, and that he tends to over-react; but his dedition to NPOV is true and authentic. We need more editors like Tchadienne, not less, and as for these "quite a few bad ones", i.e. bad edits, I must be a bit strabic, because I seem to have strangely missed them. I'm afraid I have instead detected a certain animus by JzG against Tchadienne. Please remember what is said about controversial blocks at WP:BLOCK: among them are blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block. For this I feel the community should be lenient, and his block should be reduced in respect, among other things, for the quality work done in areas almost ignored by wikipedia. I won't reduce his block myself, because my action could be biased; but I feel all the same it should be reduced.--Aldux 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    24 hour blocks are no real punishment. They can be issued for the most useful logged-in editors when they temporarily lose their head, just to give them time to cool off. Using sock puppets to get around such a block says to me that that user has not yet cooled down enough. I think I would support unblocking the user 24 hours after he ends using sock puppets; until then, the longer block is entirely justifies, in my opinion. Eugène van der Pijll 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    See User:4.249.6.96 for another attempt to evade the block. --Guinnog 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm amused; I appear to have "engaged in vandalism, personal attacks, wikistalking and violations of WP:POINT". How rouge I am. Ral315 (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    In response to Aldux, I admit, Tchadienne is a prolific editor at Chad-related articles. Yet there is no excuse for sockpuppeting to evade a block, and we shouldn't encourage it by simply letting the block lapse. I have no issue with Tchadienne, and hope that he/she edits productively after the block. Ral315 (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    The 24-hour block was not punishment. We don't block for punishment, we block to prevent disruption of the project, in this case to stop a user making problematic and disruptive edits for long enough for the other editors on the article(s) in question to come to some kind of agreement as to what to do. That's why block evasion - especially when it includes taunting the blocking admins - is unacceptable, and why sockpuppetry to evade a block is also unacceptable. In this case Tchadienne did both, as well as perhaps a bit of forum-shopping (I'm guessing it's no accident that we are seeing input here from people who are not often seen hereabouts). It's fine to have strong opinions, but edit-warring is not the way to persuade others of the merit of those opinions. Tchadienne has without question been around long enough to know that removing uncited content and starting a debate on Talk is not vandalism and blogs are explicitly not reliable sources. As a wise editor once said, if your edits do not meet with approval, instead of repeating the arguments only louder, bring better arguments. Just zis Guy you know? 10:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Here's Julie Burchill, a Guardian columnist at the time of writing it, accusing the Guardian of new anti-Semitism. And a follow-up about the topic in general a week later. SlimVirgin 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Interesting, but, according to Google, devoid of impact. So its coverage would have to be balanced with respect to the more significant stuff in the article, which amounts to… very little, really. —xyzzyn 11:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Ummmm, Julie Burchill? Riiiiiight. Any references from respected political journalists? Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    She wrote it in the Guardian. If you think the Guardian is a reliable source, then the Burchill article is a reliable source too. SlimVirgin 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Julie Burchill is not considered by most people, even those who like her, as an enyclopedic or reliable source. She says things to shock; arguably her tenure at the Guardian was good for the paper for that reason.
    2. Regardless, Julie Burchill did not state in the reference given that she left because the Guardian was anti-Semitic. Neither did she say that anti-Zionism was the same as anti-Semitism. The crucial bit is "... I don't swallow the modern liberal line that anti-Zionism is entirely different from anti-semitism; the first good, the other bad". She is being ambiguous, maybe deliberately, but this is a bit different from what you claimed above.
    3. Whatever you think Julie Burchill might have meant in her ambiguous swan-song, criticism of Israel definitely does not equate to anti-Semitism. This isn't a POV dispute. --Guinnog 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Apparently I am not actually antisemitic, only anti-Zionist (User talk:Tchadienne#ello). So that's alright then; anti-Zionist could hardly be construed as a personal attack, could it? Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    After running my eye over the quabble at User talk:Tchadienne following its unprotection, I think the page should be reconsidered for protection. Sciurinæ 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Can I ask that you leave it for now, as I am trying to show Tsch a way out and avoid worse consequences? Thanks --Guinnog 18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's good-hearted of you and I was actually regretting having made my previous statement because the obnoxious commentary stopped and the discussion was becoming better. Sciurinæ 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Since there’s already a section here for this, can somebody check out ? —xyzzyn 19:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    When I first encountered this user I wondered whether he was someone who used multiple identities. I am glad that he now acknowledges that he has done so. I had an exchange with this user in April, over a controversial renaming of charities accused of ties to terrorism to charities with ties to terrorism. I thought I was civil, but he complained about me on the administrator's noticeboard. A week or so later this user nominated the persona they were then using for administrator. He was asked whether he had any unresolved disputes, and how he resolved disputes. He didn't mention his recent dispute with me. So, I brought it up, and asked some questions. They didn't answer my questions. They accused me of personally attacking them. Their campaign for administratorship failed, but it was fairly close. After his campaign for administratorship failed they filed a reqquest for comment about my behavior. I opted to have an administrator move the request for comment to my user space -- User:Geo Swan/RfC 2006-4-17. -- Geo Swan 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Just some information for all editors here: I've discussed thoroughly of the thing with User:JzG and User:Ral315. I first spoke with Ral: he agreed on unblocking, and asked JzG if he would agree to remove the range-block, which he did today. After JzG had done the first step, I unblocked Tchadienne as that was also Ral's intention, and he wasn't online at the moment.--Aldux 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    user:KI and user:Tchadienne

    He is reporting a password problem with his Tchadienne account on the KI user talk page. Feel free to help on that if you can. I'm reporting it here because he seems to want me to protect that page due to selective removal of comments. Please review, maybe he'll use the FSF account next if KI is protected. NoSeptember 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well, it's good to see that Tchadienne/KI/FSF has cooled off and is back to acting in a civil manner. Yes, that's sarcasm. Aren't I Obscure? 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    No more sockpuppets, either. And no b_______. —xyzzyn 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    It looks like he is following a repeating pattern: use an account until his tendentious editing brings the unwelcome attention of admins, usually in the form of a series of blocks, then whitewash the talk page to conceal past controversies, assert innocence, and move on to a new account, most likely to do the same all over again. Just zis Guy you know? 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Is someone not getting enough attention? Tchadienne 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Voting and process taken way too far

    Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll: admins deciding content, rigid schedule, etc. Please kill. --SPUI (T - C) 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    How then do you propose to end the conflict? Expect everyone to give in to your opinion? And this discussion should go to the talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    From what I looked so far, I tend to agree, this page is going to far with the rigid voting, but there is nothing wrong about admins deciding content since it happens a lot. I suggest all editors change it to where it is not on a time table, since we do not need a watch to tell us when we are done with an issue. User:Zscout370 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well this is so that we don't have people ending the vote too early when it is in their favor. And it says at the top that the timetable is not set in stone... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Of course, you can state when the polling begins, but the rigid schedule that you have right now, it needs to be removed. User:Zscout370 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    If the schedule needs to be adjusted, it can be adjusted, but I believe it needs to stay for the reasons above. If many object it will be loosened, but so far there's only been a few objections. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, SPUI does expect everyone to give in to his opinion. In his opinion, his opinion is always right :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    I suppose it's better to have self-proclaimed transportation experts deciding on content than it is to have the community, in general, deciding on content. Apparently, we're supposed to put that trust into one user, and if that doesn't happen, it's an incident that demands administrator intervention on WP:AN/I. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, yes it does. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:WILLIAM DAKOTA

    WILLIAM DAKOTA (talk · contribs) keeps posting long, disjointed narratives into the Nick Adams article (which has a long history of contentious editing). He claims to be Adams's former personal secretary, and claims to be inserting material from his own personal copyrighted manuscript. He keeps inserting his name and the copyright claim in the article, and he has been cautioned about this before, but he insists that he has the right to copyright his material. He also added the information, with the copyright claim, to the Talk page. I have removed it twice now. He's threatening to remove anything I add. If he does, I'll be blocking him. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    WILLIAM DAKOTA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added material to Talk:John Gilmore (writer) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) which is inappropriate with respect to WP:BLP. It might make sense to delete that talk page (Bill appears to be the only significant contributor) and to talk to Bill. —xyzzyn 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    He also keeps posting the material from his User page into the Nick Adams Talk page. I have removed it twice now. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    New userblock templates

    See these new templates I created:

    and the links to the relevant long term abuse pages.

    I hope this helps. --TheM62Manchester 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well intentioned, I'm sure, but perhaps a bit hasty? I'm thinking in particular about Israelbeach. You wrote virtually nothing on the long term abuse page that you created for him, and I wonder if you are at all familiar with his case? Though I believe he has engaged in vandalism, he is not the classic vandal who vandalises Misplaced Pages for vandalism's sake, so much as a tendentious and contentious editor who targets specific users whom he has decided are his enemies (such as myself). Labelling such a user a "vandal" in this way is a bit strong, and likely to drive him to further extremes. I'm of a split mind about this, as you can see I've moved content to the page you created (from what was once Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach, but I'm not at all sure it was necessary to make this move. --woggly 08:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm also not convinced that we need to have special templates for these guys. Deny recognition and all that. I'd just leave some details of the characteristic behaviour on the long-term vandalism page and link from the category. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I saw it as a "what's done is done" sort of situation. Would you go as far as to delete the templates and revert back to the usual blockedsock notices?--woggly 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Tojo

    General Tojo is conducting a wiki-wide revert war against my edits. Please "shoot on sight" (as Fred Bauder said in the ArbComm case). JFW | T@lk 13:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    There's nothing you can do about it.

    I've had enough. Range blocks in place. JFW | T@lk 13:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    I've blocked four ranges (88.104.0.0/16, 88.105.0.0/16, 88.106.0.0/16, 88.107.0.0/16) for a few hours. This has a dual purpose: (1) to stop the barrage of reverts by an army of socks, (2) to identify other ISPs in use by General Tojo. I would therefore respectfully request all admins to leave these blocks in place for the time being. On this page there seems to be an indication that there are moves to have this unpleasant character kicked off his ISP. JFW | T@lk 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Jfdwolff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Fred Bauder 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks Fred. It's suddenly a lot quieter; seems the blocks are working. We should press ahead with a formal complaint against KB to Tiscali. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Unblocking? That's not what I had in mind. JFW | T@lk 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    What type of block is in place? Anon only, account creation disabled? Cause you've blocked 262144 address (if my calculation is correct)... a rather large amount. I acknowledge this may have been necessary... but it's a lot. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    They are all quiet ranges but very much in use by one of the most prolific trolls in WP's history. Anycase, Fred undid the blocks and now he's attacking me again. Tiring. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    user:EnthusiastFRANCE has been evading blocks.... again

    Hi, I'm puting a shorter notice because obviously the one below was ignored. user:EnthusiastFRANCE has been editing while he was supposed to have been blocked as user:EnthusiastFR and probably also: user:Cardigans Iron Man (an account he used to remove the sock template. Please help. --Aknorals 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I just noticed an editor with the suspicious name of user:EnthusiastFR edit one of the pages on my watchlist. When I am reminded of the incident with user:EnthusiastFRANCE I had a few months ago, I realised this was an obvious sockpuppet. I checked his edit history and he has been editing sense late july: this would logicly be before his 2 month block expired. While this block either just expired or is about to expire, this doesn't stop the fact he was making hundreds (thousands?) of edits when he should have been blocked. In fact, the last attack edit I remember of his was several days later , so his block should have been re-uped on that day (if I understand policy correctly)... logicly, if this edit was his as well, he should have been blocked for even longer still. --Aknorals 18:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, and he's personaly attacking me. --Aknorals 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Here's another sock used to bother me: User:Paulocuelo38. Can I get some help please? --Aknorals 02:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    ThuranX and templates

    I'd appreciate it if someone could help ThuranX (talk · contribs) distance himself and chill out a little bit. He's gone a bit on tilt over {{The Batman}}, starting with reverting good-faith edits as vandalism and most recently deleting half the template with a sarcastic edit summary. I'm obviously involved here, but I really think an outside voice might help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    The conflict at {{The Batman}}continues, and is now spilling over into other articles. I've attempted to calm ThuranX (talk · contribs) down, but my every overture has been rebuffed. He now appears convinced that anyone who challenges his behavior is part of an organized group of bullies, and removed another editor's attempt to cool him down from his talk page. I've warned him with {{wr3}} and {{agf3}}, but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to block him if he continues, since despite my best intentions I've become involved in the dispute myself. I'd appreciate it if another admin would go over ThuranX's recent contribs, and the history of {{The Batman}} and its talk page, to see if I've acted appropriately and whether further steps should be taken. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    MONGO threatens to block again

    It's disgusting how wikpedia allows such a person to edit here. Here's the conflict: Steven E. Jones is performing an investigation with other scientists to prove arson at the World Trade Center. This investigation is based on physical, scientific evidence. Yet, this MONGO character breaks the rules of editing an article about a living person with this insulting and false comment. There's no reason for that rude comment to be there. See here for MONGOs threats to me. He claims I am rude when he's obviously the one defaming a scientist who's work is based on physical evidence. CB Brooklyn 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not trying to defame anyone. You are using his biography to promote 9/11 conspiracy cruft. His work has not ever been properly vetted by a group that can be trusted to perform a scientific cross examination and therefore has not once been properly peer reviewed. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.--MONGO 21:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    I see no threats. I see some rather helpful advice from MONGO and some other admins as to how to conduct yourself here. Cheers. Syrthiss 21:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Your info is inaccurate and false. You are not seeing things clearly and should NOT be editing 9/11 pages. Your use of the term "9/11 conspiracy cruft" is proof that you have some very serious problem. For you to use such a term shows you to be a silly little fool. Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia and should therefore have the all the NEWEST up to date information about the person. And that includes a scientific investigation using physical evidence about arson at the WTC. If you can't handle it, then stop editing. It's that simple. CB Brooklyn 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked CB Brooklyn for 31 hours for his personnal attack above. Tom Harrison 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Strongly support. I don't actually care whether the research is or is not complete bollocks, as it appears, the main thing is that this user refuses to accept policy. Just zis Guy you know? 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Support, this is clearly soapboxing. Why 31 hours btw? I know 42 is supposed to be the answer to life, the universe and everything, but what's the significance of 31? -- ChrisO 22:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    31 is the default size after 24 on the block tool. Actually, given his repeated violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and also a few WP:3RRs I would suggest a longer block, ranging from 48 hours to a week. JoshuaZ 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't even "threaten to block" him...This has been an ongoing thing with this editor.--MONGO 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    No, you're right, that was User:Musical Linguist ().--Guinnog 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    If it were a first offense, I'd find a block for "silly little fool" a bit harsh, but as it's a pattern of behvaior, seems reasonable to me. Friday (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    31 is a prime number --pgk 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    and if you subtract 1 from 3, you get 2...the only even prime number. Syrthiss 22:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Furthermore, adding 2 and 3 gives five. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Isn't it unlucky? after all, it's 13 in reverse! --Guinnog 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    23 is the number Michael Jordan played with, and, given what they say about it in The Illuminatus! Trilogy, it explains his success. (Oh, and I must have missed all the black ops helicopters planting charges when I was up there on 9/11.) Geogre 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Choo choo trains were used instead...see the proof...--MONGO 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    There is no need for all this conspiracist speculation. I chose thirty-one as the most obvious expression of the Law of Three Fives. Tom Harrison 13:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    As the obvious approximate representation of 555 in base 152. —xyzzyn 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I just assumed it was a cabal thing. :) --Guinnog 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Pontiac Fiero Spam

    The following IPs continue to spam the Pontiac Fiero article with various irrelevant links or forums. Please ban.


    Stuph 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Please request the domains to be blacklisted on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Thanks Naconkantari 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    sorry, i dont know what that means. Stuph 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    We have a blacklist of sites that are not allowed in article links. I've submitted the request, here. Fan-1967 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I meant these IPs are users that are not registered and continue to spam this artcile. Can the users be banned? Stuph 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Pointless. Those IP's are from all over. My guess is that someone posted something in the forum asking people to update Misplaced Pages, and various different people have been adding the links, and more people will do so. If we want to ban links to the forum, the first thing we'll need is for someone to AFD Pennock's Fiero Forum, the article about the forum. Fan-1967 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    ok, sorry, i'm new to this part of wiki and just want to stop the spam on this article. can the site realfierotech.com also be blocked from being added as its a forum (and an ad ridden one at that!) Stuph 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Cute 1 4 u

    (Copied from User talk: Bishonen to get a broader sampling on what to do)

    This user has two sockpuppets confirmed by CheckUser. After the kerfuffle over her Raven Symone sock, I'm presently debating putting the sockpuppeteer template on her userpage. However, I suspect she'd probably just delete it and cause Wikidrama. Your thoughts?--Rosicrucian 02:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    My basic feelings about the user are still represented by my ANI listing back in June. This is a kid and a newbie. She thinks wiki is Myspace and makes up imaginary friends when she has trouble getting enough action... shrug... OK, we can't have that,[REDACTED] is an encyclopedia, but I wish somebody would just take her in hand and explain stuff, rather than the blocks and the templates. That wish isn't directed at you, I know it's a lot to ask, and I'm not willing to do it myself either. (Children have enough nightmares about Bishzilla as it is.) It looks to me like there are two options: either put on the puppeteer template and adminprotect the page, or post an appeal for a volunteer nanny on ANI. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC).
    It's worrisome I'll agree. At first I was inclined to say she knew too much HTML to really be eleven years old, but when I saw her add the warning tag to her userpage today and break about every div tag on the page, I realized she's just probably copy/pasting what she likes from other userpages. So while I grit my teeth at her claim that she created the Perry Mason article (which she's never even edited on) I do wonder if there's anything we can (or even should) do. Certainly she doesn't seem to understand warnings and other input from admins, and will often just delete them. In other users this certainly wouldn't be tolerated, but I can understand your concern about taking a harsh approach with her.--Rosicrucian 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    On the subject of the naive, I agree with Rosicrucian, but I also note that Bishonen is more asking for a patient parent-figure to help the child than that the child's misdeeds be ignored. I like to be a New Critic about this stuff and say that, if a person is doing harm and no good, then it's just a case where "You must be this tall to ride the Misplaced Pages" -- that we still have to correct and prevent damage, even at the same time that we shower the user with the grace of Wikilove (it's Sunday, and I'm missing church, so expect religious metaphors all day). Geogre 14:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    While I do understand what Bish is getting at, it'd be with some trepidation that I'd ask someone, indeed anyone to open this can of worms, which is largely why I haven't slapped a puppeteer template on the kid. I remain doubtful the user would take any outside criticism or advice the right way, as she seems to just get confused when people try to nudge her in the right direction. Certainly given the tone some editors and admins have taken with her, she probably doesn't know who to listen to and who to ignore.--Rosicrucian 14:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    To be fair, she did too create Perry Mason (TV series) Some one subsequently overwrote it with a redirect to Perry Mason, which she has never edited. Snottygobble 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, that wasn't my main bone of contention, but it does make more sense now that I see that. Though she is counting one of her socks in the "Creations" list. I think what it boils down to though is the kid really doesn't know Misplaced Pages, and reacts fairly badly if you point out her mistakes. What Bish suggested in the form of a mentor might work, assuming she was willing to work with the mentor. It'd certainly ease potentially nasty wakeup calls from admins when she does stuff like the sock puppetry.--Rosicrucian 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you; I just wanted to make that minor point in her defense. Snottygobble 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Even though I find Bishonen's attitude to be admirable, I still have to state that an indefinite block would be more appropriate as well as prudent. She might be a fine editor one day, but it more or less seems like she has little to positively contribute to[REDACTED] at this time. I also do not think that we want to send the message that[REDACTED] is the new myspace, especially since the old myspace isn't even old yet.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Removal of Speedy deletion tags User:Striver

    User:Striver has removed speedy deletion tags from the following pages with the following edit summaries:

    The template that I put up says the following (Template:Db-nonsense):

    do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page, or you disagree with this page's proposed speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page, after adding the text "hangon" with two brace brackets into the article, following the db-reason tag at the top of the article:

    He created, and was the sole contributor, of both pages (with the only exception being me putting up the speedy tags). --Jersey Devil 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I've userfied the pages and informed Striver. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
    He should have assumed good faith, but that being said it's appropriate to remove a db tag to allow time for further review. Jtkiefer ---- 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    No it is not, not when you created the page and the template specifically says that. If he disagreed with it he was suppose to put up the "hang-on" template to make his case to an administrator.--Jersey Devil 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    (took the liberty of fixing indenting on previous post to make it clear who reply was to) Either way we ended up with the same outcome and I don't see how doing it the other way would have made it any easier, hangon would have led to userfication or deletion and review that would lead to userfication and even though there's probably somewhere in the deletion policy a "proper" way to handle the situation it really makes no difference. Jtkiefer ---- 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly. The user who created the pages refers to them as "development pages", and development pages belong in the userspace. I don't see any reason to have them perform any formal detours on the way there. And I did review them: it was either speedy or userspace. I assumed good faith (with some effort, in view of the other Striver entry above, but I did it) and concluded that he simply didn't know how to properly name the pages he'd created. Bishonen | talk 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

    Cincinnati Beacon

    The person who is described in this article seems to be unhappy with its portrayal of him. I've done what I know to do but as a fairly inexperienced admin I am unsure how to proceed. Can someone else take it from here? --Chris (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I think the user in question might need a gentle civility warning and reminder of assumption of good faith for starters, since they are characterising other editors as "trolls". Further, the usual warnings about editing your own bio or works apply which I see have been given already. Crazycomputers, does that help? Looks to me like you've the matter well in hand. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's worth reminding folks that vanity articles fail the deletion guidelines, and the subject of an article is not entitled to be happy with it. After all, Siegenthaller and Brandt unleashed big cans of misery at us because they didn't like the articles that talked about them. If, of course, our articles are inaccurate or unverifiable, then that's another matter. We should be NPOV and true, but not ignorant or anyone's PR flak. Geogre 02:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well as it turns out, the article is now up on AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cincinnati Beacon, as is the related article Dean of Cincinnati (in the same nom, although already deleted) ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Request block for user corrupting Antiwar.com article

    Anon user 75.2.245.222 has been repeatedly adding objectionable material (aka "A non-partisan article") to this article. A quick glance will suffice; no further explanation needed. Either a block, or at least a serious talking-to, would be helpful here. Thanks. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    It's an IP, semi-protection is more likely to be helpful than blocking. I've reverted and s-protected. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

    User:Ades3 & User:Ades10

    User constantly uploading pokemon images for using on user page. I'm guessing both accounts are the same user. He is now claiming that the images they've uploaded were created by him (somehow I doubt). Could someone delete all the images and warn the user to stop uploading inappriopriate images? I've tried contacting the user but just ignored.

    Images have been uploaded in the past then deleted and user warned. I guess the user is just a young pokemon fan creating a webpage for themselves?--Andeh 01:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    All deleted, user warned. For what it's worth, it doesn't matter if he created them; Nintendo and other companies who own Pokemon rights own copyright on regular redrawings. Parodies may be exempt, but that's obviously not the case here. Ral315 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, lets not hope he doesn't do it a third time.--Andeh 08:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    User Antari

    Antari (talk · contribs · count) has a short history of posting spam and vandalism. His attitude, as exhibited on his user page and talk page, is not very friendly. As he did not take well to my attempt to communicate with him, could an admin look in on his pages and take appropriate action? -- Donald Albury 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I've warned him. If he keeps it up I will block him as a vandalism only account. JoshuaZ 01:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you. He's only a minor nuisance, so far, but I felt I should step back and let someone else watch him. -- Donald Albury 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I've Reported to WP:AIV.--Andeh 11:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    User blocked indef.--Andeh 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Registered user vandalising my user page

    . Since I'm the person this was directed at, I'm probably not the one who should take action, but I believe Druidictus (talk · contribs) deserves at least a severe warning for this, perhaps a block. Take a look at his contributions: this was by no means unrepresentative.

    Pretty absurd accusation, actually, for anyone familiar with my (relatively few) edits on Israel-related topics. - Jmabel | Talk 02:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I left a note on his talk page, for now. While I'm usually a little trigger-happy with anti-semitic trolls, I didn't see anything immediately blockable in his recent edits, though the last sentence of this one is pretty ugly. Antandrus (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Gay penguins redirect?

    Ajsh (talk · contribs), who has a history of dubious edits, created a redirect from Gay penguins to Penguin. I don't know if it's actually vandalism, or what?--Anchoress 02:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    As bizzarre as it is, it appears to be a related redirect. Yanksox 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) There is a literature on gay penguins and a mention in Penguin on same-sex penguin pairs. I think it's a legitimate redirect -- Samir धर्म 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Cool. Sorry to bother you guys.--Anchoress 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Older teens discussing sex with pre-teen?

    It looks as though Alexbuirds, a 16 year-old, may be involved in a discussion about sex and pornography with Bethicalyna (a 16 or 17 year-old) and Lindsay1980, an 11 year-old. Please see the talk pages and contributions of these users. It is entirely possible that I am mistaken (it's a little late in the evening and I have not investigated this in any significant level of detail) or may all be happening off-line. However, I would really appreciate it if someone could investigate and if necessary, put a stop to it. I may be leaping to conclusions, though, and it may be nothing at all or may be completely innocent. --Yamla 04:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I think you should leave them alone. People like you have been harrassing and stalking me on and off wiki for ever since I have been here for preferring to be gay even though I am very discreet. Please stop.Brohanska 04:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Sexual discussions with children below the age of consent are a bit different than people harrasing you due to your orientation. At minimum, there is a concern of liability and/or very bad publicity for Misplaced Pages if anything illegal or highly questionable is happening here. JoshuaZ 04:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I object to this personal attack from Brohanska. I have nothing against gay people and at least two of my friends are gay. As far as I can see, I have not ever had any dealings with you and I cannot see the relevance to the matter at hand which is Wikipedians using Misplaced Pages to discuss sex and pornography with an eleven year-old (though as noted, this may not actually be the case). This appears to have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. --Yamla 04:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Another user, but presenting yourself as an 11 year old heterosexual female is rather odd, see Cute_1_4_u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Bauder 04:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I really dont care -- it seems as if you are attacking me. Gay young poeple should be free to be who god made them and not subject to degrading assaults on wiki and violance off. And for your information i LOVE pornography and talking about it with other young people. Brohanska 04:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Wow, take it to the ultimate extreme. Yamla never said anything about gay or homosexual or anything, and you didn't have to either. Just let this go. --JD 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Both of you calm down. The issue here has nothing to do with orientation. The issues are age of consent, liability for Misplaced Pages, and possible bad publicity for Misplaced Pages. JoshuaZ

    Didn't you know that under 18 year old adults can talk about sex to each other as long as they are under 18? So its all legal and therefore should be encouraged for them to explore.Brohanska 05:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    That depends very much on the relevant jurisdictions. The most likely ones to matter would be US federal law and Florida state law . This may be a matter that the foundation lawyers should look into. And regardless, that won't deal with general issues of liability and/or bad publicity if something happens. JoshuaZ 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's woth noting that Brohanska has only a few edits, and has never self-identified as gay except here and Essjay's talk page, yet claims to having been harrassed both on and off-wiki because of his orientation. Yamla has blocked him as a troll, which I fully support. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Bottom line: Misplaced Pages is not a chat room, and I think we are not comfortable as a community with people talking to pre-teens about sexual matters. Please get an AIM or MSN name and do it in private. Most relevant sexual information can be found on articles, where it is better presented. --mboverload@ 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Didn't I just delete the thingy? With the subtlety of a sledge hammer, here I go. El_C 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I agree with the conclusion of this situation, although not to the belief (near the bottom) that children should not contribute to and especially that they should not read Misplaced Pages. It is sad that Misplaced Pages has to do such things because of the real, but highly exaggerated, danger to children from pedophiles and, perhaps more importantly, the overreaction of the media and society to anything involving children, particularly their sexuality (one of the valid reasons for the steps taken is the effect of publicity rather than any harm being done). -- Kjkolb 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Endorse block per above. — Deckiller 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Endorse. Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs)'s page is pretty disturbing too. That user claims to be 11 on Misplaced Pages, 13 on Youtube , and 14 on blackplanet , with "Body type: Very Slim, Curvey, & Sexy 'cause I workout 6 days a week fo' a hour; Best Features: Lips, Face, Hips, booty, legs", and made a contact attempt on Lindsay1980's talk page that could be seen as possibly unsavory depending on Cute 1 4 u's real situation (especially since I think "Raven Symone" turned out to be a sock of Cute 1 4 u). Phr (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I endorse the block of Brohanska since they appear to be a troll. I personally think that[REDACTED] is not the place to make sexual hook-ups, regardless of age, since this is largely an encyclopedia. Some ammount of community and off-topic networking will surely go on from time-to-time and should be overlooked, including perhaps some things of a sexual nature--I've been guilty of it too (not sexual though) . But some of these users' talk pages seem to be devoted mostly to non-encyclopedic content and that should not be overlooked. Add in the possible legal ramifications for our site due to soliciting of minors and I think we have a good reason to stop this. I'm pretty sure Florida has laws against soliciting minors, isn't that where a lot of those Dateline busts happened recently? There are probably federal laws as well. If it continues, blocking may be in order. The Ungovernable Force 09:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Endorse: Every step that we take, by commission or omission, that leads us closer to Friendster is a step into the abyss. Secondly, every time we allow or encourage chatting is a time away from encyclopedia writing. (Yeah, I like passing jokes and jousting, too.) Thirdly, it is very likely that all sides of this little psychodrama are staged and part of the performance art that is trollery. Fourthly, if this person(s) spent some time with a copy of Penthouse it would at least spare us having to watch. Geogre 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • endorse, per Geogre. Not sure if my non admin opinion is welcome here though. ~ c. tales *talk* 01:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I continue to press for expending more resources to protect children from predators (who pretend they are children), as well as combat trolls' "staged psychodramas" which pertain to that area. Review of parties directly —and loosely— associated with this particular case is warranted. El_C 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    At the request of another user, I am adding a brief follow-up here. I blocked Brohanska simply because I am absolutely convinced the user was a troll. If people out there do not believe the user was trolling, we should discuss the matter with a view to unblocking the user. It would be profoundly inappropriate to block a user because the user was a homosexual. A thorough reading of this user's fairly short contribution history was sufficient to fully convince me that the user was simply trolling, however. As to the other users, I see no reason to believe anyone else should be blocked at this time (nor any significant evidence that they are trolls). Misplaced Pages does have a right (and an obligation) to prevent the solicitation of underage users where we become aware of it and I feel it is profoundly inappropriate to use Misplaced Pages to discuss BDSM in particular and pornography in general with eleven year-olds. Partly because the user is eleven, partly because that's not what the Misplaced Pages is for. However, any such discussion seemed to be limited to "Aboy bringing pain to a girl, pleasurable!?" Possible cause for concern given the ages involved. However, I believe the comment that El_C posted ("you are not permitted") is plenty sufficient and will stop these users from doing that again. In summary: Brohanska blocked for trolling, other users have been warned. I believe this is entirely sufficient for what was most likely a rather innocent little conversation. --Yamla 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Crzrussian

    I have blocked Crzrussian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one day based on this personal attack. Fred Bauder 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Yet another example of inappropriate blocking for minor/dubious PA. The policy says clearly in extreme cases. Why don't the admins stick to the policies? Ackoz 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • FB! You completely misunderstood me!
      • Yas and I have settled our differences earlier, see s/his talk.
      • I was completely uninvolved with Hamas and had s/his talk on my watchlist due to our previous disagreements over Cat:Anti-arab people
      • The comment was absolutely not a personal attack against s/him, particularly since I don't have any reason to believe s/he is palestinian, rather it was a friendly and and obviously preposterous comment, made with the intention of fostering dialogue on the extent of Jew-Zionist world domination of Misplaced Pages.
      • Finally, even if you were justified in suspending AGF and interpreting my facetious comment as a P.A., surely something like {{NPA}} would have sufficed!
      • - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Note, there appears to be some edit conflicts here which the software is not handling well. Prior to Crzrussian's above comments, the following exchange occured here:

    In context, that doesn't look like a personal attack to me, it looks like an inappropriate sarcastic remark. JoshuaZ 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I won't reblock him. Fred Bauder 04:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Eeek. Quite inappropriate, but I'm sure Crz knows that already. Sarcastic funny comments can easily be interpreted the wrong way. And please, all pints of blood should be appropriately donated to the Red Cross/Red Crescent or your local blood authority -- Samir धर्म 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm half-inclined to block crzrussian for unblocking himself. But I suppose there would be no point.... Snottygobble 04:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Only the Red Cross or Red Crescent, not Magen David Adom? Anti-semite! (and yes, before I get blocked, this is meant as a joke). JoshuaZ 04:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Red Crystal now, /sigh -- Avi 05:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I agree with Crzrussian. I don't think he meant it as a personal attack against me, though how incredibly inappropriate! Yas121 05:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Really no point in blocking Crzrussian (I don't think for a second that his motives were anything but humour), but I'd advise him against unblocking himself in the future. And JoshuaZ, you owe me a pint of blood for that comment. Please send to Canadian Blood Services . -- Samir धर्म 05:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I am O-negative, but I'm too underweight to give blood. JoshuaZ 05:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. I don't agree with the initial block, but I'm suspicious of self-unblocking too. Isopropyl 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Point on unblocking taken. They won't let me donate blood because I've had Hepatitis A as a kid. That's the American rule, I was told. Is there any sense to this, Doc? In Russia everyone's had it, and it's 100% ok to donate! - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    No, Hep A is ok in Canada at least. I'll happily take it in a few hours as I'm flying someone in with a massive bleed for the morning. In Soviet Russia, blood donates you? -- Samir धर्म 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Stalin's Five Pint Plan? Isopropyl 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not to beat a dead horse, but I would not advise against unblocking oneself, or express suspicion of it, I would advise Crzrussian that it is the clearest grounds for desysopping I can think of, and never acceptable except in the rare event of a technical mistake. Dmcdevit·t 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    (Edit conflict with Dmcdevit) Whoa! Advise him against unblocking himself in the future..? Unblocking yourself is blatant misuse of admin tools. CrzRussian, you should have known the policy against self-unblocking, and common sense should have told you that you don't get to use admin powers to give yourself advantages that regular users don't have. That's just not what they're for. I blinked with surprise when I saw your "Needless to say, I have unblocked myself" on Fred Bauder's page, and then your assurance on your talkpage that you have enough credit with the community to act like this. No, you don't. Credit with the community is quite easily lost. Bishonen | talk 05:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

    OK, just to make clear - I did not state I had enough credit to unblock myself - I said I have enough credit to stay unblocked having (erroneously)(maliciously) unblocked myself. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sure. Advise him against unblocking himself in the future (without a question mark). It was certainly not the right thing to do. He's been advised. I'm certain he'll never do it again. Time to move on. -- Samir धर्म 05:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think Crazy realizes that now. Perhaps he should reblock himself and then let one of you unblock him, for propriety's sake; and no, I think I'm Hep-A negative. -- Avi 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    OK. All your points on self-unblocking are taken. I am open to recall. All those who wish to cast the first stone drink a pint..... nevermind... should apply for recall as is their prerogative. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    People may not know how. How about linking to the recall page? Bishonen | talk 05:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
    Sure. Category:Administrators open to recall - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Crazy, no need for exsanguinatory displays of hyperbole. You would have been unblocked, you know not to do it yourself, and we all have our red corpuscles. What more could we want? Maybe some Scots blood pudding? Although it isn'y kosher :) -- Avi 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


    Unblocking yourself after 5mins...How unfair!! Incidently he (Crzrussian) blocked me few days ago for 24hrs without discussig with me or giving me any kind of proper reason. When I complained in IRC that's exactly what they (Slowking Man) said to him that he a)should have discussed etc and b)not just blocked himself. Anyway I was told there's nothing I can do. I had to stay blocked for 24hrs as the complaints procedure takes even longer than that!...Hmm I guess it's good to be an Admin! Yas121 05:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    As you well enough know, I blocked you per this warning (among others) and the note I left on your talk page. Your unblock request was denied by another sysop. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Excuse me sir! Had I been Palestinian I may not have quite seen it as a *joke*!! any more than he would a similar comment about Jews. Yas121 05:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Joke? Where? I said, "obviously preposterous" and "facetious" comment. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well then, I encourage the interested to take a look at my recommendation for Crzrussian's recall, per his suggestion above. Dmcdevit·t 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    The blocking was not appropriate, as it was a sarcastic comment, not a personal attack. The self-unblocking was also inappropriate; he should have simply raised it on his Talk: page, like everyone else. Crzrussian seems to be repentant though, and I assume he wouldn't do it again, so I don't see the point in taking it further at this point. Jayjg 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    The rationale for blocking?

    I can't find anything in the blocking rules to justify a block for making one "utterly and completely tasteless comment". I can't support any rational or rules behind this block. We don't block someone for making a stupid personal attack that was meant as a joke. Blocking an admin with a good reputation for what you interpret as a personal attack ? Please explain, because I sure don't understand it. I feel there is something more behind this block other than a stupid comment. --mboverload@ 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Excuse me sir! Had I been Palestinian I may not have quite seen it as a *joke*!! any more than he would a similar comment about Jews. --Yas121 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Just because you're offended doesn't mean that's a reason to block. I'm serious, someone tell me the reason behind the block. --mboverload@ 09:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, here's the comment: ":::Mmmm... yes... a pint of palestinian blood would be a fine dessert right now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)" This was put on the talk page of a user who had been making edits which present an Arab point of view. The context was a dialog in response to this outrageous post by Ruy Lopez which attempts to exploit Yas121's presumed discontent with our "Zionist bias". In that context, the remark Crzrussian inserted seemed to me outrageous. Perhaps it was just an attempt to make a joke to break the tension. I don't know what was in his mind. Interestingly Yas121 seemed to react maturely, even to someone who had recently blocked him. I will point out something. I blocked Crzrussian for one day. I did not propose desysopping him. I don't see unblocking yourself as meriting automatic desysopping. An administrator does not always have to be mature, just generally so. However, making a facetious remark in the context he did is outrageous. Fred Bauder 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmm... so I did something outrageous, just people can't quite agree what. I'm not terribly sure what the intention was... Best way to put it is, I wanted to escalate the preposterousness to get Yas to drop the Jews control Misplaced Pages line of thinking. I still don't see my comment as outrageous. Stupid, maybe.
    It's pretty clear by now that I will have to resign my mop. Which is a shame, since I think I have made myself very useful with it, and nobody seems to have weighed that yet. Nor did anyone weigh the fact that I've bestowed only a handful of (hopefully proper) blocks, focusing instead of deletions. Everyone should know that I am not bitter, and that my wife will be incredibly grateful if two more dedicated individuals step up for their pint of blood. All you sysops, prepare to handle 100 more deletions per day yourselves! :) Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I take no position on this but it is not at all clear to me that such an outcome is desireable or foregone. See below. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I just want to drop in and say that what is occuring here is utterly ridiculous. I think an RfC and a reminder that people are watching you is proper enough for a mistake made. Other admins and editors seem to make ridiculous comments but fly by under the radar. If you have an issue first make an RfC, then take it from there. To suddenly become happy to de-SysOp someone over something else when their other contributions outweight that heavily, is out of line and a waste of our time when there are bigger issues to fry. I think it is fairly obvious that Crz will not abuse the tools and will act more within acceptable lines. Yanksox 16:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm dropping in too (I didn't need the pint of blood for my patient). Other admins have said far more inappropriate things than this. CrzRussian is clearly apologetic for his actions, and I'm certain he's learned from this for the future. An RfC may be appropriate, but instigating a de-sysopping over this? He's an intelligent and highly active administrator. An apology is all that is required in my eyes -- Samir धर्म 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oooh! Advocates! Now copy that to my talk page, boys! - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose as well. It is true that too many admins treat adminship like a Golden Ticket or a Get Out of Jail Free card. It is way to early to make that determination here. Everyone stumbles. The admins who deserve to be de-sysopped are the ones who refuse to admit they have done anything wrong and take corrective criticism as persecution. Good admins learn from their stumbles and their peers and become wiser. The issues raised on your talk page deserve serious consideration but it is much too early to fall on your sword. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agree. Jayjg 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    BITE also applies to new admins: " Remember, every administrator starts as a newbie admin and every admin has made at least one admin-related mistake! Help them out with their new powers as you would help a newcomer with the rest of Misplaced Pages." Crz has only been an admin since June 8. Let's put this down to teething troubles, as I don't think it's going to be repeated in a hurry. It would be a particular sign of good faith if Crz stated that he would help Yas121 to address his concerns. Tyrenius 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Good point. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    This looks like a test case, and currently there is no provision for "Advocates" to get in the way of a proposed recall. I don't think the system as currently constituted scales worth a damn, but that's not the point. CrazyRussian has said he'd go through with it as advertised if he gets 6 opposers. Surely there's ought to be a reasonable time-limit on collecting those, however? -- nae'blis 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hm... borrowing loosely from the concept Res judicata, I imagine the six would have to come "from the same set of events,circumstance, or transactions." - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to suggest that we do something different than what we normally do, and just let this lie for a couple of days before rushing headlong into the breach. Does anyone think that everyone going away, doing other things, and coming back to this with a little mental space would be a bad idea? I fear that we often move too fast. - brenneman 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support not rushing. That said, see also User_talk:Crzrussian#Recall_is_voluntary._Offer_of_clerkship.... my take is that the 6 people certifying a desire for a recall initiates a process (of the recallee's choice... an RfC, a discussion, a re RfA), not an instant desysopping... see also User:Lar/Accountability... that's my take and crzrussian is free to structure this as he sees fit (this suggests that after you add yourself it's a good thing to say exactly what it is you mean by it, it's supposed to be a bit unstructured) ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    No need to rush into anything. He's made a mistake as we all do sometimes. He's clearly learned from it. I'd keep a discreet eye and leave it at that. A yellow card, to use a football metaphor. --Guinnog 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hehe... we Russians know a thing or two about that... hehehe - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Here's your yellow then. Don't let it get to be a red. ;) --Guinnog 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    File:Yellowcard.png

    Mea Culpa

    Here goes:

    • While I am certain my comment to Yas was not a personal attack, I apologize to s/him or anyone whose feelings may have been hurt by its inappropriateness. I don't believe s/he was offended.
    • I acknowledge once again that the self-unblock was wrong. It resulted from ignorance of that portion of the unblock policy and from the heat of the moment. It's pretty damn clear that I will not do anything of the sort again.
    • I stand by the block to Yas a week ago, and emphatically deny the charge of edit warring. I acknowledge, however, the contructive criticism on how that block was handled.
    • Given all this, I'll be happy to stand down if two more editors believe that my de-mopping will be a net benefit to this project.

    Thanks all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Dear all, being just a regular user and not an Admin (in other words powerless) I wasn't going to add anything here. However I really think I should after reading "...I wanted to escalate the preposterousness to get Yas to drop the Jews control Misplaced Pages line of thinking..."

    • Firstly, Crzrussian you are right I was not offended by your comments (as you saw by my response ], hence you don't need to apologize to me, BUT like I said how could you know that? what if I was Palestinian, living through the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict?!? How would you feel if a Lebanese made similar remarks to you about Jews?
    • Secondly, I have read through Misplaced Pages policy and can't see how you can deny you were not Edit warring?] after Rev my edits about 9 times! Anyway, that's for the Admins to decide not me.
    • Thirdly, can you please point me to where I have stated that "Jews control Misplaced Pages"!?! So I don't understand why you would say that other than to try and give some legitimacy to the reasons behind your comments.
    • Lastly, on a seperate note...I wish this kind of thorough debate occurred over at Hamas where I've been trying frutlessly to discuss merits of a neutral article in an encyclopedia over just a "damming report" and explain that US-Israel views (right or wrong) do not represent the entire planet. But powers that be, don't really seem at all interested, so far not a single word has been allowed to alter, nor the format in the article. All under the famous guise of "Rev POV" followed shortly by the classic 3RR warning (Thanks Jayjg for Rv all my edits and the Ban warning)...Actually I did manage to get someone to finally stick that POV banner on top of the article so Yayy! Anyway that's my 2 bobs worth on the matter.

    --Yas121 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    It is, I think, relevant that Crz was sufficiently familiar with you as to be confident that you'd not take his comment as untoward; I imagine that he'd not have made such a comment to someone with whom he was altogether unfamiliar (although I'd have serious concerns vis-à-vis an editor's inter-personal stability and intellectual fitness were he/she to be off-put by such non-disruptive jocularity). I, similarly, have on occasion left comments on Crz's talk page apropos of the Jewish conspiracy that surely underlies all in the world, because I expect that such comments will not be disruptive. Joe 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    In support of recall

    Since it seems clear to me that many of the above commenting on the proposal for Crzrussian's recall haven't read my full reasoning, I'll reproduce it below. It's not just about unblocking himself, though that is about the most egregious single misconduct you can take as an admin, but also in abusing blocking and rollback, and showing poor judgment by edit warring and more. Dmcdevit·t 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Okay, I'll bite. You're in Category:Administrators open to recall, so here's my honest assessment. I no longer have full confidence in your judgment as an administrator. Not only did you unblock yourself, a serious no-no, and grounds enough for desysopping in my opinion, as well as making the very ill-considered comment that led to it , you blocked an editor with which you were directly engaged in edit warring, , for what was clearly a content dispute, and which you so much as admit in your threat, saying future attempts to inject this POV will be met with a block, inadequately giving a block warning in an edit summary, of all places, inappropriately using rollback for content reverts and edit warring, and even edit warring in the first place. And I don't even know the bakground of why you were previously blocked for talk page spamming. As far as I'm concerned, your abuse of unblocking and blocking powers, and rollback, and demonstrating poor judgment in your comments and warnings, and certainly in even engaging in edit warring at all, all in just the last few days, are certainly enough for me to call your adminship into question. So, accordingly, I would ask that you resign your adminship until such time as the community can reconfirm its confidence in your judgment. Thank you. Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Your opinion has been made known. This is not an RfA. It is inappropriate to campaign for "Recall per nom" votes. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not. It is being discussed here. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that everyone read your talk page as well, and there are points brought up there that haven't been mentioned. Dmcdevit·t 20:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Aren't people meant to get warned for things on first offence, and given the chance to change, before action is launched against them? Tyrenius 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Depends on the offense. In this case, one presumes an admin is aware of the policy against unblocking oneself - its not an "oops" its a deliberate violation of the Rules. For a more extreme example, when one commits a crime one is usally not given a free pass the first time - one is aware it is illegal, one does it anyway - one reaps the consequences. To carry the analogy, an admin breaking this serious a rule is like a police officer breaking the law, which makes the case more serious, not less, because there is no recourse to the "ignorance of the law" defense, which if I recall correctly carries little or no weight anyway. One puppy's opionion. KillerChihuahua 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Normally, I'm one of the hanging judges, but I don't think unblocking yourself if you bring the matter up at AN/I or another forum is a particularly grievous offense. It all depends on what you do and why you do it. If you unblock yourself and go your merry way, that's one thing. If you unblock yourself and "turn yourself in" to get more voices in the deliberation, I don't think it is. I think evading is much worse than unblocking yourself. An unblock is an announcement, and it's not as bad as using another account, etc. That's just me, though. Geogre 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision#Dbiv desysopped - as of now 4 support this, and 3 oppose it. Tom Harrison 01:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Category:Administrators open to recall

    I honor User:Crzrussian for being ready to stand by the undertaking he signed, and I'm rather taken aback by the suggestions being made by other users here that his doing so should be traded for an admin RfC, or require community consensus (!), or that the users making the request are violating WP:BITE and I don't know what else. If I shared the view that it means strictly nothing to add oneself to a page headed "These adminstrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if six editors in good standing request it", I'd propose deletion of the "open to recall" page as meaningless. Surely any admin can be RfC'd for misuse of the tools without being listed any particular place, and it goes without saying that any admin will be de-sysopped if there's consensus for it — so what's the point of listing oneself on the recall page? Lar's take on the process as appropriately being complex and multi-layered also seems rather at odds with the process section on the recall page itself: ""Just ask, nicely, on the administrator's talk page, and if five others agree, it's done." Bishonen | talk 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

    Blocking is done not as a punishment but as a preventative measure. I believe recall should be on the same basis. This is the first time that Crzrussian has been called to task in this way and he has made his mea culpa. If it is now thought that he will repeat the errors, then recall is in order. If it is considered that he will not, then it seems a counter-productive exercise. Admins are not policemen, and wiki has different rules from police forces, one of them being AGF. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake, as long as it is not perpetuated. Furthermore, an admin's mistake(s) should be seen in context of their general record, not in isolation, as it is likely that those admins who do the most work are statistically also more likely to be the ones who make an error.Tyrenius 09:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Bishie: (and thanks a lot for singing my hair!!! :) ) Most (not all) RfCs relating to admins are hugely contentious, called against the admin's will, and often result in nothing useful at all happening, as the results are blithely disregarded. Sometimes they're pro forma, a prelude to ArbComm...
    The idea here is to be different:If I were to get recalled (because 6 users I felt qualified to do so asked for it), and I chose the RfC route (I refer you again to User:Lar/Accountability, where I list 3 choices I can make) what I'm pledging is; that it won't be called against my will, it won't be contentious if I have anything to say about it (I'll actively work to keep it civil), I'll participate politely and in good faith, and I will honor the outcome instead of disregarding it, without forcing the case to ArbCom by being intransigent. That's a big big difference from how most of them go. If the current category (or my template) wording doesn't make it clear that this is a voluntary process and that the admin in question has some say in what it means, but that it's real, and binding, then correction is in order. I don't think it is process heavy. Now, it appears that Crzrussian has chosen the "resign my powers and stand again for adminship;" (in 2 months time apparently) choice of the three I list, as is his perogative. I'd rather see him do an RfC if this is certified, but it's his choice. Hopefully that helps clarify... ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    That is correct. If a motion of no confidence is passed, I will surrender my sysop status, to be regained by means of another RfA. The two months is an optional choice I am making to allow a bygones-be-bygones argument. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Spam solicitation for Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch

    User D-Boy has spam solicited support for the page User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch in its AfD., , , , .Timothy Usher 06:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Interesting....considering these are users associated with it....--D-Boy 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    WP:SPAM reads "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view". This page appears to have been created precisely for participants with (and against editors without) a certain POV, such that a post to all its participants is inherently spam.Timothy Usher 07:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I disagree. This came about because were stalking me. It is that simple. My editors have a right to know what happens to their project. Also, attacking me for such thing and participating in the afd makes your arguement extremely provacative and disrupting.--D-Boy 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Seems to be a clear cut case of WP:SPAM to me. JoshuaZ 07:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not at all. Just some user harassing me because I do not agree with his views on an AFD.--D-Boy 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Though it may be edging towards spam, I think the members of a project, no matter how POV it is have a right to know that it is being deleted. Besides, it is not votes that count in an AfD but is based on consensus. I'm sure the person closing the debate and reaching the verdict would do enough research to find out which people are part of the organisation and which are not. Gizza 09:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think wiki already have Watchlist (which alerts you of every change),interested members may discuss AfD if they want.Holy | Warrior 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well, the steps for AFD page says it's a good idea to notify good-faith contributers that a page is up for deletion. Now we can debate if any editors of the page are really acting in good faith, but I don't see why alerting the main contributers of a page that it's up for AFD is bad. The Ungovernable Force 09:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Good point. I withdraw my comment. JoshuaZ 13:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Wouldn't you assume that members would have the project page on their watchlist anyway? So while D-Boy's posts may have been slightly redundant, I see no reason to drag him here as a spammer. Rather, since "voting is evil" anyway, I encourage all "fundy watchers" to constructively attempt to recognize the problems with their project, and to transform what is useful into a more acceptable framework. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Okay, dab, maybe not. It looked like POV-based "aggressive cross-posting" to me, but I see your point.Timothy Usher 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I don't consider it spam ok? He told me to look at it yes, but I willingly voted on it. Timothy Usher is just on a crusade against D-boy.Bakaman%% 14:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    The very same accusation you levied against me... BhaiSaab 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well in three days, four (if you include the list page of mine) pages of ours have been attacked by you and Usher. Meanwhile the "pack" (not a racist slur now) and Holywarrior have been relatively quiet. It seems they used you to carry a massive blitz on the "Hindutva brigade".Bakaman%% 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    No one used me for anything, nor do I know who the pack is, who Holywarrior is, and I know very little about Hindutva. BhaiSaab 20:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    This bothers me a lot. AfD is theoretically not a vote, but in practice it is one, except for blatant cases of single-purpose accounts suddenly appearing from off-wiki and that sort of thing. If an organized group of shared-POV editors participates in an AfD, then at minimum, there should certainly be a notice about it inserted into the AfD to help the closing admin determine the general community consensus. Phr (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I would suggest voting right should be given to only those editors who have sufficient number of edit counts , not to everyone.Holy | Warrior 10:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Falsifying user comments

    Is there a policy against falsifying the comments by other users? User: 24.115.41.168 made this edit to the United States Senate elections, 2006 article to support their change from one election prediction source to another. The user has been trying to make the change ever since the account was created and has not made any attempt to join in on discussions other to make a disparaging remark regarding the current election prediction source. Just went back to the talk page for the article and discovered that the user reverted a comment I made pointing out that the comments they added were the opinion of only one user and also the warning I left on their user talk. Thanks! --Bobblehead 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I blocked the IP for 24 hours. -- Kjkolb 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, there is a policy against forging comments. Not sure about the link though. ~ c. tales *talk* 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:70.130.157.4 Vandalism only?

    70.130.157.4 (talk · contribs) has made <10 edits in the last little while, all vandalism. Can s/he be blocked or banned?--Anchoress 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    See WP:AIV.--Andeh 08:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm familiar with that page. However, the instructions say only to list there if the editor continues vandalising after receiving a final warning. This user has stopped, but the account is all vandalism, no regular edits. I've seen other vandals with similar circumstances listed here and dealt with, which is why I posted here.--Anchoress 09:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. Edits were especially egregious -- Samir धर्म 09:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Keep in mind that this is an IP address, not a registered account, so an indefinite block isn't likely for a first offense. --Emufarmers 09:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not indefinite. 24 hours. Didn't look dynamic to me. We'll see if there's collateral damage, but I doubt it. -- Samir धर्म 09:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Still report it at WP:AIV if you are unsure, don't worry admins won't mind if you report vandals that haven't vandalised enough.--Andeh 11:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    OK will do.--Anchoress 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Bigotted ranting on a talk page

    Samir Kuntar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been subject to constant vandalism by IP addresses that led to its semiprotection, and its talk page (Talk:Samir Kuntar (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) is constantly being blanked and replaced by an anti-semitic rant. There needs to be something done about the constant vandalism to the talk page that appears to be done by 81.158.0.0/16 and 81.159.0.0/16 both of which belong to BT Broadband. There needs to be something done that does not need to result in semiprotection of the talk page, as well.

    So far, the vandal has only been subject to those ranges, however BT Group has 81.128.0.0 - 81.159.255.255 at its disposal (per ARIN searches).

    A single user, named Richard100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized the talk page, as well, doing the same vandalism. —Ryūlóng 09:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I've watchlisted it, that's really all you can do - keep reverting. Richard100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pretty clear block (and is blocked indef). Semi-protection is obviously a bad thing for most talk pages except under extreme circumstances (as you've correctly pointed out), and I don't think rangeblocking something like 130,000 IPs from BT is a good idea for what is really simple vandalism. Just keep reverting it IMO. --james 09:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Wikipe-tan and WP:SELF

    Moved to Talk:Fan service -- Samir धर्म 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Edit war on List of concentration and internment camps

    I've protected this page due to a content dispute that has become an edit war, with multiple reverts, after one well meaning newbie listed the page prematurely on WP:RARB. A related dispute looks to be developing on Internment, I haven't protected that page yet. --woggly 09:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well done. That claim is straight WP:OR. Just zis Guy you know? 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Hatred vandal

    Hatred comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-Brahmanism and a host of other pages (see his contribs) by Yeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Typical example of his edits:

    Please wait till I put up the racist philosophy of Bhraminism as written in their scriptures, No sane man in this world can support it. You are obviously trying to spread misinformation. the oppressed classes are at the recieving end due to this philosophy, not the oppressors.(There have been 5 bhramin prime ministers in India though their population is less than 2%. Is this discrimination against bharmins or preference)

    here. and

    I request Wiki to remove this Topic from WikiProject Hinduism. Usurping Ayurveda and calling it a Part of hinduism is a cunning tactic of the Bhramins to cover their crimes. - Yeditor

    here --→Talk 11:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Urgent: User:MagentaThompson is a sock of User:PennyGWoods and is threatening me...again

    This is just a heads up. A few months ago, Penny was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and (literally) death threats involving the Halle Berry page. Well in the last few days, she has returned as User:MagentaThompson. I didn't catch it until she used the exact same language and style as Penny. Here is an edit by Magenta and here is an edit by Penny. And here is a long convo I had with Penny in which she uses the same style as Magenta. Anyway, I blocked Magenta indefinitely since she's a banned user trying to get around the ban by starting a new account. She then she used an IP and essentially admitted that she was the same person. I'm writing this as a heads up since she extensively used sockpuppets the last time she was blocked, so please watch out for it. If we can get as many people as we can watchlisting Halle Berry and Nona Gaye, that'd be great. Thanks. --Woohookitty 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Wonderful. And she just gave me another veiled death threat. I think I'll cross-post this to AN. --Woohookitty 12:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    And now this. --Woohookitty 12:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    And this. --Woohookitty 13:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's not actually a death threat, she just wants you to die. Looks like ye olde 'block and revert on sight until she buggers off' issue. I removed the 'waste of air' post in question from the talk page (I don't think I was breaking the thread), banned users don't get to soapbox. The Magenta posts should probably be left in given their length and the users that have replied to them. --Sam Blanning 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I've been marking the ips with sockpuppet tags, but I don't have any belief that blocking the ips would be useful, considering how much they are bouncing around them (last two have been singapore at least, don't know about the earlier one). Syrthiss 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Yep she's been jumping all over the place. The IPs have not been consistent in any sense of the word. From what dmcdevit told me, it's taken care of. He has CheckUser rights. From what he said, it's been "checkusered to death" and she's stopped for now. Singapore is where she is from it sounds like. I would take what she said as a death threat, Sam, but even if it isn't, it's a very clear cut indef block. I'm just glad that she slipped since I had absolutely no inkling it was Penny. But yeah I have no problem with keeping her posts as long as they were made pre-block. --Woohookitty 07:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Wikistalker

    This user seems to be following around another user, reverting his/her edits with edit summaries accusing the person of being a 'paedophile'.--Anchoress 12:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Please use WP:AIV in future.--Andeh 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    OK. Or maybe I just won't bother telling anyone when I see something going wrong in the future. :-(--Anchoress 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    The user had actually been blocked six minutes before you posted. Thanks for reporting it, but Andeh is right, WP:AIV will get you a much quicker response in future. --Sam Blanning 13:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't know wikistalking was vandalism. I think I'm just going to go back to minding my own business, this is too complicated. :-) --Anchoress 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Anchoress: while this would normally be the place for inter-editor issues that require admin intervention (!), when the person is reverting edits of another it can be considered vandalism, and WP:AIV (if you deal with it as a vandalism issue) will have a much faster response time than if you post here and deal with it as a wikistalking issue. AIV's kept on many admin watchlists and updated quite frequently, whereas posts here tend to get discussed a bit before things happen, in general. So, if it can be considered vandalism, then it's just faster to use AIV since people act upon posts there faster. Hope that helps! ~Kylu (u|t) 17:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Edit war / Muhammad

    I was innvolved in a discussion lately regarding a compromise re the intro of Muhammad. Please refer to Compromise and Can we vote yet? for detailed discussions. There were 2 main parties (maybe 3 depending on tinny details) who were discussing whether specifying that Muhammad established or not the religion of Islam. There was no concensus whatever re this matter. The 2 disputed versions are the following:

    Please advise. -- Szvest 12:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Please don't, because there is absolutely no reason to do so!
    This issue was already discussed ad nauseam, with the earlier "edit war" being long over until Szvest alone re-started it pointlessly a few days ago. But there is absolutely nothing left that needs to be chewed on again.
    Szvest (FayssalF) tactically (mis)uses the "NPOV policy" as a pretext in order to cover up the historical facts ideologically through "islamizing" them. There can be no rational doubt that the formulation he happens to disagree with is objectively correct and scientifically impeccable:
    "Muhammad (Template:Lang-ar Template:ArabDIN; also Mohammed and other variants) established the religion of Islam and the Muslim community."
    Szvest omitted the footnote :
    "This does not mean that Muhammad was the first to propagate the submission to one god (= monotheism). Here, "Islam" and "Muslim" are used in their active lexical senses, not in their etymological senses."
    We really should not be taken for a ride by Szvest!--Editorius 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Assume good faith. -- Szvest 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    You have given me reasons to assume otherwise.--Editorius 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    No Editorius. I've been givin' you good reasons such as avoiding a double standard stances in WP (see Jesus and many other prophets, gods and Satan himself). -- Szvest 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, you still haven't read the statement in combination with the footnote, have you?!
    For if you had, you couldn't sensibly assert any longer that the formulation in question was "POV-ish", because stating the indubitable historical fact that Muhammad is the founder of Islam does not imply that he is the founder of monotheism in general.--Editorius 13:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's another issue. I am talking about who says he did establish anything? If you are basing that on historical documents, so i do. There are two camps re this matter. Non-muslim historical views and Muslim ones, just like what WP NPOV means. -- Szvest 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    There is only one view that really matters: the view of the science of history, which, in itself, is neither pro- nor anti-Islamic.--Editorius 14:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    You mean the science that Ibn Khaldoun defined? -- Szvest 14:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I swear I didn't conspire with Editorius when I made the same argument, nearly word-for-word, on Talk:Muhammad. Had Misplaced Pages existed in the 15th century, it would have certainly used Ibn Khaldun as a source. Last time I checked, it was the 21st century, though. Pecher 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    "Please advise" - Mediation? Request for comment? Working it out on the noticeboard would be a distant third option. Tom Harrison 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe a request of comment may sort this out Tom. In fact, i came here as it's been an incident. -- Szvest 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Fayssal, this issue was resolved and buried long time ago; don't make us go through it again. Pecher 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Believe me or not Pecher. I've just noted lately that the established was there. I've not touched the article since than as to avoid headaches. Now i hear that Editorius and you too are talking about a concensus. This is the point. Where's that concensus? -- Szvest 14:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oh my goodness...!!! — The verb "establish" occurs in connection with Muhammad. — What in God's name can we do against this utterly grotesque distortion of history, against this grossly perverted verbal frenzy ...?!--Editorius 17:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


    I don't know if I like the dichotomy of "Non-Muslims believe" and "Muslims believe" but it beats the alternative. Muhammad established Islam and the Muslim community... well, I don't think that makes sense according to modern historians... They obviously don't believe that he was a prophet to whom God revealed the Qur'an but... they also don't believe that he established Islam and the community. There is talk of evolution of Islam... not just an establishment by a single man. I don't think it's clear at all that he established Islam and not only from the Muslim perspective but from the iconoclast perspective. It is indisputable that he is the central figure of Islam... I don't particularly care for either of them... gren グレン 22:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    So dodge the issue—the intro doesn’t have to contain a millenium of scholarly controversy.
    Muhammad (birth–death, native and alternative spellings) is a central figure in Islam. The revelation of the Qur'an to him is the conventional beginning of the religion. Adherents of Islam see Muhammad as the last and final prophet of Islam.
    Or some such thing. English is a reasonably rich language (compared to Klingon), so use it. —xyzzyn 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    John Esposito in his book "What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam" p. 4-5 writes: As Christians view their revelation as both fulfilling and completing the revelation of the Old Testament, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad received his revelation from God through the angle Gabriel to correct human error that had made its way into the scripture and belief systems of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore Muslims believe that Islam is not a new religion with a new scripture. Far from being the youngest of the major monotheistic world religions, from a Muslim point of view Islam is the oldest because it represents the original as well as the final revelation of the God to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. "He established for you the same religion as that which He established for Noah, that which We have sent to you as inspiration through Abraham, Moses and Jesus namely that you should remain steadfast in religion and make no divisions within it" (Quran 42:13)

    Therefore "Non-Muslims believe he established the religion of Islam and the Muslim community... Muslims believe him to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed." is more accurate but it is better to be clarified even further. --Aminz 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ongoing vandalism by Manuel de Sousa's sockpuppets

    M.deSousa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has stepped up his vandalism campaign, not merely by vandalising articles but now by creating phoney ones. The background is complex: Portugal is a republic. It ditched its monarchy in 1910. A mysterious woman claimed to be the illegitimate daughter of one of Portugal's last kings and had her own merry band of supporters pushing this 'claim'. De Sousa is one of those. He has spent over a year rewriting articles to delete or downgrade mentions of the real pretender and substitute this woman, one Hilda Toledano, and the man she named as her "heir". Curiously this "heir" is based in northern Italy. De Sousa's edits place him in northern Italy also. It is quite possible that de Sousa is one of the so-called "heir"'s court and is trying to use Misplaced Pages to push his boss's dodgy claim to be Portuguese king.

    De Sousa has been vandalising articles to write in propaganda selling Toledano for over a year. Having been banned from the site, he now jumps between IPs. Users have sought to semi-protect his usual targets but invariably some well mean admin takes down the protection after sometimes a day or two, leading to a new outbreak of vandalism by Sousa practically the moment the s-protection is taken down.

    De Sousa, having found some of his articles blocked through semi-protection, is now resorting to creating new articles to push the agenda which I have deleted. Given that this vandalism by Sousa shows no sign of stopping, and is probably linked to an attempt to push use Misplaced Pages to push a political agenda by supporters of a 'candidate', does anyone have any suggestions as to what to do next? The current situation, where the same group of users have had to spent months constantly reverting the edits of de Sousa's sockpuppets, protecting or semi-protecting pages, issuing warnings and blocks that go unheeded, can't go on. Any suggestions? FearÉIREANN\ 12:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe take this to ArbCom?? --TheM62Manchester 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    A suggestion - look out for sleeper sock puppet accounts - similar to General Tojo, WoW and the NCV's modus operandi. --TheM62Manchester 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    NoRCalD503 and Stanford University

    NoRCaLD503 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting remarks about Stanford's football's 2005-2006 season into the main Stanford University article -- remarks that are factually true, but are fairly irrelevant in the overall context of the Stanford article., , , , , . This is not yet a 3RR violation, but it's getting close. His edit summaries have also grown increasingly insulting. Since he has been making productive edits as well (and because I've been reverting him a couple times), I've declined to warn him at the moment, but I'd like for someone else to step in and give (friendly, to start with) warnings to hopefully get him around. Help would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:My 42 (Base 13)

    Indefblocked by meh. Syrthiss 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thankee kindly. -Hit bull, win steak 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Derek.rhodes

    Hi. Sorry to bother the admins, but I am not experienced enough to deal with this one. Please see Derek Rhodes A SPD tag was placed on this article, first because it was empty, and then because it was a bio of a non-notable person. In both cases the creator removed the tags (in violation, I believe of Misplaced Pages policy). He was instructed that the bio page was inappropriate. I would add a comment to his talk page, but I'm not sure of the right protocol (I'd like to learn, though, so if someone could let me know, I'd appreciate it.) Thanks. CPAScott 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    It seems Friday has already taken care of it - but I just swiped the history and protected the page (since {{deletedpage}} means little on it's own). Ian¹³/t 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    John Gilmore (Writer) requesting Administrator's intervention

    I am John Gilmore (Writer); I am being bombarded by attacks and libelous slander from Bill Dakota AKA William Dakota. He is continully posting dispute notices on my site, linking the reader to his "Talk" in which he is attemtping to slander me by outrageous claims and false information. I have sent several emails to info-en-@wikipedia.org, but so far without success. Please assisst in the removal of this unfounded, negative and libelous material and further attacks from this person.

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.222.19 (talk • contribs)

    Could you please provide links, and tell us which pages this is happening on? Thanks! Ian¹³/t 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    John Gilmore (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I presume. See #User:WILLIAM_DAKOTA above. —xyzzyn 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I presume this relates to the edits that User:WILLIAM DAKOTA (also editing as User:Writer Bill Dakota) has made to John Gilmore (writer). Looking at the edit history, WD has sought to insert a lengthy unsourced section which other editors have since removed but simply moved the deleted content to the article's talk page. I presume this is what the anonymous user is complaining about.
    I've deleted the offending talk page and added the {{talkheader}} template to the page to head off repeats of this incident. WD has, I believe, also been causing problems on Hollywood Star (repeatedly blanking the article). I'll leave a message on his talk page warning him not to try silly things like this again. -- ChrisO 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Having reviewed WD's edit history, he seems have made a habit of this sort of thing and the behaviour described by the complainant is egregrious. I've blocked WD for a month per WP:BLOCK#Biographies of living persons. -- ChrisO 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Bizarre problem on RfC

    A few days ago I opened an RfC on a persistent problem user, Ferick, which is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ferick. An anonymous user has posted this to the RfC, this to my talk page and this to Ferick's talk page. The net effect of the anonymous user's comments is to portray me (falsely, of course) as anti-Muslim. However, the same user made a series of edits to the Kosovo article last week, reverting it to an Albanian-nationalist version preferred by Ferick (see the edit history). I believe this is the same person who made identical edits around the same time from 172.214.0.245, 81.132.186.22 and 87.86.8.3 - all apparently compromised hosts. From the edit history and edit summaries, I strongly suspect that the anon is Ferick himself, trying to smear me as anti-Muslim and pro-Serb and to portray the RfC as being part of a supposed effort to promote "Christian culture" in Kosovo.

    I don't believe that the anon's comments should remain in the RfC. At the very least, this seems to be a case of gaming the system. However, as an involved party I obviously can't remove them myself. This is a most unusual situation; I don't think I've ever come an editor behaving in this way before. Any advice? -- ChrisO 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Obvious solution is for someone to insert a comment into the RfC about the attempted manipulation. I'll do it if you want. Would that satisfy? Phr (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Requested block review

    (I'm making this request as a proxy/advocate of some kind. I personally wouldn't make the request, but I believe the user in question may benefit by seeing the wider opinion of multiple admins on his current block and the situation leading to it.)

    Pat8722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked and would like to see admins review the merits of the block. He believes the block is unwarranted, politically motivated, and against policy. The most recent relevant sections of the user's talk page are "Blocked" and "Blocked again". Note that an unblock-request was abortively made but answered anyway. Due to the request being aborted (the user had formatting problems with their attempt), they are not considering the unblock-answer authoritative. Even if it is authoritative by community standards, I still believe that hearing the views of a small multiple of admins may do the user good.

    If all y'all would indulge this out-of-turn request, that would be very gracious of you. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Attacking user in edit summaries

    I added {{defwarn}} to an IP page because of these edit summaries. Should they be blocked? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I've removed the edits from the articles' history. Naconkantari 22:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:71.154.208.74

    The troll is a stalker and I suspect he has multiple accounts. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:John_Murtha 132.241.246.111 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Not stalking and not using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts. I have identified this editor by location (Chico) exactly because he or she has been using more than one IP. (I do not object to him or her doing this, but a common identifier is then desirable.) Like 132.241.246.111, I am using both no account and multiple IPs. 132.241.246.111 has been systematically editing articles to give them pro-Democrat or anti-Republican spin. In some cases, he or she has gone so far as to erase inconvenient facts; in other cases he ore she has presented illogical inferences as plain fact; at other times, he or she simply seeks word choice to insinuate a valuation. —71.154.208.74 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    See what I mean about stalking? 132.241.246.111 21:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Responding to your accusations about me is hardly stalking.71.154.208.74 —21:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Following people around on the internet=stalking. 132.241.246.111 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'll leave it to the Administrators to examine your record (including accusations from others of vandalism of other articles), look at the bald "lol" and whatnot in your edit summariesm, and so forth. —71.154.208.74 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I can't help it if your hate for Democrats is funny. 132.241.246.111 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Loss of Patience

    WillC has certianly worn out his/her welcome on Job (professional wrestling). He/She is constantly reverting the page or changing the page to include trivial, if acurate, information. There is a large consensus against the material that he/she is trying to add, and was able to weasel out of a WP:3RR banning on a few technicalities.

    Aside from his blatent disregard of the Misplaced Pages Community's opinion on quality, he/she has also taken it a step further, accusing several contributors of being puppets to another user.

    It is my opinion that this child needs a time out, unless there is a way to administer virtual spankings... 'Cuz that'd be even better...

    Sorry, I'm just tired of the whineing, and I know everyone else is too.

    -NickSentowski 19:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Have you tried dispute resolution ? --pgk 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • WillC said that he made a request for arbitration. I assumed that facet was exhausted. Now that I check, he was simply using arbitration as a threat, and never actually requested it.- NickSentowski 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Or not making not-so-subtle personal attacks against him on administrative noticeboards? --InShaneee 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I know this is a blatent personal attack, and I've suffered several from his hands already. Sure, I'm getting carried away, but I'd be willing to put money down that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Hell, even if I have to serve a few days to get him to serve his, it'll be worth it to the community. - NickSentowski 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • That's not how it works. If you keep making personal attacks like that, you'll be serving a block very much alone. --InShaneee 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Would you call this personal attack extreme, InShanee? I don't think so, he doesn't go around calling someone asshole or dumbass all the time right? So, where do you find the criteria for blocking for personal attack met? The answer is nowhere, remember, that according to WP policies, your next step in PA would be walking away, ignoring, trying to persuade the user to restrain from the PA. But certainly not threatening to block him or actually blocking him. We sure do have nice policies and rules here, friendly etc., so please try to stick to them, don't go around threatening editors because you are the demi-god admin. Ackoz 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I have tried to reason with these people; we came to a consensus once, and then what was agreed upon by us two was reverted by someone else. I have begged and pleaded for arbitration/compromise, yet all I get from them is reverts without explanation. I too have lost my patience. I expanded the article in question exponentially the last several months, only to have them dismantle it. I post facts. They delete them for fun. WillC 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Nick. I'm tired of WillC as well. He needs to be mature, or just not be on Misplaced Pages. You don't post facts, you post non-notable things. Comedy isn't used much in jobbing, but you just won't understand that. The Ding Dongs and a few examples in the new ECW isn't enough for a comedy relief section or note. Non-notable doesn't belong on, period. It isn't people just "deleting them for fun". RobJ1981 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I also don't appreciate what WillC has done, and I don't agree with their inclusion. The only consensus that was reached was that the info was not notable and should not be included. WillC has called us names and has made untrue accusations. I don't think any of us where denying that your example is fact and has happened, it just wasn't notable for the article. It also appears that WillC has been banned several times already for personal attacks and 3RR violations. Maybe a long-term or permablock should be considered. I just hope that something is done. --Renosecond 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I think the above adequately answers Pgk's question of whether you have tried actual dispute resolution as a "no". Consider making a request for comment or request for mediation (formal or informal). Please only post on administrator boards if administrator tools are required. --Sam Blanning 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I think that WillC should be fired from wikipedia. --Renosecond 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    You will need proof that I called you names and made untrue accusations. My contributions page shows good faith additions and edits to that article months before you got there. And the fact that you all have made it to this page one right after the other to condemn me, just as you did on the page in question, shows you are in cahoots. I did not know that they key to success on Misplaced Pages was gangs. And the last comment by Renosecond shows just who here is the immature one. WillC 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm just giving my opinion, and it was not the best or worst thing that I said right above. You've been banned like 5 times, that's enough to show that you are a volitile editor. And look at what you put in some of the edit summaries, "check with your fellow conspirator", that's name calling. You really need to just get away from the page and just move on. --Renosecond 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Saying we are in cahoots, is basically a personal attack in my opinion. You don't know us, so don't make assumptions. People being online and posting around the same time means nothing. RobJ1981 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    But setting me up by agreeing to a compromise on my talk page, then seeing a third party come and revert my edits so you can complain about it, smells suspicious. WillC 00:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm going to try one more time. There is incivility going on here, on both sides, and it's obviously very tiresome, but at this stage I don't see anything meriting a block. Try solving the problem amongst yourselves through mediation or an RfC, or no-one is going to give a rodent's hindquarters. --Sam Blanning 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    We don't really even need an arbritrator on the article, there is concensus. The user in question just refuses to see it. Everyone, go to the Job discussion page, and vote. This should make it black or white for him. - NickSentowski 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Again, vote stacking is not how to resolve a dispute. --InShaneee 18:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    This entire issue is the result of a large group of editors disagreeing with what few editors believe is notable. What's a better solution if a vote is inadequate? We aren't being puppets, this is a fully legetimate vote. - NickSentowski 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    THE LADIES DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH!WillC 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    WP:NOT a democracy, and votes are not binding. If there's a number of editors who disagree, try to find a comprimise. --InShaneee 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    And if you look directly at the talk page in question, he is the only user that feels his way, and is constantly complaining that everyone that disagrees are cohorts. I, along with others, feel that he is being childish and unreasonable. That's why I brought the discussion here. What is your proposed solution when an arguement is 5-1? I don't feel that 5 users should compromise for one that is particularly stubborn and childish. He also claims that him and I reached a compromise on his talk page... A compromise that I hadn't even read until a few days ago, and didn't agree to. Please, what's next... I just want the arguement closed!- NickSentowski 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    From WP:NOT

    Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy

    Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. For an experiment in democracy, visit WikiDemocracy.

    There was a discussion, and consensus was reached. The simple result was that it doesn't get it's own category. Merging is still on debate. Let us take the vote, and it will resolve all. - NickSentowski 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Voting is not the same thing as consensus. Just because there's more of 'you' then there are of 'them' doesn't mean you automatically get your way, and attempting to enforce such a ruling is simply innapropriate. --InShaneee 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I would be willing to try to informally mediate this if all of the Job (professional wrestling) editors want an outside opinion. If this offer is of interest, please drop a short note on my talk page or the article talk page. I also recommend that all of you take a couple of days off from this particular article. Edit out of each other's way for a few days and things should calm down. I also strongly recommend that this be the end of discussion on this page, take it to the article talk page. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (non-admin trying to avoid further admin distraction here)
    I see it, but it was not done intentionally....perhaps we edited at the same time and mine saved. WillC 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I want WillC to be permablocked, this user needs to learn a lesson from trying to be a stubborn pest. Putting "THE LADIES DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH" in this section should be grounds for it, that's just not even close to WP:CIVIL. If something isn't done, then there is a good chance that some frustrated, yet valuable editors (including myself) may just bolt out of here. --Renosecond 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Renosecond needs to read some Shakespeare to fully understand the doth protest line....he and his pals go over the edge saying they are not working together against me, moreso than they actually edit the page in question in good faith. If anyone is obsessing over the article, it is them. And who is to say that they aren't female Wikipedians? Lady is a polite term. If not, I say that the GENTLEMEN doth protest too much. The constant maintaining of innocence betrays their guilt in this senseless revert war they are waging. The compromise to merge has been offered and they refuse. WillC 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact he denies deleting my talk edit, is proof he can't get along with people. His excuse doesn't hold up. I checked the times and it's almost 2 minutes apart, between my edit and his edit/him deleting my edit on the talk page. RobJ1981 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Range block 88.106.0.0/16

    I have blocked 88.106.0.0/16 for 48 hours pending resolution by Tiscali of the General Tojo problem. Fred Bauder 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    this block seems to also block logged in users. Is this intentional? Maybe it can be changed to an anon/account creation block. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    ONP‎; 16:50 . . 71.19.28.23 (Talk) is repeatedly vandalizing ONP

    ONP‎ had been repeatedly vandalized today by 71.19.28.23 (Talk). Several reverts have taken place. Mattisse(talk) 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I've warned them with on their talk page with {{spam}}. If they persist, please warn them with the more severe templates ({{spam2}}, {{spam3}} and {{spam4}}), and report them to WP:AIV if they continue to spam after the final warning. --Sam Blanning 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


    User:Dangherous Wiktionary rogue admin

    Just a heads up - User:Dangherous who is an admin on Wiktionary has gone rogue and is unblocking and deleting like mad; an emergency request was posted to the foundation-l mailing list asking for a steward. Evidence posted to that list includes: http://en.wiktionary.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Dangherous&page=

    They do not at first glance appear to be abusing en.wikipedia however admins should consider whether an emergency preventive block is called for, given the nature of the attack on wiktionary. Georgewilliamherbert 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    • we've had similar problems in the distant past here, eventually someone will come along and lock the database, the only permanent damage a sysop can do is deleting an image, everything else can be reverted--64.12.116.65 23:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Wonderfool

    I first posted this at WP:AN, getting lost in the maze here again:

    Old-timer Wonderfool, now known as User:Thewayforward, has been confirmed to be the owner of the User:Dangherous account. It's up to you to see if that's worrying, but as an admin at Wiktionary, he deleted the Main Page in his notorious "quitting Wiktionary" style. (So if he had managed to become admin, that would have cost you the Main Page for a while). He probably has many more sockpuppets here, including User:Brandnewuser. Some list is at http://mk.wikipedia.org/User:Wonderfool/Sub.

    — Vildricianus 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:DJ BatWave's userpage

    I found a userbox on this users' page to be very offensive, (i.e the userbox that states "This user goes dumb and rides the yellow bus." That would be against WP:UP (not to mention it's down right offensive and doesn't help his reputation any) and would ask if someone could remove it and warn him about it. 216.78.95.208 23:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    According to the link on the page it's a reference to Hyphy, a style of music. Why don't you ask him nicely to remove it? At this point I don't see how this requires an admin to intervene. --Sam Blanning 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:The Middle East Conflict Man on a rampage

    Sockpuppets of TMECM are starting to swarm various articles. While he usually just attacks Socialism, which I just semi-protect when that happens, tonight he's also gone after Vietnam War and Fall of Saigon at the least. Autoblocks don't appear to work on him. Please be on the look out and block and revert socks of his on sight. --Sam Blanning 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Personal information posted in a MedCab talk subpage

    This needs to be made to vanish.

    The editor who made the post has a {{pinfo4}} on his talk page because of it. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    The editor seems to be editing strangely, in my opinion. this followed by this appears to be a personal attack on the editor, and then the proceeding edits to psychopathy about psycopathic parents seemed a tad suspicious. Just thought I should bring that up as well. Cowman109 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I think we have a problem here. The user was blocked by me for 48(oops) 24 hours edit warring over a sockpuppet tag on his userpage. He has many confirmed sockpuppets, such as...

    ...and some suspected such as...

    This user's edit warring over his page is unacceptable. He resumed edit warring as soon as he got off the block. Look at his block log, it's very long... What should be done with him? --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I noticed you claimed that NPOV77 is a confirmed puppet of mine? Where was this confirmed? I think you will find that this is one of those in the "suspected" category. You know, no evidence, other than the "secret liguistic" evidence presented by ideological opponents who would rather I not be here to make it easier for them to bias articles with their POV. But, confirmed, No, never has been. I also note that you say 'he has many confirmed socket puppets, such as (naming two (one false), so as to suggest there are more than two--which is not true. I suggest you retract your statement, and I give you the benefit of the doubt of an honest mistake, since unlike others, I do assume good faith.Giovanni33 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think it's about community ban time. He was given the opportunity to come clean about his sockpuppets and turn over a new leaf, but chose to keep up the same old behaviour. He's obviously a smart guy, but he's a net negative at the moment. Rebecca 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    unjust labels of this nature, false to their core, will never stay if. I will fight it along with all unjustice with my last breath!. That's what he says regarding the tag. I think it's ban time too. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    But, ofcourse. That is your plan and desire, is it not? If you can't kill the message you kill the messenger. Nothing surprising there. Ban me for objecting to a false label on my own page alleging untruths? But its good to see in the clear the real goal and motive. Truth and honesty is always refreshing.
    You also fail to mention that your block was issued by you while you were a party to the dispute to give you an advantage in the content dispute. How is this within the "rules and guildines?"
    Turning over a new leaf? Yes, I did, however others did not. That is why they pursued me to my own user page to insult me with a label that purports to make a claim that is about 8 months old!! Yet, it is only now deemed necessary to affront my user page with it? No logical answer has yet been given for this odd timing, other than the obvious reason that such a scarlet letter serves to futher insult and humiliate, to poison the well to whoever takes a look at my user page. Indeed, its precisely because I "turned a new leaf" that I am not confronted with this user page personal attack on my good name. .Giovanni33 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm making no further replies to you. I'll let other people judge the situation as it stands. --Lord Deskana (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not asking you to reply to me. I'm asking to you review the statements of facts you are making, which severely undermine your crediblity, which I assume is an honest mistake on your part. So, don't reply to me. Just correct your own mistakes, which I do you a favor by pointing out.Giovanni33 09:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked Giovanni33 for one week...feel free to extend to indefinite.--MONGO 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Giovanni33 should be blocked until the very moment he admits his puppetry, at which point he should be welcomed back like the prodigal son, without prejudice.Timothy Usher 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Lots of work to do in that department...Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Giovanni33--MONGO 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Assuming that the user identifies all sockpuppets and is at some point unblocked, are you offering to do the mentorship? Jkelly 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I know what you mean. But it is the right course: blocking is preventive, and once the offender confesses and repents there is no further need for a block. Such is the creed of the Church of WIkipedia :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I couldn't say I wish to devote the time needed to monitor this editor, not with the history of prolific sock creation to evade 3RR and to give appearance of concensus where there isn't any. Just this month, besides the Giovanni33 account, this editor has apparently used two other accounts as well, and this is well after previous blocks for similar nonsense.--MONGO 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Requesting permanent deletion of malicious identifying information

    I seem to have aquired a rather weird troll. Could someone delete these remarks from histories , ? Thank You --Zeraeph 09:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I deleted the first as it contained personal identity information. Is there any particular need to delete the comment on User talk:Zoe? --Sam Blanning 09:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I thought it should be deleted as it is certainly an attempt to identify, by association, in defamatory terms? But it's no biggie. --Zeraeph 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sure no one would object to your refactoring the latter, but I can't imagine that it should be deleted from the talk page's history; it's simply a personal attack that, even were it true, wouldn't reveal any personally identifiable information. Joe 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Wai Wai

    Wai Wai (talk · contribs · count) is making many edits to a number of guidelines without prior discussion on the talk pages. The changes he is making are extensive enough that I am having problems figuring out what he has done. He has also made some changes to articles citing the MOSes, that do not seem to conform to those MOSes. While Wai Wai may well be a somewhat over-enthusiastic newcomer, I do think his changes need to be looked at more closely that I can manage right now. -- Donald Albury 12:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Edits to Golf Article

    Bodelairo (talk · contribs · count) seems intend on adding details about his theory (and it seems business) about course design to the golf article - I have left a number of messages on his talkpage (starting with WELCOME) but he takes no notice. Could someone with a bit more firepower have a polite word - I'm quite happy to try and establish if any of his material could be incoporated into the article but he actually needs to talk to the rest of us.

    --Charlesknight 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    His user page makes it pretty clear what he's here for. Don't we have some policy about not having that stuff there? It certainly isn't related to wikipedia.--Crossmr 14:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I deleted the user page as blatant spam (WP:NOT yada yada) and blocked for 24h to stop the spamming in Golf. Let's wait and see what happens next. Just zis Guy you know? 17:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Be on the watch for sockpuppets used to evade the block....there is a new user named GolfClubRevue (talk · contribs). I doubt any relation, but it's best to watch out. People with an agenda (i.e. spammers) often go to great lengths to finish what they started. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:WAREL is back

    I've reverted a number of semi-vandal edits by 218.133.184.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He/she/it has been blocked a few times previously. As I was involved in reverting some of its earlier semi-vandalism, and am doing so again, I don't feel very comfortable as a new admin issuing a block. I've blocked for another month, but would be willing to consider whether I've done the right thing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Hmm, it appears that last time there was not sufficient consensus for an indef block on Warel, but his recent edits with this sock are classic behavior, insisting on minor details that no one else thinks should be in the articles, poor writing, personal attacks, etc. I have no problem with the block. JoshuaZ 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Policy and enforcement thereof

    Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) says here, "If you choose to ignore the policy that I have decided is best for Misplaced Pages, you may find yourself blocked, a state which many Wikipedians find problematic." I understand and appreciate Kelly Martin's intense desire to see the logo dispute resolved, and his/her firm conviction that the decision made is the best for Misplaced Pages, but everything about this statement strikes me as problematic. Regardless of whether his/her reasoning for taking this position is valid, this is an extremely inflammatory way to put it; it also seemingly goes against the cherished collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages, in that one user has made a decision and gathered some unknown number of fellow users with the ability to do so, to help enforce it, rather than participate in the process to generate consensus. Powers 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Let me clarify that I am not attempting to have any sanctions placed on Kelly Martin's behavior. I am looking for outside thoughts on the way this was handled as well as a clearer description of whether this is indeed the way Misplaced Pages wants to handle policy decisions, and why. Powers 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Copyright policy is not up to the users of Misplaced Pages to decide, it is up to the Foundation to decide. Copyright policy is very clear on this issue and it has been very clear for many months: no fair use image galleries. --Cyde Weys 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    As I have said, I'm not trying to change copyright policy. Where is it stated, beyond Kelly Martin's comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Logos, that all fair use galleries are verboten on Misplaced Pages? Powers 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    It could be assumed from WP:FUC #8, or, really, from any reading of Misplaced Pages:Fair use that attempts to understand the spirit of our policies and guidelines, as opposed to a reading that is trying to get around them. Jkelly 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    A lot of people have cited FUC #8, but it's obvious not everyone interprets it the same way. The distinction between "decorative" and "illustrative" is apparently not as obvious as some people would like to think it is. Powers 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    It's "Misplaced Pages, the 💕", not "Misplaced Pages, the non-redistributable gallery of fair use images". Ideally all of our content would be free, but we don't do that because it would require too much of a sacrifice of encyclopedic quality. Not so with fair use galleries. --Cyde Weys 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Adelaide hoax

    I believe that over (at least) the last few weeks, a series of anonymous IPs have been inserting hoax information in articles about the University of Adelaide, specifically relating to the Wood-Bright Professor of Women's Studies. I've been flagging possibly affected articles with {{hoax}}, but the quantity of IPs and extent of the hoax is expanding to consume more time than I currently have available. In other words, over the last few weeks, some anon IPs have been adding false information, some have been attempting to remove it, and others have been re-adding it, and there's a lot of page history to go through, so I am requesting assistance. I have placed more info at Talk:University of Adelaide#Possible hoax, which is probably the closest thing to a central repository of information on the situation. Thanks. --Elonka 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    And you have also been tagging genuine articles as hoaxes which a quick Google search would clarify as genuine for some reason, though Wood-Bright Professor of Women's Studies does seem to be a hoax. — Dunc|☺ 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    I have been tagging articles as hoaxes, if I had a reasonable concern that some of the information in the article may have been part of the hoax. That's the tricky thing about this one, is that the information is getting inserted in bits and pieces, by multiple accounts. If it were simple and straightforward, I wouldn't have asked for help. If there's a better template to use though, please let me know --Elonka 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Copperchair using sockpuppets to get around 1 year block

    Copperchair (talk · contribs) was blocked from Misplaced Pages for 1 year in March and since then has created new accounts and continued their editting using Esaborio (talk · contribs), 201.199.77.202 (talk · contribs), Varese Sarabande (talk · contribs), SPECTRE (talk · contribs), 190.10.0.36 (talk · contribs), and seems to be the freshly created Tony Camonte (talk · contribs). Is there anything that can be done to prevent the person from creating any more accounts and continuing the edit warring they were previously blocked for? --Bobblehead 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Please check out:

    1. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair
    2. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (2nd)
    3. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (3rd)
    4. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (4th)

    The fourth one, especially, has some good examples of these guys making the same edits. It's very disruptive; he's back at least once a day. TomTheHand 20:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    The ghost of RJII/Hogeye/TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist/Lingeron/etc/etc returns to haunt anarchism

    User:That'sHot came out of nowhere today and immediately began picking up the tattered banner of fallen soldiers RJII/Hogeye with edits like this, this, this, and this. I'm aware of WP:AGF, WP:BOLD, WP:BITE and related policies, so I apologize if I'm jumping to conclusions. I just think that this is a very obvious case. I had this to say on his talk page:

    Welcome to Misplaced Pages! We're delighted that you've magically stumbled upon our web site, the 💕 that anyone can edit. It's marvelous that you already know so much about editing Misplaced Pages, from wiki syntax to policies and guidelines. It's very rare that new users learn so much on the same day, so congrats! Also, I'm glad to see that you're being bold! All of the edits that you're making on anarchism resemble the same kinds of edits made by recently-banned users; it's a relief that their merit is not tarred by the reputation for bad faith of their originators. I'm now confident about the integrity of those edits. It's not every day that new users crop up out of nowhere to continue carrying the torch (well, I guess that does happen every day, but, oh well), so I'm very excited about your enthusiasm, and very happy that you decided to dive in. Please don't hesitate to ask anybody if you have any questions. Good luck, and happy editing! :-) --AaronS 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    His response?

    That's hot. That'sHot 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I got a laugh from that one. :-D This just seems like a basic throwaway account, complete with a picture of Paris Hilton. --AaronS 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well, if nothing else, the image on the User page is a copyvio, so I've removed it. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    1. Mahomet etc.; Turkish: Muhammed; click here for the Arabic pronunciation
    2. Mahomet etc.; Turkish: Muhammed; click here for the Arabic pronunciation
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions Add topic