Misplaced Pages

Don't mind the committee, there's a new sheriff in town

This posting is a general complaint and inquiry as to the behavior of a particular administrator as well as administrative abilities in general. I have been a regular contributor for several months now, but as of late (and for the foreseeable future) I am unable to spend much time whatsoever on Misplaced Pages, and with regular users who carry out the ritualistic aspects of this site it sometimes appears shrift or bizarre that some editors do not carry on conversations with great regularity at any length. A few weeks ago I experienced this problem upon reverting bad edits to an article when another editor continued to revert me until I explained myself (which I did not have time for at that moment and about which there exist no hard, objective rules). Eventually however I found time and the dispute died down.

However, in this particular case I have been caught between an anonymous (half-(?))vandal and an administrator of the site. I first came into contact with the former when he began to troll and vandalize various users' user and talk pages with messages similar to the following:

This guy aka YINever insulted me at GameFAQs and called my grandfather a fascist because he fought for China in the Korean War, yet ironically he supports Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

When this user would have his edits undone by (non-anonymous) editors he would get quite abusive. Eventually he was blocked by User:Sasquatch for a week for these stunts. He evaded it by using other IPs and appears to have ignored any comments (though he is aware of how talk functions).

I encountered him on a few articles in the midst of this, including a creation of his own, "Anti-Chinese sentiment". While the content is not particularly conducive for the purposes here, I found it to be a rambling (and unsourced) original research piece not worth salvaging for either the purposes of a merge or a cleanup, so I changed it to a redirect of racism (I did something similar to another one of his lovely pieces, Americofascism, which ended up unilaterally deleted by an administrator. The anon became abusive as per usual.

These reverts continued for a few days and eventually another editor, User:TDC (who was in the midst of warding off another vandal who he insulted in turn), took up reverting this anon on Anti-Chinese sentiment and others. Enter Rama. Within a period of two minutes on September 12th, Rama reverted at least four separate articles edited by both the anon and TDC, all of them in favor of the former. Two minutes is barely enough time to commit four reverts, much less read and participate in discussion to determine appropriately which version or what portions was/were superior and why. Reverts at "Anti-Chinese sentiment" continued, however, until some time after Rama posted a message on the talk page, warning users that he would "take appropriate measures" if the article was reverted without discussion. Keep in mind that when he said this, six days had passed since he reverted the article with no explanation on his own part, and none would be forthcoming.

Now, as I discussed earlier, I do not have much time to dick around on this site, and so I mostly scan through my watchlist, as I happened to be at one particular moment. I reverted "Anti-Chinese sentiment" again, and at that moment I had just finished reading the recent posts to a separate talk page and was coming to Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment (they were next to each other on my watchlist) when I saw the orange "You have new messages" strip. Rama decided to block me for 24 hours for my severe disruption to that page. Barely nine minutes passed between my revert and the message on my talk page informing me I was blocked. Considering it is not likely such a unique template exists and that he likely blocked me before telling me that he had blocked me, it appears he shot rather quickly without even awaiting my response to his comments (which I had not yet seen).

Incidentally, the anon again reverted the article in question with no explanation of his own and in fact with an abuse of the edit summary field to describe my edits as vandalism. He does not appear to have been blocked, despite Rama's warning (Rama has certainly been around since that point) and despite his abusive behavior, trolling, and vandalism. Meanwhile, my block was somehow extended around a day further than the ostensible 24 hours that Rama claimed, as I was not able to access any pages to edit until today.

Now, it is already unclear to me by what justification and right or ability Rama is blocking me for disruption by simple reverts. There exists no policy of which I am aware that says reverts are not allowed or require particular, individual, in-depth, or superficial explanations in any particular place at any time. A much longer and more severe edit war has taken place at Khmer Rouge for which Tony Sidaway proposed a similar solution. The reaction seemed negative or muddled enough that he decided it was not worth it. Rama does not appear to have even bothered asking anyone's opinion, and when challenged on the point he has merely rested on the fact that discretion is entrusted in him as an administrator. For what purpose exactly do we have an arbitration process if it is now up to each individual administrator to decide (and decree rules for, ad hoc) the outcome and participants in content disputes in which they have already involved themselves? And why precisely are vandals (or anons in general) being treated in much better faith than long-term users?

To me this is another example of Misplaced Pages fetishizing some processes and customs (which I am not able to participate fully in) simultaneous to objective regulations of that process being bypassed or ignored entirely. --TJive 17:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

the block certainly wasn't consitant with Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Disruption.Geni 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to, now, does it? The point of discretion applies to violating actual policies, not simply the rules that Rama personally holds to (ethereal or no). --TJive 23:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The block log shows a 24 hour block on your username. You being blocked for up to 24 hours beyond the specified time of the block was probably caused by a known collateral effect of the IP autoblocker. --cesarb 19:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Banned editor User:Robert Blair editing again

It has been brought to my attention that User:Robert Blair, who was banned from editing by the Arbitration Committee on the 14th of March has begun editing again, using his dynamic IP address. He generally edits in the 207.69.13*.* range; here's an old example: , and here are some recent examples:

207.69.139.144 contrib 207.69.139.134 contrib 207.69.137.12 contrib 207.69.138.143 contrib 4.230.234.81 contrib 207.69.138.144 contrib 207.69.138.142 contrib 207.69.137.40 contrib 207.69.137.21 contrib

I'll be reverting his edits and blocking the addresses as I see them; assistance in enforcing the Arbitration Committe ban is always welcome. Jayjg 20:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you basing this on similarity between the edits of Blair and the anons, or something else? Also I should note that Blair was not banned altogether as you imply but just from articles pertaining to certain subjects. Also, the blocks are only supposed to be up to one day (although I don't know what length of blocks you're imposing, that's just a note). Everyking 21:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's based on the edits themselves, the IP range they are from, and the articles being edited. Blair is certainly banned from editing the articles he was editing, and the blocks were for one day. Jayjg 23:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

User GORF has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:GORF has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after performing the above verification.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 23:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are bot blockings now accepted responses to these things? And don't we like to run our bots on separate accounts generally? Snowspinner 23:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1) yes becuase we are all out of other options (although have on wheels attacks fallen since the school term started?)2.) Getting a second account with admin powers may be more trouble than it is worth.Geni 23:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Back on August 26, Willy (as Dieseldrinker (talk · contribs)) pagemoved at a rate of 75 pages per minute. That's too fast for human intervention to cope with. There were eight more Willy attacks on the same day. Since then it's been quieter... maybe a little too quiet. A separate account would only make sense if the bot needed to be permanent; I'd prefer to believe in an (imminent?) Mediawiki software fix. -- Curps 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my first experience of the moveblockbot, and I'm very impressed. My only quibble is that it doesn't leave a message on the talk page of the blocked user, which I think it should. I propose something like

This account has been blocked by an automated system, as the pattern of page moves done by this account appears to be suspicious. Misplaced Pages has been troubled by vandals who who move large numbers of pages quickly, and our use of an automated detector for these is necessary to protect Misplaced Pages from the inconvenience this causes. This block has been reported to Misplaced Pages's (largely human) administrators, who are now reviewing it. If they find the block to be in error, it will be removed shortly.

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Misplaced Pages can do weird things when the system is slow (odd error messages and conditions), and posting to a page can pose challenges even for a human. If you were editing a few days ago you know what I mean. It's best to keep it simple. Posting to this page should be sufficient: any invalid block will be removed within a few minutes. -- Curps 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

GORF was created only 1 minute after Four Wheels (talk · contribs). I have now gone through and blocked three other potential sleeper accounts created within only a couple minutes of these. All have never been used for editting despite being 8 days old, 2 have weak transportation themes and one has what I would consider an inappropriate user name. They are:

• Red ryder (talk · contribs) "rider"
• Sunnykharkar (talk · contribs) "car car"
• You do not have enough BROWN BRICKS to complete your transaction (talk · contribs)

If people are bothered by this, feel free to unblock. I did go ahead and leave messages on their talk pages in cases these are legitimate and someone wants to protest. Dragons flight 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your message, blocked users can’t “contact me at User talk:Dragons flight or another administrator at WP:AN to be unblocked”. Susvolans ⇔ 15:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Doh. Okay, that was a very braindead moment for me. I'll fix it. Dragons flight 15:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Transwikiing" to non-sister projects

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trap17. I strongly protest the use of the term "transwiki" to refer to the movement of GFDL material to non-Misplaced Pages projects. The use of the term "transwiki" implies equality among wikis, and could lead to people thinking these other projects are parts of the Misplaced Pages project. User:Zoe| 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as it's legal and the receiving wiki knows about it, I don't see a problem. ~~ N (t/c) 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope we can assume that people who have got as far as AFD understand that mediwiki is no the only game in town.Geni 00:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I once transwikied something to Uncyclopedia without warning them. I hope they don't decide that it's factually accurate and delete it. --Aquillion 02:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Essentially All of Earthlink Blocked

Hey...it seems Jayjg essentially blocked all of earthlink by blocking three rather large ranges (one is /16, one is /17, another one is /23 I think). I don't know these ranges (someone else might) but we've blocked a lot of people. Can someone please look into it and possibly unblock it? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I only see three /24's blocked by Jayjg in the block log, not /16 or /17. And those three /24's are part of an Earthlink range consisting of the entire /16, so it's only a very small fraction of Earthlink. Under those circumstances I'd rather not second-guess Jayjg. Can you provide more details? -- Curps 05:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please send (from your role address) any evidence of an EarthLink member violating our Acceptable Use Policy to our Abuse Desk. Please be sure to include date, time, timezone, originating IP, and a description, log, and example of the activity.

-Thanks

abuse at abuse dot earthlink dot net

Can we please still unblock the ip addresses? This is as useless as blocking an entire AOL range and the same reasons could go for blocking such a range. BTW, someone may want to respond to the above. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

looking at his block log I think Jayjg already has. Earthlink is becomeing new NTL though (now we've sorted ntl I'd be tempted to put eathlink in it's place on the block page).Geni 23:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay...Thanks JayJG if you're reading this. Also, what happened with NTL? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

71.111.156.219, cheese vandal?

I noticed that 71.111.156.219 (talk · contribs) had blanked Basin and was going to warn them when I glanced at their edit history and noticed that they had two other edits, at Pictures of archipelagos, which look very familar in style and talk about cheese. Wasn't there another vandal blocked for putting up that exact nonsense page? --Aquillion 02:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Labyrinth13

Perhaps someone who is not me would have a look at his edits at Palmyra Atoll? This is an author who came to Misplaced Pages, spammed his website in a few articles, and then edited comments critical of his writing. - Nunh-huh 03:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Newspaper report on vandalism at Simon Wiesenthal

This article refers to vandalism at Simon Wiesenthal, and specifically criticising the fact that denigrating vandalsims have been left to appear in the hiastory log, thus allowing people to read this kind of junk. I am niot ssure to which diffs they are refering but perhaps an admin could delete offending material from the history log? SqueakBox 04:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you think they would be equally angered that some of our Jewish contributors have been listed on the Stormfront website? Look, I get angry about the vandalism around here all the time, but that is the nature of wikis, and unless we stop being a wiki at sometime in the future, there isn't much we can do about it. I'm getting really tired of the blogs, forums, and news outlets that seem to enjoy picking at Misplaced Pages. We are simply too easy a target for uninformed critisim. Func( t, c, @, ) 04:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Some pretty undisguised homophobia here. I'm sure our vandal thought that calling Wiesenthal gay was an insult, but the Council of Australian Jewry also seems to think that calling him a homosexual was "degrading the history of someone who was known universally for their stand on human rights." 04:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the vandalism had more to do with describing him as a pedophile in pretty graphic detail if I remember correctly. GabrielF 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd and I don't think they even grasp the nature of the encyclopedia. They seem to think this stuff has some kind of stamp of approval and don't seem to understand that we actively fight this stuff to the best of our ability, and can't help it if a vandal edit stays up for a few minutes before somebody catches it. If somebody wants to look through page histories searching for old vandalism to indulge their tastes for vulgar juvenile humor, then let them; there's no reason we need to go to the extra effort to clean all that stuff out. "Take action against the website"? What? As if we condone vandalism about Wiesenthal? Somebody write them an angry letter, or several, please. Everyking 05:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, some vandals will probably pick up on this and realize that some people will blame the encyclopedia in general for vandalism (and not even think of it as vandalism, but as information that we are deviously trying to pass off as serious), and step up the vandalism as a result. So I think the article is very irresponsible. Everyking 05:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Below is my email exchange with Josh Landis, the guy quoted in the article. I won't claim that my email is particularly well-written, given that it was sent at about 2AM local time, but I did my best to defend wikipedia:

Dear Sir,

As a frequent contributor to the Misplaced Pages article on Simon Wiesenthal, I was disappointed to read your attacks on our efforts in the press. I and other[REDACTED] editors do our best to create articles that are informative and fair. The beauty of[REDACTED] is that anyone can contribute to an article. The upside of this is that[REDACTED] is an ever-expanding resource containing a vast quantity of information presented in (often) highly readable articles. Misplaced Pages has become a crucial resource to millions of people as a result of our efforts. Obviously, there are always going to be vandals, either children who insert inappropriate words in articles or sophisticated neo-Nazi groups who try to insert their propaganda and disguise it as legitimate. However, many dedicated editors maintain constant vigilance over the website, vandalism is almost always reverted within five minutes and frequent vandals are often blocked from editing. We put in a lot of time and effort trying to make[REDACTED] a good resource, that occasionally means lengthy battles with other editors who try to insert a point of view and sophisticated research to determine exactly who is committing acts of vandalism. For example in June I successfully fended off efforts from[REDACTED] users to include links to neo-Nazi websites in the Simon Wiesenthal article, and many other editors have had similar battles. In the specific vandalism you complained about in The Age, I determined that the vandals were using computers in Illinois public schools. I decided not to ask that these computers be blocked from editing[REDACTED] because I didn't want to prevent thousands of people in Illinois from being unable to contribute to our site. Instead, I decided to trust the wikipeida user community to immediately revert inappropriate vandalism, and this approach has worked. Thanks to the efforts of dozens of contributers from around the globe the article on Simon Wiesenthal keeps improving in quality, and vandalism is almost never present for more than a few minutes. If you investigate the history of the Simon Wiesenthal article you will see that this is the case. As a Jew, I completely understand your frustration at anti-semitic comments on such a popular website, but the problem is not with[REDACTED] itself but with humanity as a whole. We can't control the fact that there are people in this world who want to spread vile and hateful propaganda, but we are doing everything in our power to make sure that our website is free of such content. I really wish that you had taken the time to explore[REDACTED] rather than denounce and threaten us in the press.

Yours,

(wikipedia user GabrielF)

Let me make a few things clear:

a) The article does not include any comments by me which are critical of

wikipedia. I'd never used it before, and I didn't say anything

derogatory about the site to the journalist.

b) the comments on the site were grossly offensive. While I appreciate

that you and others work to remove offensive material, it remains on the

cache of the site and should be permanently removed.

c) this council has successfully brought two legal actions against

websites for material which is racially vilifying of Jews. I do not

regard this case as being akin to those, nor do we have any intention of

treating it the same. It is not unreasonable that a Jewish group would

protest at this material the day after the man passed away, especially

considering the level of traffic on this site.

d) we believe that wikipedia, while not being responsible for the

material, has a responsibility to prevent abuses by blocking or banning

those who cause offense.

I think if you review the article, and the comments attributed to me,

you will see that you may have overreacted in relation to the position

of this council.

Regards,

Josh Landis

Executive Officer

Executive Council of Australian Jewry

I'm curious to hear what people think. GabrielF 12:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Two points.

1. What is the relation of Josh Landis's letter to your letter? Which one of them is earlier and which is later? Was Josh Landis's letter addressed to you or the newspaper?
2. I just love it when outside critics condemn an entire effort for one fault. Surely they implored their readers never to visit, or at least never to contribute to, such a shameful evil anti-semitist site as Misplaced Pages? — JIP | Talk 12:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I emailed him, using the address on his organizations website, he emailed me back. Sorry, I should have specified that. GabrielF 12:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In regard to Landis's points:

1. No response needed.
2. AFAIK, such a removal would violate the GFDL. And anyway, Misplaced Pages is constantly being archived by search engines such as Google and mirrored by other websites. We have no control over the caches of those websites. Someone might search for "Simon Wiesenthal + Misplaced Pages" on Google and see a result calling him homosexual, but when he clicks on it, the article revision can't be found. Is this still our fault?
3. Does this mean the council won't take legal action towards Misplaced Pages? In that case, it's a good thing, because Misplaced Pages is not centralised, there is no official agreement on its contents or opinions, it's all a bunch of independent contributors.
4. No it doesn't have such a responsibility. No one on Misplaced Pages is obligated to do anything. It is entirely voluntary. That said, I fully support blocking users who vandalise the Simon Wiesenthal article. In fact I remember once doing so myself. — JIP | Talk 12:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

in thoery we could remove it without worrying about the GFDL sinece selective undelete doesn't remove the names of any authors. The real problem is one of scale there is some much vandalism of that type that we don't have the resources to remove it. Legaly he woulnd't have much of a case. The content is legal under US law. Worst case senario is that Jimbo and current comitte memebers would be unable to vist australia. As to the final point we probably would have a resposibilty to remove material that is illegal or libelus under US law once it had been pointed out to is.Geni 13:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, insisting that we delete all the vandal revisions from the history would actually give the vandals an advantage: we would be forced to go to far more trouble to clean up after them than usual. Ironically, such insistence on removing vandalism from the page history could mean more vandalism on the current revision. Everyking 14:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

particularly when you factor in the increased rate of admin burn out.Geni 14:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well we could try having a "rollback & delete" button... Dragons flight 14:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on my reading of his letter, he isn't threatening legal action so much as making it clear that he finds the vandalism unacceptable in the most powerful terms. Personally, I think we can certainly remove some particularly vile vandalism from the page history, but I don't think we should make a point to remove all of it. JP is right that the stuff will remain in the google cache anyway, in addition I think that its useful to have a record of serious vandalism so we know what current vandals have been up to in the past. I also think recording vandalism is useful to the article as well, it shows that (in this case anti-semitism and homophobia) do exist in today's world and that society doesn't find those POV acceptable. I don't think it serves the Jewish communities interests to simply erase all anti-semitic writings, I think its better to have a record of what the anti-semites have said and then three minutes later a record of someone deleting them as petty vandalism and not even worth three sentences on the talk page. This whole argument is an interesting reminder of just how far-reaching our actions on[REDACTED] are. A particular edit might only last three minutes before its reverted, but with the article linked on the main page several hundred (or thousand?) people might see that edit in those three minutes. GabrielF 15:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Another article on this which might give you a laugh... Misplaced Pages attacked by Nazis. The real howler, though:

It is the second time that Misplaced Pages has been targeted by vandals with a cause.

After the death of the pope an anonymous user replaced the image of incoming pope Benedict XVI with the evil emperor from Star Wars. Given it is so easy to do, it is perhaps more surprising that it does not happen more often.

Certainly a surprise to me. Aquillion 15:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sure I remember a case where Jew produced rascist sites on the Google search, then[REDACTED] Google bombed and got our site to number one, and if true we clearly have a positive history to be proud of in fighting rascism, etc (which I think we do). As Everyking says, we do our best, though I absolutely agree with Dragon flight about the rollback & delete" button, and that a policy change for giving that to users with a certain number of edits is needed. Were they to try to sue[REDACTED] these people should be opposed on the moral grounds that it is an attempt to shut down wikipedia, open source collaboration and freedom on the internet. Weisenthal fought for freedom, and one wonders what he would think of people who want to take the majority of people's freedom to edit away because of the behaviour of a tiny minority. One does hope the person who photographed the[REDACTED] page had already removed the offending material, and weren't in fact merely looking for publicity for their cause. Almost every famous person who dies gets vandalised, and if you see someone famous has just died add them to your watchlist. Yet the interest these people generate by dying invariably transforms the article, which in almost cases is a fitting tribute which would be lost if such articles were protected in these post death moments. If we had locked Pope John Paul II (as a few people wanted) noone would have put Darth Vader pictures briefly in the article but the article itself would be considerably poorer than it is, SqueakBox 16:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Talking of the jew article it appears it may have slipped off people's watchlists. It got vandalised today and it took 9 minutes to be reverted.Geni 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Screw them. I like how they discussed legal action with the paper before discussing it with Jimbo. That's always a nice indicator that they're lawsuit-happy, they want some publicity, nothing more. Let me reiterate that - All they care about in this circumstance is getting publicity for their organization and words. If they actually cared about getting the statements removed, they would have contacted the Wikimedia Foundation before contacting the press. (Note: It's possible I've missed some mention from someone that states that they did, in fact, contact our lawyers. If so, disregard this whole paragraph) The solution is simple - Tell these chaps that when they can get Google to remove antisemitic links and caches from its search engine, we will ponder doing the same. --Golbez 17:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Most likely[REDACTED] would have grounds to sue the website for claiming that[REDACTED] has denigrated Weisanthal when we have done nothing of the kind, SqueakBox 17:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Can Misplaced Pages ever actually do anything? Like I said, all we are is a bunch of individual, independent editors. There is no official Misplaced Pages opinion or stance on issues like politics, religion, etc. Thus, Misplaced Pages can never denigrate, or praise, anyone. Only its editors can. — JIP | Talk 19:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

the wikimedia foundation could in thoery.Geni 20:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Also I don't think the comparison between us and Google is fair. After all we expend a lot of energy fixing the vandalsims on our site whereas Google do nothing to correct their mistakes. So while we keep a good eye on Jew Google still put Jewwatch at No3 for their search engine here, SqueakBox 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's the number 2 result. The Misplaced Pages article on Jew is the first one. The only link above the Misplaced Pages article hit is a link back to Google itself. — JIP | Talk 05:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No2 is our article on Jewwatch, and thus subject to our POV policy, watching, etc. No3 is the webpage of the antisemitic group, SqueakBox 05:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you seeing the same results as I am? Here is what came up when I clicked the external link less than a minute ago:

Offensive Search Results

www.google.com/explanation We're disturbed about these results as well. Please read our note here.

Jew - Misplaced Pages, the 💕

Discussion of the difference between Jewish religion and ethnicity, with notes on the Jews' history, beliefs, and culture.

en.wikipedia.org/Jew - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Jew Watch

Keeping a close watch on Jewish communities, organizations, monopoly, banking, and media control worldwide.

www.jewwatch.com/ - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

This quite clearly lists Google's own explanation page as the first link, the Misplaced Pages article on Jew as the second, and JewWatch as the third. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Google link is a "sponsored link" that Google purposely put there to say "We're sorry". On the UK version, Misplaced Pages is first, followed by Jewwatch; on the US version, Jewwatch is first, followed by Misplaced Pages. Ral315 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, this gets back to what Angela and I were both suggesting last week, that we need a way to delete vandalistic/libelous edit summaries and to avoid having vandalistic/libelous article titles appearing publicly in the deletion log. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Schalken Fur Kreativitat

Lots of vandalism (changing others' votes) going on here. Could someone keep an eye on this, I don't have the time. Thanks. (Sorry I'm not logged in.) 134.10.44.224 07:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dobby

A strange section "Dobby in Australia" has been popping up into this article. I have reverted that section away three times now, so I won't touch it anymore unless anyone agrees with me that it is pure vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say pure vandalism/attack. --Doc (?) 12:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Emico and the Iglesia ni Cristo article

194.143.190.8 (talk · contribs), who is strongly believed to be a sockpuppet or sockpuppet-impersonator of Emico (talk · contribs), (an advocate for the article's subject who has been banned as a result of an ArbCom decision) has recently made many substantial edits, supporting his view, to the Iglesia ni Cristo article. Each counter-edit or revert has rapidly been reverted back to his version. TheoClarke (talk · contribs) is an sysop who's been handing Emico's situation for a while, but has not been around to deal with the latest outbreak. I also believe this person may be the same person as 72.25.91.250 (talk · contribs) who's only notable edit is a post at Emico's talk page, asking Emico to check an email he sent. Please do whatever it takes to bring this article back in control. --LBMixPro 08:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Jordon Capri

Jordan Capri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), present AFD, previous AFD.

Jordan Capri was an adult movie actress. About a month ago, 2004-12-29T22:45Z (talk · contribs) added detailed information on her real name, city of residence, places of employment, and present college. Such information as would be very useful to a stalker and which I consider to pose a legitimate personal risk to the individual in question. At present this information (except for real name) has been again removed from the article. (Please look at the history of the article for the information in question, I do not want to quote it here).

Maybe this information is accurate. It's cited source is what is identified as her blog. As of sometime yesterday all entries from the blog were removed, and as of this morning it seems that three have been restored, but there does not appear to be any verifiable personal information contained therein (except that she resides somewhere in Arizona). Even if verifiable and accurate, I'd still question whether the information 2004-12-29T22:45Z was appropriate.

2004-12-29T22:45Z has twice reverted when anons have attempted to remove this information. His justification is on the article's talk page. Now an individual claiming to be Jordan herself has shown up at the present AFD to say:

I have been having issues recently with "fans" coming into my work. Just this past Monday someone came in asking for my autograph & said he found me on THIS site. First of all, on my MySpace page, I never gave my last name away nor the engraving shop's name, because I did not want people to find out my real name. This is a serious issue; I could have potential salkers, rapists, ect. now!! What if some crazed fan comes in, waits for me to leave late at night, then follows me home!? Since I found this thing I've been scared to death! Please delete it for the sake of my safety not to mention potentionally being fired from my jobs from the flood of phone calls/visits I've been receiving there. I'm begging you, please take this down.

I don't know if this is accurate, but it does strike me as entirely plausible.

I personally feel that the article should be kept, under the general view that most well-known porn stars can justifiably have articles, but I am raising it here because I would like to selectively delete all versions of the article containing the details 2004-12-29T22:45Z added, as I believe such information poses a legitimate danger to this woman and we should not keep any accessible version of it. From a GFDL standpoint, the present software allows anyone to look at the authorship (but not content) of deleted edits, so the names of everyone involved would be maintained, and I do not believe it poses a copyright problem. (If it does pose a copyright problem, I would be just as happy to simply delete everything since August 20th and start with the most recent version not having these issues.)

Other opinions?

Dragons flight 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No opinion on this matter in specific, but I also have noticed problematic editing coming from that user. · Katefan0 18:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the links to her "new life" and will defend any attempt to replace them. I find the motives of the oddly named chap who originally added them heavily distasteful and if he has a history of this, he should be dealt with. --Golbez 17:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Go on and remove the information from the history. The revisions can be undeleted later if it turns out to be a mistake, so there should be no harm done by removing it. --cesarb 18:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. --Golbez 18:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think somebody else has done it now. You delete the article and then undelete selected revisions.

• 18:43, 21 September 2005 Dragons flight restored "Jordan Capri" (32 revisions restored)
• 18:41, 21 September 2005 Dragons flight deleted "Jordan Capri" (deleting to purge personal details from history)

--Tony Sidaway 18:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And here I was just coming to say that it was done. Dragons flight 18:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I had a look around and there are other issues with this kind of thing. Someone had put the alleged real name of Tawnee Stone (from the same website group as Jordon) in her article and that talk page. If we are going to be consistent that should probably get yanked from those places as well. Note also that the AfD on Jordon's page also has her alleged name (as allegedly posted by the model herself requesting the info be removed), since those are archived later it should probably be yanked from there somehow... but doesn't every instance of the history since then also have that info? This whole thing seems rather problematic technologically, I don;t envy you gys trying to sort it all out. DreamGuy 21:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just the real name should be a lot less problematic than "her real name, city of residence, places of employment, and present college". --cesarb 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but due to the original issues I feel a certain amount of blowback is appropriate. Now is it incumbent upon people to prove that such information is necessary and encyclopedic, not simply "well it's true, pop it in thar". --Golbez 04:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please check my comments on the Tawnee Stone discussion below. Vizjim 08:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Capri's porn career, even though it is over, is notable enough. The posting of her real name is not reason for deletion of the article - it's reason for removal of her real neal name from it. We don't have to ask notable people's permissions to write articles about them. But we do have a duty to protect this former porn star from possible stalkers. "Her real name is in her blog" is worthless as a reason for keeping the personal information in, as her blog doesn't mention Jordan Capri. People know Jordan Capri, and they know this woman. What they don't know is that they are the same person. — JIP | Talk 13:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism

Molobo (talk · contribs) has twice removed the AfD tag, citing in justification the article's previous listing in July, which ended in a strong "Keep" result.

• Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-Polonism

--Tony Sidaway 18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

He appears to have been acting in good faith. He's now made a compromise edit of pointing out the earlier vote on the top of the page. I don't think an admin need do anything at the moment. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think that sentence is appropriate as the first line of an article, which was why I removed it (and was quickly reverted). They already have the AfD tag, and the article is quite enough of a mess without including non-article material in it too. Still, if that's the only way the fight might simmer down, the note may as well stay. -Splash 20:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked at it later and it seemed to be gone. My opinion is that he should be politely asked not to put comments in the articles. I added a link to the first AfD debate to the new debate myself. Looks like most people are agreed that this article is still a keeper, even if the problems remain. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Tawnee Stone

The Tawnee Stone article has personal information which could endanger the girl, and ought to be purged for the same reasons as Ms. Capri's information was purged (see the Jordan Capri incident report). As with Ms. Capri, Ms. Stone has left the adult business and just wishes to put that part of her life behind her and not have to worry that some internet stalker will look her up in Misplaced Pages and show up at her work or home. For crying out loud, what does any of this belong in an encyclopedia for?!? --Murple

I think you are going over the top. There is no info that would identify her now. The article doesn't state her real name or her current address. How would a stalker turn up at her home because of this? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt state her real name etc now because I editted them out. They're still in the past revisions as well as the discussion page. Along with her real name, there are names of her family members, links to pictures of her brother's school sports teams, etc. --Murple

I can't see it in the history. Can you provide a link? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind it's on the talk page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, not even sure that her real name needs to be removed, but certainly the scholl she went to would not help a stalker find her now. As long as her current address is kept private, we have IMO done all we should to protect her. (Same as with regular actresses) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In it's present form Tawnee Stone's article is not an urgent disaster, so okay, let's pause and talk about this. In my opinion, these articles should not include any personal details about the real life actress. My opinion is based on the view that "Tawnee Stone" is not in fact a person, but rather a role created by the studio and marketing firm responsible for this persona. Certainly there are any number of fictional personas that are notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, e.g. Han Solo. But unlike Star Wars, where the credits and marketing connect Harrison Ford to the role, the adult entertainment industry goes to considerable lengths not to reveal the true identities of their entertainers. Generally, there is no verifiable link between someone like Tawnee and the actress that plays her. And, even if there is some obscure chain of reference that makes if verifiable, then we still shouldn't be drawing the connection as it is legitimately dangerous to these women. Without drawing a connection between their real world identity and their stage name, I can't see that there is any verifiable to say where she used to work or went to school. What's more, as these facts belong to the actress, and are not part of the persona of Tawnee, I would argue they don't belong in an article on Tawnee anyway. Of course, porn stars can choose to forgo their anonymity, but no one is making that case here. Dragons flight 22:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The information in her article all seems to be flimsy anyway, pretty much "some dude on the internet who says he used to know her"... So even if there WERE some valid reason for it to belong on here, it's hardly solid verifiable information. The discussion page on the article has all sorts of info identifying various people as her brothers and identifying where they go to school... whether or not they are actually her brothers, that information should not be visible to the public. --Murple

The problem is that there is no hard-and-fast rule on this sort of personal information. If there were a rule that an administrator could simply delete such information from both the page (or talk page) and the history, that would be fine - however, at the moment it all needs to go to here, and be discussed, and a big hoo-hah gone through before such deletions can be made. While I hold no particular brief for those who choose to sell their bodies for cash, I think that two important principles need to be respected here: 1) Misplaced Pages is not a rapist's directory; 2) Misplaced Pages is not in the business of haunting people with their childish mistakes. I'm still pretty new here, so I don't know how one goes about setting up/suggesting rules that would allow for speedy erasure by admins, so thought I'd bring it here. Vizjim 08:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tiffany Teen's real name is also in her history: I guess it's common practice. Which makes the need for agreed ground rules all the more pressing.

As a precedent, we have the real names of at least a few people who might prefer they were not public information, such as Natalie Portman. Is Portman's surname now a matter of public knowledge? Pakaran 18:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering the IMDB has that, and the IMDB has a lot more commercial oversight than we do, I'd say that one's kosher. The key is, most of these porn star names are collected by people who are either stalking or trying to stalk these girls, or simply by someone doing a tremendous amount of original research - Either way, not appropriate, and not necessary. Put another way - if they wanted their real names to be known, do you think we'd have to search some backwater porn chat forum to find out about it? If that's the only place we have to find their name, then it's not appropriate. NOR and V apply. --Golbez 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For perspective, google on Natalie+Portman+Hershlag gives about 1000 sites. By comparison, Misplaced Pages and one mirror were the only places google found identifying Ms. Capri's real name. Us and mirrors account from more than half of the 32 sites giving Tawnee's birthname. Dragons flight 19:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Natalie Portman probably has significantly less chance of problems arising, as she can probably afford personal security. A college kid who made some judgement errors and got mixed up in porn probably doesn't have any real protection. There's also not much real chance that Natalie Portman's life will be ruined if people find out she's Natalie Portman. These porn girls, however, may want to put their past behind them and having this kind of crap being publicly linked to their real identities may cost them jobs, friends, etc. And the fact that the Tawnee Stone actress was not only exposed but had her (supposed) brothers exposed... that's a very bad precedent. I'd hate to think that there are some guys out there now being hassled with "dude I saw your sister having sex on the internet" because someone saw them in whats supposed to be an encyclopedia. In the case of Jordan Capri, the girl's family business was exposed and she was getting "fans" showing up and calling at the shop. Theres lots of different angles here, and we need a policy in place before something really bad happens to somebody. There's the risk that exposure gives to the lives and livelihoods of the girls in question. Theres the fact that much of the information is very flimsy (in the Tawnee Stone case, its basically some guy on an internet forum who says he knew her from an IHOP in his home town). There's the relevance issue in that saying what school some girl who played the role of Tawnee Stone or Jordan Capri went to so and so school is little better than tabloid gossip about semi-fictional people. There's also the question of do we want Misplaced Pages serving as a porn directory, which I dont think it should. At the very least, the private life details of these girls and their relatives ought to be purged from public view. Murple 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

By the by, I think there are pretty firm policy grounds for blocking the creep who's been posting this information: Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Examples, the one about endangering other users. It seems to me that if exposing another editor to possible danger is a reason to ban, then exposing a non-editor to now-demonstrable danger from stalkers ought to be a reason as well. (And actually, one of the people in question has edited Misplaced Pages at least once. . .). Is this a good idea? —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

See Also: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Personal_details_of_notable_people and the to be written Misplaced Pages:Divulging_personal_details Dragons flight 19:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Think an admin can go in and make all the personal details in the Tawnee Stone article & discussion invisible to the public as was done for Jordan Capri? I removed them from the article, but theyre still in revision history, and I'm not sure if I can edit them out of discussion. Murple 20:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Went in and removed the stuff from the talk page myself, still in the edit logs however, and likely to be put back unless the admins act. Murple 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The edit logs for Tawnee are now free of personal details. Dragons flight 00:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Murple 18:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The rule

What is the rule in reference to deleting your own comments from other users' talk pages? 205.217.105.2 21:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Striking them through rather than deleting is usually considered the polite thing to do. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is unsure of what that means:

<s>Hello world</s> → Hello world

-- Curps 21:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • All right, thank you. 24.54.208.177 00:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User:LevKamensky

I have blocked LevKamensky (talk · contribs) indefinitely for making threats to vandalize Misplaced Pages. Following my block, he added the following to his Talk page - - indicating his intention to continue vandalizing. If he adds any of my articles for AfD, under any ID, I intend to delete them from AfD without discussion. User:Zoe| 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call. I had previously blocked LevKamensky (talk · contribs) for the duration of an AfD he was involved because of his disruptive behavior. The AfD was closed today and LevKamensky unblocked. It didn't take him very long to start vandalizing again by sticking AfD notices on a number of good articles. He seems to be unaware of the concept of lack of ownership of articles, or even basic concepts like Wikiquette. His campaign of harassment against Zoe has been particularly atrocious. --MarkSweep✍ 02:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good show. A little late perhaps, but still good. --Golbez 04:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Same for me. If any of the articles I created or contributed to ends up on AfD and I have reason to believe that Lev is behind the nomination, I will immediately delete those nominations from AfD, no questions asked. Aecis 16:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Be careful not to delete valid requests. If in doubt, er on the side of caution. I'm pretty sure valid articles will survive AFD anyway. Did anyone explain to him that once submitted articles are no longer your property? - 131.211.210.12 07:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That was me. - Mgm| 07:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• • He isn't planning on listing his pages for deletion, he's planning on listing my pages and the pages of other people's he's listed, for deletion. User:Zoe| 20:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:203.173.8.12

Blocked for 24 hours due to vandalism and removal of WP:VIP entries. The user was changing information on the Government of Australia article, specifically changing the fact that the country is a constitutional monarchy into one that states that Australia is a republic. Based from what I've read and heard, this seems like a common User:Skyring argument. Would someone more experienced in these matters check out the edits, and see if this is indeed a sock? If it is, the ArbCom ban would be reset as of today. Thanks. Bratsche 00:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He/she is certainly an annoyance. Similar to Skyring, although the use of the plural recalls Gollum. The provider doesn't seem right, and there seems to be a history of abuse independent of Skyring's depradations. This fellow is annoying (and destructive) enough to be blocked in his own right. Mackensen (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Skyring has been editing from 203. IP's of late, so this this is very likely him. Even if not, the editor was correctly blocked.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a note, a POV edit is not necessarily vandalism. Of course given the history of controversy over this it should be discussed prior to any changes. Everyking 06:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

True enough, but in this case it's a POV edit that's also factually incorrect, possibly made by a hard-banned user. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Alabambam

• Alabambam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... someone want to deal with this?--Copyeditor 03:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, absolutely a troll. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He's outta here. --Golbez 04:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

And next time, please don't wait two weeks. You're forgiven if you just noticed him now, but there was no reason for this guy to rove unchecked for two weeks. --Golbez 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Writers Cramp aka LaLa

I believe that two users are probably the same person. Given the evidence--in-your-face user page, bad attitude, copyvios, which pages are being edited, blanking user talk page, etc., and the fact that User:WritersCramp appeared when User:LaLa was blocked and LaLa reappears when WC is blocked (currently)--I wonder whether anything can or should be done about it-- Elf | Talk 02:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The two accounts certainly seem to edit many of the same articles. Exploding Boy 02:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

LaLa is now proceeding to personal attacks and reverting legitimate edits. See . Elf | Talk 19:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I see from a note on another user's page that LaLa is now blocked but based on comments on LaLa's talk page, where I got no response here. OK, obviously I don't know the process for raising this stuff--this page seemed like the right one but apparently not. What's this page for, then? Elf | Talk 15:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

He's now created another account, ], at least, i think we can safely assume this is his account. - Trysha 21:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been monitoring these users for some time, and believe based on edit histories, articles worked on, and time of account usage and editing patterns, as well as distintictive comments on talk pages that this user(s) employs a number of sockpuppets. See ] for a (probably incomplete) list of suspects. Fawcett5 11:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

school encouraging vanity pages?

User:DevShah2004 created the vanity page DevShah2004, which I deleted. When he asked me over AIM as to why I deleted the "article", I told him that it was deleted because it was a blatant vanity page. He told me that it was a school assignment. I find this very bothersome. --Ixfd64 05:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What school? --FOo 05:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He didn't tell me. :\ --Ixfd64 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, gee, you think the very same autobiography (now on his userpage) might help: he attends the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, where he is a sophomore studying computer engineering.--Pharos 06:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt even Tech gives out lame assignments like creating vanity articles on Misplaced Pages for Computer Engineering. --06:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Argh, that was really obvious, and I didn't even notice it. *slaps himself* --Ixfd64 06:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

death threat by user on Kinko's public computer

Not too long ago, I blocked 69.64.213.146 (talk · contribs) for user page vandalism and personal insults. I blocked him for only one hour, as he claimed that he was using a computer from Kinko's. Afterwards, he made the account 234234 (talk · contribs) just to make a death threat on my talk page. That earnt him an indefinite block on that account. --Ixfd64 07:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely uncalled for... this guy deserves a lifetime block.  ALKIVAR™ 08:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also instantly block anyone who made death threats. I bet that guy doesn't have the foggiest where you live but merely wanted to intimidate you. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Helen Clark

I have removed a couple of posts by User:Spawn Man from this talk page. Spawn Man does not like the New Zealand Prime Minister, but his attacks on her are not useful in developing the encyclopedia article and veer towards making personal attacks on other editors, and inflammatory material, such as comparing Clark to Hitler. I've invited Spawn Man to reply here.-gadfium 09:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

And reply I shall. If I recall, the talk pages of articles were to discuss both personal opinions & ways to expand & improve their articles. My articles started off as helping towards the Helen Clark article, mainly by myself plainly stating the question; "Why has no one put on the article that Helen Clark stopped grace before meals". Shouldn't we, being part of the wonderful wikipedia, strive to post the full & honest facts on its articles? It is after all an actual fact that she did infact stop grace before parliamentary meals. Or are we only going to include half facts on wikipedia? Would you find it appropriate if on a German site, that they ommitted the fact that Hitler killed over 6 million Jews? Absolutely not. As wikipedians, we should aim to post both negative & positive facts on all articles, & let people who have opinions on these talk freely on the talk pages. Just because I don't like the New Zealand Prime Minister, doesn't mean you have to delete my posts because you think differently. I wouldn't dream of deleting your posts because your opinion differed from mine. And if you think that people only use talk pages for discussing ways to improve articles, I would suggest you rethink this statement, because I have seen on many occasions, talk pages filled with personal views & thoughts. I will glady retract my insulting comments towards the other users, (especially the Australian who thought he knew more about NZ politics than a NZer), & if you ask of me, I will gladly send a personal letter of apology to him/her. But I utterly detest to my personal viewpoint, which I hold so dear, to be quashed & undermined by being deleted. You could have handled it better too. For example, you could have just deleted the rude comments about Helen, but left the rest, as I spent much time typing those words. Plus, I like to write, as you call them, "Lengthy" posts. I don't know where this goes from here, but I'd like my posts returned (minus the rudeness), & in return I will send apologies to the users I may have offended. Thank you for the chance at letting me having my say against this. Spawn Man 10:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The comments by Spawn Man (talk · contribs) were removed by Gadfium (talk · contribs) in this edit.

I would strongly encourage Spawn Man to review our policies on personal attacks and civility, and note that it is never appropriate to call other editors 'Stewpid'. Spawn Man is more that welcome to dislike Helen Clark and to discuss criticisms of her on the article talk page. I would also suggest that Spawn Man review our article on Godwin's law, and note that comparisons to Hitler almost never lend credibility to an argument. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I will not get involved in the discussion about what information an article about Helen Clark should or should not contain. I will only say this to Spawn Man: I find your comparing not mentioning Helen Clark stopping grace before parliamentary meals to not mentioning the Jews killed in the Holocaust totally abject, tasteless, irrelevant, not constructive, sickening and appalling, and any other negative adjective I can think of. Please learn to present your argumentation more decently. Aecis 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, I was just making a comparison!! I never said I condoned what Hitler did. But my point was that you wouldn't like it if someone ommitted that information due to the fact that it was negative towards Hitler. But that was exactly the response I recieved: "Why put that on there? Not only is it untrue, it is negative towards Helen Clark", or somewhere along those lines. No need to get all puffed up over a comparison Aecis. My main objection is, is that you Gadfium, deleted my more factual posts about her, such as her depleting our air force etc, but left my more vulgar comments about her on there? You seem very inconsistant... I admit it got a bit out of control, but as I have said, & will say many a time more, I dislike a person who assumes they know more about my country than myself. For an Australian to argue with matters of my government , presuming he is right, gets my blood boiling beyond belief. I wouldn't dream of arguing with matters of his government, assuming that I was right. I would expect the same response myself. If you gladly refer myself to a forum other than Helen Clark's talk page, on wikipedia, where I can freely rant on about Helen, I will send apologies to anyone that I have offended & remove all my posts from her talk page. On further note, I will take all of your advice under careful advisement. I will apologise now if I've offended anyone about my Helen/Hitler comment; I certainly did not mean it in the way that some took it. I will also apologise if I have offended anyone over my comments on Helen Clark's talk page. I honestly thought that you could express your personal thoughts on the subject matter on there. Further more, if I have any more personal comments or thoughts to write on talk pages in the future, I will put them across in a more formal manner, as I agree with Ten of all trades, that Hitler comparisons will never further the argument (although, once again, I never meant it in the way some took it). Next time I will use Stalin or Amin, (that was a joke, just to lighten up the mood a bit). I would still like to be directed to a talk forum on[REDACTED] where I can rant on about Helen Clark without ramifications. I hope we can all come away from all this as friends, as I usually don't like to rock the boat too much. But as you may well have noticed, I go slightly mad when it comes to Helen Clark, a state further aggravated by her practically winning the elections. Well I'll stop writing now... Spawn Man 23:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Tenofalltrades: How long do you think I have to live before your attack mice catch up to me? I don't want to die without going to Disney land...

Since you agree your posts "got a bit out of control", why don't you try retrieving them from history, editing out the bits which are over the top, and putting them back on the talk page? I removed your posts rather than edit them because I thought that would be less offensive to you; editing someone else's talk page comments is generally not done on Misplaced Pages.

There is no forum on Misplaced Pages where rants are welcome. This is not a forum, it's an encyclopedia, and the talk pages are places to assist its building. We are much more tolerant of rants on talk pages than in articles, but you went too far. We are more tolerent still of rants on one's own user page; I can't guarantee that anything you put on your own user page will stay there, but it would have to be pretty extreme before I removed it.

Finally, I suggest you get over any issues you have with non-New Zealanders contributing to articles on New Zealand politics. The articles are written for everyone, not just New Zealanders, and the extra perspective of editors from around the world improves them.-gadfium 00:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. I would love other editors from around the world to submit what ever they wish. I do not have a problem with that. My problem was the fact that he denied the fact that the new zealand parliament has parliamentary sit down meals, when however, I know for a fact, because I have visited parliament numerous times, that they do actually have meals together. That was my problem.

I find that my posts were removed completely more offensive than if you edited them somewhat. I read the rules, & it says that you are allowed to edit posts if they are too over the top.

Another point, as I have said, most people do see the talk pages as an open forum to the article's subject. I recant on all the offensive stuff I may have used, but I will not on the fact of talk pages being used as personal talk forums. I would not talk about anything other than the article's subject matter on its talk pages. But I think both personal & improving & even critisizing posts should be allowed on talk pages. For example, personal view points can lead to other areas of thought, & even enlighten other users to use their own opinions.

E.G. I hate food. Why? I don't like the taste of this food...etc. Well that could be due to the acids in that food. What acids? Check out this page...etc.

But if someone, such as you, deleted the opening sentence "I hate food" for being unfounded, vauge & useless, then this person would never know why he didn't like that type of food. Not to mention other people who saw it who had wondered the same thing & were now enlightened about the food's taste.

E.G. I don't like Helen Clark. Why not? Because she's done this & this & this. Well actually, this MP passed that bill & etc etc.... Ok, now I know a bit more. If you want any more answers, see my talk page.

Not only is more than one person more enlightened, but people who pass by the talk page may post their questions on that person's talk page. But of course, I shouldn't have used rude or attacking posts. But personal opinions could lead to a better place of thinking if left to blossom on their talk pages. Should by no means a post of food be left on Iraq's talk page, but rather should be directed to the food's talk page.

I have a few last questions. Why did you pull this disagreement onto this page, while you could have simply deleted my posts (or edited them) & left a note of warning on my talk page? Secondly, where does this go from here? Do I get banned, exiled from the[REDACTED] community or get a warning etc? Does this stay on here forever? Do I get a strike? Basically, what happens after we've finished discussing things on here? Spawn Man 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. I have rephrased my wording, so maybe it's more to your liking. If it still isn't up to your 'standards', then I will probably throw a taz in my chair & cry like a big baby. (not actually). But I will be annoyed. But then again, it will be up to your standards because is isn't rude. So there... :)

On a side note, the party that opposes Mme. Clark has compared her to Stalin right before the election. Zach (Sound Off) 02:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I posted on this page because what I did is a little bit controversial, and I wanted my peers to see what I'd done and possibly comment on it. I also wanted you to see a wider reaction to your posts. I'm happy that two editors (User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Aecis) seem to support me on this.

This discussion will be archived in a week or so once we stop contributing to it. After that, the incident will be largely forgotten. You don't get disciplined, although it would be fair for you to consider it a warning. If you want to talk about it further, I suggest you post on my talk page (or yours), and we won't waste the time of everyone else, unless you specifically want this discussion to continue in this more public place.-gadfium 03:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep me out of this, Gadfium. As I said: "I will not get involved in the discussion about what information an article about Helen Clark should or should not contain." I don't support you in this, and I don't oppose you in this. I am simply not involved in the discussion. My only response here was to a comparison Spawn Man felt he had to draw. Nothing more, nothing less. I have nothing to say about Spawn Man's behaviour on the article about Helen Clark. Aecis 16:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

So you, a retired person, wanted to publicly humiliate me, a first time rule breaker, instead of just simply deleting my posts & then telling me on my talk page? Aren't you a nice person? Have a nice day.... Spawn Man 04:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Spawn Man, I suggest you follow the advice of TenOfAllTrades and revise our policies on civility and personal attacks. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I finished reading the history of this subject, and I agree with S.M. You didn't have to, as he calls it, "publicly humiliate" him. I find that quite a few talk pages have a lot of personal opinions, whether they help towards improving the article or not. I think you should be apologising to him, because this is his first time being pulled up for rude posts. But I agree with you Gadfium, his posts were borderlining extreme rudeness. I think this thing should be all forgotten and everyone kiss and make up. Market Man 04:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I finished reading the history of this user, and I find it quite likely that User:Market Man is a sockpuppet. --Carnildo 04:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but I think the wikiproject for decency would have something to say about kissing on WP:AN. --fvw* 05:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Market Man. I have already apologised to anyone I may have offended, rephrased my posts & have been kind & curtious. I have read your civilty etc pages now & will follow them closely. But as both I & Market Man stated, gadfium did not have to create a huge issue about it. Now I'd like this to go away, as I didn't want it to go on this long. Spawn Man 05:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. What's a sock puppet? I have one at home, "Bob the Sock puppet".

Read sock puppet and see if anything rings a bell.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. So just because Market Man has the same opinion as myself, I'm supoosed to believe he's a sock puppet? Outrageous! Spawn Man 05:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Although my sock puppet at home looks awfully like the striped puppet on sock puppet.

No. It is because Market Man has made no other edit than to express the the same opinion as you that we suspect you of creating a sock puppet. There are ways and means of determining if it is a sock puppet, but I think that un-necessary in this largely inconsequential issue.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay okay, so I'm a bad liar. Market Man is my friend who I signed up today. So technically, he doesn't count as a sock puppet, but he's definitly biased towards me. Muahahahahaha. Now can we all be friends & forget about this, cause I'm getting bored with all this beaurocratic chit chat. I've apologise, been publically humiliated as punishment, discussed the issues, promised to try harder (everyone makes mistakes, even me, no matter how perfectly perfect I am) & that should be that. So goodnight menosan, sayounara. Spawn Man 06:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, to answer the original comment from Spawn Man, grace was stopped when New Zealand gained its first Moslem MP (IIRC Asif Choudhry) which coincided with Helen Clark becoming PM. In other words, it was done in order not to offend an MP from a non-Christian religion - not for reasons of Helen Clark's own beliefs. As such, it is completely irrelevant to the article. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Zizban

I've been putting up with crap from this user (see his countless edits to User_talk:Kiand and User:Kiand in the past six months, and note that the countless 141.154.151.* edits, User:Generallego and User:Symbols are his sockpuppets.

Now he's been placing attacks against me on his talk page, and reverting when I remove them under WP:NPA.

I reported this earlier in the week when I wasn't sure who the sockpuppets belonged to, nothing was done. Its now extremely clear who they belong to, and I'd like something done about it. --Kiand 13:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked an IP and Lego that I saw on your user page history for a few weeks. --Golbez 23:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He's still at it. Minor edits to my user page, and readding/chaning stuff which is definately covered under WP:NPA on his user page. He also edits little to nothing else at this stage, so I can't see why he can't be just blocked. --Kiand 21:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest another admin take a look at this, since it does appear you threw the first punch by editing his page, but your edits could be seen as legit, whereas his are simply harassing. I'll block him for a short while, but I'd like a second opinion on this. (PS, anyone home? Why am I the only one responding to this, several days after the first report?) --Golbez 21:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Alabambam

I would like to request that someone consider blocking User:Alabambam. (I've read mountains of legal-sounding-policy pages -- none of which seem to be current -- about how to request this and couldn't find one.) The only purpose of this log-in is to spread hate. Here's what he added to Joke:

Q: Why did the nigger cross the road?

A: Because niggers are an inferior race.

and:

Q: What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza?

A: Pizza doesn't scream in the oven.

You'll also notice in his/her user history (Special:Contributions/Alabambam) that he was fighting on the Hurricane Katrina page to talk about how black people aren't as smart as white people and this is why most of the victims were black.

I hope that someone can help keep this person from vandalizing[REDACTED] anymore.-Quasipalm 15:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I already did.

Last night.

--Golbez 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User:24.222.79.90

User is getting quite nasty about inforcing his own revisions. He has gone edit/revert happy. Prefers to have his discussions in the revert comments instead of talk pages. Jwissick 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Porsha Blaze

As with the Jordan Capri and Tawnee Stone complaints elsewhere, Porsha Blaze, an entirely unnotable pornography actress, has had a page written about her. The sole purpose of this page appears to be to give out her real name and link to a blog she maintains outside her professional life. Could someone with admin powers delete this information, please? Also, I'll repeat my request regarding a firm and binding policy on publishing the real names of porn stars. This is just wrong, surely? Vizjim 07:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Done. I've edited it to only mention her pseudonym and the link to her cumfiesta.com page, deleted the article and undeleted only my newest edit to it. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's bad though, now it's a GFDL vio. I've added a comment about the original poster on the talk page, but I do think we need some policy on this fast. (Personally I don't see a problem with posting personal information as long as it's verifiable). --fvw* 07:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • • I agree we need a policy for this, seeing how many cases like this have popped up recently, but I don't see how handling the problem like JIP did creates a GFDL violation - surely the tiny bit of info now present in the article can be viewed as being entirely PD? -- Ferkelparade π 08:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we could probably get away with calling that uncopyrightable. There'll be other articles in future where we can't though. --fvw* 08:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
          • And there has been in the past. I'm an admin who was some months ago contacted by a more famous porn star who wanted her recently added real name stricken from the article on her for the sake of her and her family's safty. Misplaced Pages was the only site on the net that had her real name (and it was obviously the right one since she was worried). I wasn't sure how to handle it, and decided that making a big fuss about it then would just make matters worse, so I just let her edit it out her self. It made most sense to me then, but I'm not sure how to handle cases like this. People will scream bloody censor and that[REDACTED] should simply state facts, but, well, maybe we shouldn't state every fact at all cost. (anon for the occation) 83.227.105.210 00:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
            • It's really not that complicated. Either it's verifiable, in which case leaving it in the article isn't going to make matters any worse, or it isn't, in which case WP:NOT says we should remove it. --fvw* 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a stupid idea even having the article porsha blaze. Not only does it give out little, if any, information, it gives an active link to a crude & disgusting porn site. If it doesn't get deleted altogether, it should be placed under a title such as: List of Mentionable Porn Stars, or List of Porn Stars. This way everyone goes away happy. Spawn Man 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT censored, including in external links, and a porn star's article could reasonably expected to link to a porn site. Though it does sound like this article did deserve deletion for non-notability. ~~ N (t/c) 14:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Article has been deleted, thanks to Gamaliel. Vizjim 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yay! Spawn Man

Even if something is verifiable, it does not nessesarily belong in an encyclopedia. Stalker-like edits are simply inappropriate at best, and can be life-threatening at worst. There are way too many weirdos in the world who would love to have an easy source of home address, etc, to porn stars. My 2 cents. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Too creepy. Misplaced Pages is not stalkepedia. El_C 22:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I also believe that if someone's life could be harmed (physically, like stalking) due to the posting the information should be deletable, and I am sure the GNU folks will not have a problem with that. Zach (Sound Off) 23:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The GNU folks have nothing to do with it though. The person who posted the material has agreed to licence it under the GFDL; if we violate that agreement we are violating the copyright of the original uploader.

Also, I think calling reposting material freely available on the web putting someone's life in danger is a little bit alarmist at best. --fvw* 23:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

True, but we also have to consider how the original poster obtained the information. If illegally, it would not be covered under GFDL to begin with. It is just safer not to include such personal information unless easily obtainable from verifiable sources. ∞Who?¿? 23:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

We have no reason to assume the poster got the information through illegal methods, not only WP:AGF but also just common sense. If you were going to break the law, would you really do it just to find out someone's real name and post it to wikipedia? Anyway, whether or not they aquired the information legally has no bearing on their copyright on the material they created. --fvw* 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The present version of the software allows any who visits a page to see the "X deleted versions" link in the history and follow it to see the page history log for those deleted edits. They can't see the content of those edits, but they are able to see who made them and the edit summaries. I am sure this was put in to minimize the GFDL problem associated with selective deletion. Dragons flight 00:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me about this? In the US anyway, their names are already a matter of public record because of record keeping requirements. Are you really suggesting we should have a policy saying that we can have biographies of people and yet censor their actual name? It seems to me to be about the most fundamental thing a biography requires... Fawcett5 12:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Those records are not public. They are required to be kept and be presented to the attorney general or his agent upon request, but the rest of us have no access to them. In many cases the persona associated with these roles is an entire fabrication, and totally disconnected with their real life identities. Since their real life identity is both unverifiable and unconnected with what they are notable for then yes, an article on a notable porn role has no business discussing the life of the actress playing that role. The situation would of course be different for entertainers choosing to use their real name, but that is not the case here. Don't think of it as a biography, think of it as an article on a fictional character. Dragons flight 12:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't much of this breach the no original research requirement? The argument that "The person who posted the material has agreed to licence it under the GFDL; if we violate that agreement we are violating the copyright of the original uploader." would, if taken to its logical conclusion, preclude all editing of text once submitted, plus all page deletion, so it has no validity. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• They are not fictional characters. They are biographies, of people who are solely known by their stage names, a situation that exists for actors and actresses outside of the pornography industry as well as inside. fvw has it exactly right. We can verify Michael Caine's real name, Diana Dors' real name, and Cary Grant's real name. We cannot verify the real name of an actor or actress who keeps that information secret, and so our biographical articles cannot contain that information. Our normal verifiability policy in action is all that is required here. Uncle G 03:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, sure, everything must pass the verifiability test. But if the actual names were verifiable (and other standard biographical information such as date and place of birth), they should be included. The expectation of privacy in the case of porn stars is not in principal different from that of any other public figure. On the other hand, certain verifiable information, such as current address, etc. should not be included simply because it is unencyclopaedic. Fawcett5 13:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing should be included simply because it's unencyclopaedic. Don't you mean "simply because it's encyclopaedic"? — JIP | Talk 21:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

The subjects of this article have been editing from anonymous IPs to remove information critical of themselves. I've warned them to stop doing this, and will be blocking IPs to enforce this. They're staying on the same IP for periods of time, but can also clearly shift. In any case, anyone who wants to revert these on sight and also block the IPs will be appreciated. Snowspinner 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Howard Stern vandal

I've just blocked 71.100.85.190 (talk · contribs · block log) for 48 hours for continued vandalism to Howard Stern, (I tried 24hrs, 24.5 hours ago, but he was straight back at it - and that wasn't his first block). Have I acted correctly? 1) Sure as eggs are eggs, he'll be back at it in 48 hours. 2)the IP page (before blanking) states it has 'multiple users' - although there is no sign of any edits from it that aren't our vandal. PS. Is this the right place to ask this? --Doc (?) 23:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. Report this here. And yes also, you acted correctly in blocking him. Spawn Man 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And the talk page for all IPs says that they may be multiple users. It's boilerplate - we don't have any reason to suppose this particular address is in fact used by more than one person. Yes, you were right, and if he comes back, the blocks will just get longer. - Nunh-huh 00:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Michel Lafosse

Anon keeps reverting an accurate version of Lafosse's article to a partisan one. I've reverted 3 times, but won't do a fourth even though this seems to me to be clearcut vandalism. Feel free to keep an eye on Michel Lafosse, though, the rest of you<g>. - Nunh-huh 23:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Agriculture on West Virginia

This user is persistently inserting the following statement into the "Trivia" section of West Virginia:

"The state is often the butt of jokes with neighboring states due to it's reputation for inbreeding"

It isn't vandalism, but it isn't encyclopedic either. I find it hard to assume that this is a good faith edit. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a long-running joke, which actually turned into a real-life dispute where a shirt was made that said "It is all relative in West Virginia." See . Zach (Sound Off) 01:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the inbreeding has led to the inability to distinguish "it's" from "its"? - Nunh-huh 01:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Zach (Sound Off) 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you think NPA applies in some way to the discussion, Zscout370, but I certainly can't see how it does. - Nunh-huh 06:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not vandalism.. the state does have that unfortunate reputation, but it's probably not appropriate for the article. Rhobite 03:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

While I think it is questionable for the article (although I think it could get a mention somewhere on Misplaced Pages, in some form, not sure where would be most appropriate), I don't have any trouble assuming good faith about it. Everyking 06:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Suugestion, create It's All Realtive in West Virginia and explain about the phrase, why it became popular, who started it and mention the issue from the BBC I posted above. Zach (Sound Off) 06:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we have a List of ethnic slurs, I can't see a problem with recording regional ones, even in the article, providing they are notorious and it is made clear that they are otherwise unfounded. --Doc (?) 10:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we've lost at least one new editor, User:Whitby Mark, who was adding new articles about coal towns, over this insistence on including a piece about the ethnic slur in the article. He has asked me to have all his contributions erased from the wiki.

I think this is a matter of perspective. We wouldn't put a note about the "Ugly American" stereotype into United States or sheep-fucking into Wales. This isn't because those slurs cannot be written about but because they're not significant enough to merit comment in those particular articles. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

But in my experience, inbreeding is one of the first things uninformed people think of when they hear West Virginia. It's certainly notable enough for the article. ~~ N (t/c) 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I like Doc's idea, create a List of regional slurs and just start piling on to it. I also heard about the sheep fornacating a lot in the States. Zach (Sound Off) 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the point is that this is what uninformed people may say about the state. Such folklore is probably not on the list the things about a US State that are significant enough to belong to the article on the state. Do we list under African American the common legend about male penis size? Under Poles do we have a list of Polish jokes? There's no reason in principle why not, but we don't. We don't do so, I would guess, mostly because giving such myths prominence would cause needless offence. They don't tell us anything useful about the subject of the article, so they're unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Informed people often think of this as the second thing that the state is known for, right after skiing. When it comes down to it, major corporations don't make shirts about Black penis size, or pole jokes. The WV jabs have made it onto popular clothing lines, and are the reason why UVA no longer has a pep band (the Governor of WV was outraged by an inbreeding joke made by the pep band during a UVA vs. WV game). It's significant and notable and belongs there. Evidently Tony doesn't feel so strongly against the page on Misplaced Pages which lists slang terms for penis and masturbation, but then again as I wasn't the author of it, Tony isn't against it. Agriculture 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony may be right (or not), but ultimately, this is a content dispute - so take it to the talk page - and if it can't be settled there list the issue for an RfC. This is not a discussion about administration, so it doesn't belong here. --Doc (?) 19:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:83.132.240.187

I have blocked 83.132.240.187 for one year for vote stuffing on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prince Emmanuel de Cériz and for this threat. User:Zoe| 05:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No complaints from here. Longer bans are better. --Golbez 05:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, not that I object to stopping harmful editors, but do you have any reason to believe this person will still have the same IP address tomorrow? Dragons flight 05:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One year is entirely too long except for major offenses, and even then only if you know it's a static IP. User:83.132.240.187 appears to be a Portuguese cable modem account. I've reduced the block to 48 hours - the two edits in question are the only two from this IP. --Carnildo 06:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Not much point in having a No threats policy, is there? Not much point in blocking him at all, then, is there? User:Zoe| 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a DHCP address for a TVCABO-Portugal cable modem user. I think blocking a dynamic IP for one year is a bad idea. Jonathunder 06:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you know it's dynamic? User:Zoe| 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's dynamic, then tomorrow's owner can ask us for a reprieve. --Golbez 06:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's definately DHCP, per SORBS:

Dynamic IP Space (LAN, Cable, DSL & Dial Ups)

Netblock: 83.132.0.0/16 (83.132.0.0-83.132.255.255)

Jonathunder 06:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine, you have a point. --Golbez 17:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleting tactics

User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See , , , . He even falsely claimed to have moved content from another page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted. See .

There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See , , , , , , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.206.236 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've copied this from my Talk page. If I get time (which might not be for while) I'll look at it myself, but there'd be little point my approaching Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) about it, as his knee-jerk response to me (well, to most people) is a snap and a snarl — and that's on a good day. If the accusation proves to be correct (and Ted Wilkes has gone in for this sort of thing before), what would be the best response? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One last warning and then a 24 hour block, scaling upwards for each violation, would be appropriate. User:Zoe| 21:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Ann Heneghan's stalker

Please be on the lookout for sockpuppet accounts of SarahPhelpsjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This individual has been involved in user page vandalism, and has been creating attack pages via a blog site:

• http://byebyeann.blogspot.com/ (attack against User:Ann Heneghan, now removed by the site)
• http://sexygordy.blogspot.com/ (attack against User:GordonWatts)

I would suggest performing google searches of blogspot.com for the word "Misplaced Pages", in case any more of these pop up.

• SarahPhelpsjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheStalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dannyrodgers45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richardharrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnnopryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GordenWatts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note the "e")
• 203.147.0.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.142.214.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Eh...there are more details to fill in about this situation, but I'm late for a family thing. Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Func, I'll just add one more:

• 58.11.10.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I tried an apnic search for the three anonymous ones. I'm not very well up in tracking IP addresses, but they seemed to be based in Thailand. Ann Heneghan 16:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the majority seem to be proxies in Thailand. And it seems that Thailand has legitimate uses for proxies, so we can't indefinitely block. Ral315 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Ral and Ann. I've removed a tiny bit of sensative information from my user page; Whether the user is crazy or not, she (or he?) seems to have a good point: If someone really wants to find me, they have to work a little bit. I've ignored the vanity blog. Interesting...--GordonWatts 17:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott Fisher

Scottfisher (talk · contribs · block log) seems to have gone on a rampage due to some edit dispute. He's been deleting his own useful contributions from all over the wiki. I've temporary blocked him, and left a note on his page. I will be gone for a hour or so, if anyone wants to pik this up. Some rollback may also be required. --Doc (?) 16:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, he went insane. --Golbez 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, back. I've now indefinitely blocked him to stop further damage (I think his last spree has now been undone). He may be gone anyway. If he calms down, and wishes to return, he can be unblocked. It look like he was a useful editor. I've still no idea what or who pushed him over the edge.--Doc (?) 17:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate: deleting your own valid edits cannot be undone once made because you're angry or you've decided to leave for some other reason. Once submitted, you release your edits under the GFDL which cannot be retracted as further edits on the article are based on the assumption it stays that way. Exceptions can be made for people who added their own copyrighted material without this knowledge and reconsider. - Mgm| 11:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Got that. I wasn't undoing his valid edits - I was undoing his deletions of his valid edits. --Doc (?) 12:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

By e-mail Scott has indicated a desire to return, and behave. I think I've unblocked him, but not sure I've done it right - he wasn't showing up on my block log. Can someone check this and complete if I've messed up. --Doc (?) 16:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

From your log it looks like you unblocked his autoblock #, but not his username. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Which is strange, because his username doesn't come up as blocked . -Splash 16:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, strange :0 the reason I unblocked the autoblock is I found nothing else to unblock - and yet the original block does show up in my register - but not in his. I don't get this - and as I say I have to go. Much obliged if someone can ensure he is currently unblocked. --Doc (?) 16:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Ironbrew and User:IMNOTEMICO

Anyone know anything about these two users? They keep posting sockpuppet notices on each others userpages, mini edit war at this point. ∞Who?¿? 20:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The name of the second one seems to read like "I'm not Emico". --cesarb 20:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea, so it does. I didn't notice that, I was looking at both of their histories and just saw the constant addition/removals of the banner. It is quite odd for them to create a username like that, think I will have to look at the user histories of Emico and IMNOTEMICO. ∞Who?¿? 20:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look further up in this page for a clear explaination for this edit war. --LBMixPro 21:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains that user somewhat, I have also requested that Theo look in on it. I still am not sure whether Ironbrew is a sock of Onlytofind. I went through the "evidence" listed on the notice Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#Evidence_of_Onlytofind.2FIronbrew_sockpuppet, and although they are editing the same article and one stopped soon before the other began, its not clear-cut to me. I would appreciate an admin posting the sock notices on the userpages, and not a user that is only 2 days old. ∞Who?¿? 21:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that User:AypeeESME (IP is me????) had a series of edits similar in view and style to Emico's. When asked about being Emico, he denied it, but was determined to be a sockpuppet of Emico's and banned by TheoClarke.--Ironbrew 23:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What the... IMNOTEMICO gets an indef block. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Adrigo

The user user:Adrigo is Donald Alford (AKA DotSix) who has been injoined by the Arb Committee from editing any page except the evidence page for his Arb Hearing and his own user pages. He has been disrupting , , and . Please block him until the Arb action is completed. Thank you. --Nate Ladd 01:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. If appropriate, the block can be lifted once the ArbCom has deliberated. Yes, I know this prevents this username from editing RfArb, but he shows no signs of abiding by the injuction, and has plenty of other usernames to choose from. -Splash 01:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could someone please enlighten me and link the evidence these users are the same? - Mgm| 11:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, User:Adrigo is specifically mentioned in the RfArb, though admittedly only by the 'accusers'. The username does not deny it. It edits the same pages in the same style as Dot6, and established editors have reverted its edits with comments along the lines of "revert Dot6". -Splash 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've looked at Adrigo's edits, either it's him, or it's someone who should be blocked for the exact same reasons as Dot6, (it's him, though). Func( t, c, @, ) 15:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think these edits are telling: , . Also Adrigo uses many of the same mannerisms and tactics as DotSix: Insistence on pointing out "logical fallacies" in articles, adding the {{dispute-resolution}} template to discussions, etc. . I'm convinced that Adrigo = DotSix, and he should be blocked per the injunction. However I'm still not sure about this "Donald Alford" business - I think that the user who edited under that name was an impostor and it shouldn't be held against DotSix. Nate, I think you've been too hasty in assuming that Donald Alford is DotSix. Rhobite 16:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Help-desk spammers

This user, 24.210.167.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blanked WP:HD to add a single (presumably spam) link earlier today, and yesterday spammed a set of links at the top of that page (though without blanking). I'm not sure if this is inherently a bannable offence (though if it was up to me, it would be); could someone keep an eye on it? 67.80.21.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also hit the helpdesk, twice yesterday and once this morning. Thanks for any assistance. Shimgray 11:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Checking recent page history, we also have 81.250.52.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.81.198.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 70.250.70.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 69.199.194.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 80.58.9.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), too; these last two seem to be competing, which is kinda cute but also bloody annoying. And another: 68.59.156.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.245.186.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 24.210.58.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 218.229.249.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)... that's the last two days sorted; it only seems to have started recently. Some of these are blankers or otherwise deleting text; some are simply spamming in links (sometimes vandalising previous spam). My ability to assume good faith from anon.'s is rapidly going out of the window this afternoon... Shimgray 12:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's seriously disruptive, given the nature of that page. I say block for 12 hours each. If they come back again, double it. ] 12:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Given the vandal edits, for the ones that spammed repeatedly, were over 12 hours apart but under 24, I'd recommend starting at 24 hours - on this pattern 12 wouldn't be noticed, but I reckon it's good on principle. Since you have the blocking button & I don't, would you be so kind? Shimgray 12:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn... We'll have to do something about that. I'll do the blocks now. ] 12:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

All gone for 24 hours. I could be wrong, but I think they are open proxies, as (of those I tested) one was from Texas and the other Montevideo. I'm not up-to-date with WP's actions on open-proxies, nor how to verify them, so I'll leave this to someone else. ] 12:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy suggests shoot-on-sight for anonymous proxies, but I'm not sure how to determine precisely what these are. Ho hum. Shimgray 13:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Another one, just now: 201.132.12.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Shimgray 12:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The only one I can verify as an open proxy is 68.59.156.243, which I've blocked. The others may be open proxies too, though if they're chained through non-open proxies there's often no way to tell. --fvw* 15:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There is of course one solution, the preemptive open proxy blocker bot which scours the web for open proxies and blocks them. Act quick on this limited time offer to resurrect it: Go and gush about how wonderful it is at Misplaced Pages talk:Bots#Open_proxy_blocker

Hmm. They don't seem to have returned as yet, a few hours after the block expired; will keep a close eye on the helpdesk history, though. Shimgray | talk | 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They're back. 80.92.7.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 70.244.34.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 64.53.254.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 24.161.95.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --GraemeL 14:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting those - I hadn't been able to get WP:HD to load up any diffs to confirm they were spam, system running slow today. Shimgray | talk | 14:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Diffs were tooo slow. I resorted to using the history view. Most of them have been easy to spot as they blank the rest of the page when they insert their spam. I did miss one of the above that just inserted the link somewhere in the top of the page. Somebody else caught and fixed that. --GraemeL 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrackedCorn

Edit-warring and repeated personal attacks and incivility, using multiple sockpuppets to avoid 3RR violations, refusal to comply with NPOV policy. Pages affected include (Talk pages are not listed, but should be assumed to be affected as well):

• Ray Nagin
• First responder
• First responders
• Nagin (disambiguation)
• Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy and associated AfD page

Accounts presumed to be sockpupppets of this user:

• Roger Ramjett (talk · contribs)
• DKorn (talk · contribs)
• Kirby Morgan (talk · contribs) -- see Talk page link below for evidence

"Long John Silver" (never created an account, AFAICT, but signed several anon edits with that handle before registering, and accused at least three editors of being sockpuppets of each other under said handle)

• 66.43.173.74 (talk · contribs) -- anonymous user with identical editing style and editing targets
• 166.73.21.146 (talk · contribs) -- anonymous user with very similar abrasive attack style, vehemently right-wing, many similar editing targets

More information on the sockpuppetry can be found at Talk:Ray_Nagin#Sockpuppets.--chris.lawson 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted Nagin (disambiguation), as there was nothing to disambiguate. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The user has now created two more redirect pages to point to this article Nagin Buses and Nagin Busses. He also keeps reverting First responder to a version that is worded to support the POV theory that FEMA is not really responsible for responding to emergencies. --Gorgonzilla 04:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to do anything about those right now. If the page they point to is deleted (which it very much looks like it will be, going by the AfD), then they can be speedied as redirects pointing to a non-existant page. Most admins, I think, check for redirects and deal with them as necessary every time they close a deletion anyway. If you do want to delete redirects directly, you don't nominate them on AfD; there is a special Redirects for Deletion page specifically for redirects. That's not needed here, though. --Aquillion 04:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Incidently, as Long John Silver, they would sign anonymously from the IP ranges 209.247.222.** and 12.74.187.** . These should perhaps be added to the above list for completeness. --Aquillion 04:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with him to develop an Rfc on the issues he contests and with little luck. I haven't given up hope as I think he may realize that the only way to get his way is to follow procedure. The editor is no dummy, he's just new to the way things are done here...we need to try to give him a chance ...maybe a day or two longer unless he 3RR's or continues to make personal attacks.--MONGO 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

User:216.175.112.9

Someone at this IP has three times removed a suspected sock puppet tag on the user page, first placed there by Derex, then reverted back by Hoary, then by me. This page and the user page has been blanked in the past. Please advise. paul klenk 05:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet tags are pointless and an endless source of conflict. Just leave the tag off; if the user is a sock puppet of a user that has been blocked or banned and there is concensus that they're a sock puppet the same counts for them; if the user they're a sock puppet of isn't blocked or banned, just mentally substitute the name when you're reading their signatures. --fvw* 05:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll leave it alone. paul klenk 05:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Does EarthLink give their IPs out dynamically, statically, or something in between? Func( t, c, @, ) 15:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The web suggests that static IPs are a premium service on earthlink. On the bright side, the user in question doesn't appear to have figured out how to change his IP yet. --fvw* 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

I'd appreciate it if an admin or two could take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for deletion#Dbenbenn Violations of CfD and express an opinion there. Thanks! dbenbenn | talk 20:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but I left a comment. I was about to move the contents of Category:Washington, District of Columbia back to Category:Washington, D.C. per Cfd decision as well as prior deletion. I also left a note on Category talk:Washington, District of Columbia. ∞Who?¿? 20:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have moved the contents back to the other category following this cfd discussion. I will not place a speedy tag on the category however. But think Category:Washington, District of Columbia should be deleted under WP:CSD general rule #4. ∞Who?¿? 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sher Khan

Can someone look over the situation here? Sher Khan is a probable hoax article that I marked for deletion, believing it connected to another hoax perpetrated around this time last year. Someone using South African IP addresses has removed the AfD and dispute tags, and altered my signed comments to remove reference to the original hoax, remove information about an IP address used to edit the article, remove a request not to edit my comments, and to again remove information about the IP address. He says he "cannot and will not leave personal indiscretions on this site which are of no concern to the matter discussed"; for reasons which I've explained there, I believe information about the IP address is highly relevant to the discussion. I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could have a word with this guy about discussion etiquette, as I don't seem to be getting through to him. I'd also rather not block him over a dispute in which I'm involved, but I don't want my relevant comments deleted from the page either. Thanks. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Warned and I put the page on my watchlist. If it happens again, I'll block him. · Katefan0 01:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

70.19.72.158 is repeatedly adding some very POV material to Rick Santorum. I've used up my 3; could someone else take a look please? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted his edits and blocked for 3 hours for inserting ridiculous, bloggish opinion bordering on vandalism. · Katefan0 01:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Jocker City

Can we have a vprotect on this page please - it's vandalized at a high rate. --Hornlock 09:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also needs vprotect for Obesta too - vandalized a lot. --Hornlock 09:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Both these articles are complete hoaxes, deleted many times before, please stop adding them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

They're not hoaxes at all. --Hornlock 09:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and stop deleting Jocker City, admins - if you doubt that it's genuine use the article's talk page. --Gala50 09:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC

For the 2 users above: please provide checkable sources :) Lectonar 09:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you vprotect the article and discuss it on the talk page instead please rather than deleting it entirely. --Gala50 09:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, I see no need for that; remember: provide sources, and make it into a nice article. Cheers Lectonar 09:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To any admins reading this: Both user accounts (Hornlock and Gala50) above are sock puppets, their only contributions being to this noticeboard page. The entire article Jocker City is a hoax contributed by a vandal, and I think these users are sock puppets of that vandal. — JIP | Talk 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked them long ago. :) No worries. --Golbez 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Trolling and subtle vandalism at Encyclopaedia Dramatica

Take a look at this diff ] and the history ] and you will see that a number of users from ED and the GNAA have been trolling the article. Administrator intervention and blocking of the offenders requested. Erwin

Indefintely blocked User:Jacknstock, as the account was created for the sole purpose of vandalism. Fawcett5 12:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)