Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 27 April 2005

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

More Stolen Public accounts that are potentially abusive sockpuppets

see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/D.J. O'Connor for Agasides (talk · contribs), Agatharcides (talk · contribs) and Agatharchus (talk · contribs). When blocking don't forget to reset user:Iasson's ban. Thryduulf 08:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to the continuing proliferation of Iasson/Fethon socks I've created User:Thryduulf/Users named after ancient Greeks to help spot new ones. Thryduulf 09:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, it's probably best to just rename the password instead of blocking, and to leave a note on the user page, such as on User:Faethon. If you're not an admin (and I'm not), mention it here to have an admin reset Iasson's ban. Since Iasson will probably never give up, it might be best to set up some "guidelines" for how to deal with his accounts so we're consistent. This is getting a little ridiculous. --Deathphoenix 12:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should definitely come up with a set of guidelines for this. I managed to change the password of User:Agatharcides, was blocked in the meantime, and then my actual account was autoblocked for sharing an IP with User:Agatharcides. --Deathphoenix 12:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had blocked User:Agatharcides as an obvious (and disruptive) sockpuppet of User:Iasson. Since the password has been changed, I have unblocked Agatharcides and removed the autoblocks. Carbonite | Talk 12:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine (and thanks, BTW), I'm on a dynamic IP anyway. I'm just thinking that we should probably come up with a few guidelines on what to do with public accounts (such as: log in, change the password, leave a note that it's no longer a public account, make a post to the admin's noticeboard to reset Iasson's block if you're not an admin). That way, we're all on the same page with how to deal with the Faethon Family Smile Time Variety Show. --Deathphoenix 18:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf - good idea creating a page to keep track of these; however, you might want to rename it "Iasson sockpuppets" or somesuch in case he changes his MO. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 21:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a think about that. As it generates false positives I don't want innocent users to be tarred with being Iasson's sockpuppets. Thryduulf 12:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think whatever public account we discover, we have to mark it as ex-Faethon's sockpuppet account, and currently soccpupet account of the person who reverted it, as long as after reverting it it belongs to the person who reverted it. I erased all false references of sockpuppetry from the ex-public accounts, and I put as sockpuppetry suspect the name of the person who reverted the account and confirmed that he did it here. Agesilaus I 15:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not have control over any user that was a public account. As I explained elsewhere, as per the guidelines I change the password to something random so that it is effectively blocked, and are then not sockpuppets of myself. Thryduulf 16:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, user:Agathinus, was a user named after an ancient Greek and my password was the same as my username. As such I hearby request that the ban timer on my main account, user:Iasson, be reset to 1 year from my last contribution - 05:33, 19 Apr 2005 UTC. Agathinus 12:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) (user:Thryduulf)

Thryduulf confirming that the above was me. Thryduulf 12:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An excellent plan, Thryduulf. I also request that the ban timer for User:Iasson be reset to 1 year from my last contribution, since my password was the same as my username. --Agathocles 23:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Deathphoenix)

Confirming that the above was me. --Deathphoenix 00:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could I add to the guidelines deleting the e-mail address (if specified) while changing the password? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not content with creating just one sockpuppet in a day, I created this account (Agathocles of Bactria). Because my password was the same as my username, and I tried to impose my experimental systems on Misplaced Pages (see WP:VIP). I request that user:Iasson's ban be reset again. Agathocles of Bactria 11:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Thryduulf)

Confirming that the above was me. Thryduulf 11:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also request that the ban timer for User:Iasson be reset to 1 year from my last contribution, since my password was the same as my username 146.124.141.250 12:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, User:Ageladas, never seem to learn. I have admitted to being another sock (), but my password has been changed now. Ageladas 12:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Ferkelparade)

Confirming that was me -- Ferkelparade π 12:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, Agesander, am an idiot. Not only am I a sockpuppet of user:Iasson, named after an ancient Greek, and created as a public account but my first edit was to a VfD and my second contribution was to blank WP:NPOV ! Please, please, please, please extend user:Iasson's ban timer but the IP address I first user (note that this will be from a Greek ISP, not 212.137.57.25, which is a UK government IP used by user:Thryduulf. Agesander 13:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

/Confirming the above was me Thryduulf 13:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The next user in the series user:Agesilaus I vandalised my user page . Thryduulf 13:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And you vandalized mine. Agesilaus I 13:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This nonsense has gone on for too long. On the most recent User pages of the sockpuppets, I've placed a short sockpuppet notice and protected the page. Carbonite | Talk 17:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the sockpuppeters who took the public account control they entered a random password? I dont! They still have the password, and they are going to use the sockpuppets to vandalize, and accuse me (Faethon) for that. They did it already a lot of times, and they are going to repeat it! So please put the names of the persons that really own the account know, and mark it as ex-Faethon account from the list of greeks (watch out, the list is in history, not the current one). Thank you... Agesilaus II 18:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Faethon/Agesilaus II, I think that is unlikely. However, if they do, you are to blame. Users are responsible for the security of their accounts; a user who gives away his password still bears responsibility for the actions of that account. It is irresponsible of you to continue to create these accounts. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am no longer a public account. Please reset Iasson's ban timer. --Agesilaus II 22:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Deathphoenix)

Confirming that the above was me. --Deathphoenix 22:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, Agatharchides, am checking in, just for completeness' sake, to declare that I am yet another "public account" sockpuppet (though I was deactivated 10 days ago, so don't reset the ban timer on User:Iasson on my account -- not doubt he'll be doing something in future to reset it himself). --Agatharchides 23:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Calton)

Just confirming that the above is me. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Carbonite? They still got many of my ex-public accounts, and they still waiting to vandalize through them. So please, put a sockpupet warning to all my ex-accounts, mentioning the name of the abuser (if you know him) along with the name of my historical Faethon list of greeks. This is not about Calton of course, he seems an honest guy to me, and I believe that he revealed that he pocessed an old account of mine, just because he regreted of what he did and he wanted to be forgiven and to be considered as a good wikipedian for now on, which respects the policy that requires a random password to be set to all ex-public Faethon accounts. Thank you Calton. Agesipolis I 04:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iasson, old son, can I be frank?: you're an idiot. Go away. --Calton | Talk 13:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curps: I've changed the password of User:Agesipolis I, so you can remove the block on this user. --Deathphoenix 05:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, Agesipolis II, am a Grecian nitwit and badly need to be hit upside my head with a clue-by-four. Once again, Iasson needs his ban timer reset. --Agesipolis II 14:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Calton)

Confirming it's me, above. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont know about Iasson (and I dont care also, as long as I am not him) but I know about you, and you have to receive a ban because you called me an idiot. This is an abuse and a personal attack. Carbonite and the rest admins, where are you? Are we allowed to call other persons idiots? If Calton is not going to be punished for what he call me, I am going to call anybody idiot, for now on. Agesipolis III 14:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE LEAVE ME ALONE AND DO NOT CHANGE MY PASSWORD ANYMORE!!!!!! I want to contribute to wikipedia and write articles, not bother with people like you.... 213.16.157.248 15:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. You have been banned from contributing for 15 months by the arbitration committee for disrupting Misplaced Pages.
2. If you want to become a respected contributor you should have thought about it earlier.
3. If you don't want people to change your password, don't make it the same as your username. Its that simple. Thryduulf 15:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope, he did not call you an idiot. He called himself an idiot. As long as you keep creating public accounts, you will be subject to these self-insults. Incidentally, I, Agesipolis III, also declare that I was a public account, but am one no longer. Please reset Iasson's ban timer. Oh, and because of the arbitration case against you, you are not allowed to contribute to Misplaced Pages anymore. --Agesipolis III 15:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Deathphoenix)

Confirming that the above was me. --Deathphoenix 15:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration was not against me, it was against Iasson. How many times I have to tell you? You may do whatever you want with him and chase him in case you find him voting in Vfd or using sockpuppets, but please leave me alone and stop vandalize my account and taking my passord. And about Calton, as far as I can see now he called Iasson idiot, not myslef, but his abuse remains the same, and he has to receive a ban for calling someone an idiot. 213.16.157.248 15:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the request for clarification on Iasson's case, and according to the findings of Iasson's arbitration case, for purposes of dispute resolution, Iasson and Faethon are one and the same. Therefore, any arbitration findings against Iasson also apply to Faethon. You cannot use this lie to get around your arbitration enforcement. --Deathphoenix 17:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another Lasson sockpuppet on Mike the Headless Chicken

Agesilaus II has now appeared redoing the previous nonesense put up by Agathocles of Bactria can someone nail him - I can't? Brookie 19:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. I've changed the password, so it's no longer a public account. --Agesilaus II 22:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Deathphoenix)

Oh no more Iasson/Faethon socks

I, Agis III, hearby insult myself and my inteligence becuase I was a public account. user:Thryduulf was kind enough to put me out of my misery, but lacks the permissions to extend user:Iasson's ban timer. Agis III 16:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

confirming the above was me. Thryduulf 16:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you please.

1) Document when you change the passwords of these public accounts somewhere else

2) Keep changing our public account passwords

3) Don't bother informing the rest of the people in the front page of the account you stole from us, that you are the owner now.

Thank you

Agis IV 16:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please will an administrator explain why there hasn't been an IP block yet?

IP block for what? For having a public account? Of for disrupting a user and stealing his password? Agoracritus 17:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. For being a sockpuppet of a banned user
2. for disrupting wikipedia to make a point

Thryduulf 17:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see also User:Agoracritus

You are disrupting wikipedia to make a point by changing with no reason our password! We are NOT a sockpuppet of ANY banned user. Anyway, smart guy, lets see if you can understand plan C now, as long as Plan A (Faethon) and B (List of greeks) was easy ones. Eat our dust! Agoracritus 17:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#"public" accounts. Thryduulf 17:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mea'n flin, ond dw i ddim yn siarad Groeg. Thryduulf 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked on m:CheckUser, and he's coming in from ranges belonging to forthnet.gr and otenet.gr. Admins should take care to block the accounts (indefinitely as socks), rather than change the passwords. This will then raise an IP block. Be sure to remove the IP block after a couple of hours - David Gerard 20:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi David. Of course we come from greek providers, althouth we could use some anonymizers, but thats not what we want, as long as our goal is our public accounts case to be legalized in wikipedia. The point is that you have to make a trial against public accounts or ask consensus about that. The point is that you have to have rules, and follow the rules you define and not doing whatever you like. The decision you took in Iasson's case does not cover our case, and it is unfair to ban us because of Iasson or to consider anyone coming from our country to be Iasson. The Faethon group is not using sockpuppets, and we are not casting peculiar votes in Vfd. So why dont you want us? We are waiting for a trial decision against us, then we are going to stop publishing our password. In the meanwhile, please unblock the accounts you illegally blocked, and give back our ex-accounts and currently abuse sockpuppets to Thryduulf and the others. They tried hard to get them and it is not fair to take them from them. They are now thinking what our plan C is, so , in the meanwhile, we think they are not going to use them to abuse wikipedia. (213.16.156.235 07:00, 24 Apr 2005 / IThinkTheyWillNeverLearn! 08:13, 24 Apr 2005)

See Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#"Public accounts which explains why public accounts are a Bad Thing for Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf 16:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We both know that public accounts blocking policy has been created DURING Iasson's /Faethon's trial, by David Gerard, and the obvious reason for that is because ArbCom was unable to condemn public accounts without a policy. We also both know that, in the same time, a poll has been created asking community whether we want public accounts to be mentioned in Blocking policy or not, and the current result is still 50:50. So please dont tell lies about this so called public accounts policy, because it is an illegal policy, created by a single person, without asking community consensus. (213.16.156.64 21:55, 24 Apr 2005)

The current result is still 50/50? There are a grand total of TWO votes, and one of them is yours. But it's all meaningless, really, since there hasn't been a single vote or poll you have ever heeded or respected on Misplaced Pages, even when the vote was unanimous. And all your bilge about "illegal" this and "policy" that is pure sophistry, and not one single person reading this buys what you're selling. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Faethon, if you want a "trial", see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iasson#Ban of public accounts which states "Any and all so-called 'public' accounts to which the password is generally known shall be blocked indefinitely as it becomes known they are public accounts; no arbitration ruling is required for these routine blockings." Please don't come here and tell us what we have to do. Public accounts were not allowed before you came to Misplaced Pages, and they will not be allowed after you tire of disrupting our encyclopedia. As has been explained to you many times before, having public accounts interferes with the security of Misplaced Pages, and makes it difficult if not impossible to selectively block vandals from editing. It is very egotistical of you to think that you know the right way to run our community and that we are all wrong. It is highly telling, that in all the time you've spent here and on meta, not a single other person agreed with you—not even your "friend"/self Iasson (he/you actually asked you to stop, too). — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er, I was just reading through some of the old talk on Talk:Scientific method and was surprised to see a comment by RickK, written in language quite unusual for him. Going through the history, it appears to have been written by Iasson/Faethon/Agasides. I made a note of it on the talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope, that wasn't me. I'm not sure I even understand what it means. RickK 04:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The socks that wouldn't die

I've just disabled another Iasson/Fethon/etc public account user:3.141592653. Thryduulf 11:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately this possible copyvio-original_research was written by a public account, so we managed to disable it. But what can we do, in case there is a private account which posts copyvio information in his/her userpage? Even worst, what can we do if he/she posts original_research-like information, that is actually copyvio that we cannot spot using a google search? Are we allowed to vandalise private accounts in case they post in their userpages copyvio or hidden copyvio that seems to us as original research? I think Misplaced Pages is in great danger with this sort of private accounts. Raving Loony 11:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

copyright violations apply anywhere on wp. I believe orginal research is discouraged but not prohbited in user: space. Thryduulf 11:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot easily distiguish copyvio from original research. An original research document posted to a private account user-space may be actually a harmful copyvio that may threaten Misplaced Pages's existence. I think we have to create a Votes for account deletion (or Vfad) Raving Loony 11:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see WP:PFD. Thryduulf 11:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That funny! :) I think you confuse accounts, with persons. I am talking about accounts. I think that any account having in its userspace original research documents has to be proposed for deletion, as suspicious for possible copyright violation. Raving Loony 12:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The contributions of this account are interesting. silsor 12:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

And that off-key prose style is so familiar. At least he named himself well, this time, and learned to keep his password to himself. --Calton | Talk 12:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you mean Iasson, yes I am watching his case and I am having fun of it. My username was inspired by a tag someone put in Iasson's userpage. I also helped you to spot the exact list of greeks, in Iasson/Faethon Arbcom. I am from greece, thats why my prose style is familiar to you. Raving Loony 13:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't help anyone with the ArbCom thing. And no, Iasson, I highly doubt all or most Greeks write in your unmistakenly fractured, subliterate style. So unless you take an intensive course in English composition to clean up your syntax over, oh, the next 15 months or so until your ban expires, you'll be spotted in a heartbeat every time you post a full sentence. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just undertaken a very unscientific survey. I read two pages where one could reasonably expect to find Greeks contributing - Talk:Greece and Talk:Athens, and I haven't found any other examples of your writing style - even from those explicitly stating they're Greek. Thryduulf 13:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've better undertaken a scientific survey instead. You ll find out that my writting patterns are not like the patterns of Iasson. My patterns may are similar, because we are both greeks and we think with a similar grammar syntax, but not identical. Try it. Do you have any scientific tool that is able to investigate such similarities? Raving Loony 14:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know a very simple test which you can perform immediately, "Raving Loony":

1) Log out.

2) Edit this page

3) Type "~~~~" just below these posts.

4) Click the "Save Page" button.

5) Examine the result.

Very simple. Go ahead do that now, please. --Calton | Talk 14:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In greece we have four of five internet providers. It happens my provider to be one of the providers mentioned above, by David. Those two providers are the biggest providers in greece, aprox 80% of the greeks are using them. Raving Loony 15:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I started this conversation with you, because I thought wikipedia is in danger due to accounts posting original research in their user-space. Could you please stop accusing me of beeing Iasson, and lets discuss the subject? 213.16.155.80 15:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See? I made a mistake, and you can see my Ip. Satisfied? So lets talk about the subject now.Raving Loony 15:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good snag, guys. With this as the first edit, not to mention the "scientific tool" comment above, this is definitely an Iasson sock. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul Vogel back again

I've just blocked 216.45.192.70 (talk · contribs) for a year, as it's been used to make all Paul Vogel's usual edits on all his favourite articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I lengthened the ban timer and listed the new IP address at User:Paul Vogel. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 22:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that he probably isn't sitting around waiting for his ban to expire so he can play by the rules. Everyking 00:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So? Are you suggesting I should have done something different? User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kind of. I was suggesting it was rather pointless. And if you really want to stretch my suggestion as far as it can go, I was suggesting that maybe we didn't take the right approach to dealing with Vogel in the first place. Everyking 03:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second guessing again? Well, from what I can tell about the case, you're right; he should have been banned much sooner, and the ban should have been permanent - no point in messing around with lengthening the ban timer every few weeks. Jayjg 03:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, call it second-guessing; I think opinions and criticism are a good thing, so sue me. Everyking 03:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opinions, when informed, and criticism, when constructive, are valuable. Jayjg 19:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you think my opinions are uninformed and my criticism is not constructive. Well, you're right about the first, at least. But part of holding discussions about these matters is the idea of informing one another. Everyking 20:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would probably make sense to inform oneself before offering criticism. And if you weren't criticizing, but merely speculating that it was possible that Vogel hadn't been dealt with properly, then there's no value whatsoever in idle speculation. Jayjg 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I'm gathering here is that you think the matter should not be discussed. Is that right, or am I wrong again? Everyking 22:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you spend your time more fruitfully than in questioning every single ArbCom decision to ban someone without having any knowledge of the cases or experience with the individuals involved. I'm also suggesting that your newfound concern for the appropriateness of Arbcom decisions, and in particular your intimation that they are all far too harsh, will undoubtedly be seen by others as a back-door way of insinuating that you were treated unfairly by ArbCom, and therefore discounted. Jayjg 18:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I criticized punitive logic among the ArbCom before I ever got embroiled in any controversy, let alone got penalized for it. For example, when I ran for the ArbCom late last year, I made that my central point. I'll grant you that I feel more strongly about it now that I have myself been victimized, but my basic opinion has been consistent. Everyking 20:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, what you are saying is utterly stupid. ugen64 04:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ugen64, thanks for sharing. Don't let the fact that what I've suggested would happen has already happened sway you. Jayjg 04:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If by "utterly stupid" you mean "self-evidently true," then yes. Snowspinner 04:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Could this be another Paul Vogel sockpuppet?

66.194.40.3 (talk · contribs). RickK 23:51, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I would say not. He seems too articulate and polite to be Vogel. The IP doesn't match any range that Vogel has used, either. —Charles P.  00:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Zenupassio

This user vandalized COINTELPRO and is now trolling (see his contribs, especially those to user talk page, and his edit summaries). He redirected 2003 Invasion of Iraq to 2003 Liberation of Iraq, for example. ugen64 04:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Please note ugen64 claims to be 14 yo (this comment left by Steinerb 17:28, 23 Apr 2005)
  • So what? ugen64 is a respected member of the Misplaced Pages community. Are you? RickK 23:06, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

He started blatantly vandalizing (for example , ) so I blocked him for 24 hours. Antandrus 04:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And he proved the fatal flaw in your blocking tyranny by returning within moments. Steinerb 17:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Blocking someone for vandalism is not tyranny. What is your problem with what was done? RickK 23:06, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing a marked rise in extreme rightwing POV pushing, past two or three days. I suspect that some regular is running a sock campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably the result of a mention by Rush Limbaugh that Misplaced Pages is a "leftist" encyclopedia. RickK 00:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Here are some of the sockpuppets of Steinerb: Beinerts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Springmourning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Springmourning0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Springmourning01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Springmourning05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (only contribution deleted), Springmourning44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Springmourning77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Springmourning99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is possible--even probable--that they are all sockpuppets of the same user -- Zenupassio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who returned after I blocked him as Nomorecorruptcops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nomorecorruptcops2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm sure there's more--I haven't been following all that closely today. Antandrus 23:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand that a fellow by the name of Rush Limbaugh, who it seems has some kind of extreme rightwing talk show on the radio in the USA, recently mentioned Misplaced Pages and, according to the account I heard, described it as a leftwing encyclopedia. I wonder if recent POV-pushing activity could be related to that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Administrator SlimVirgin's Abuse of Power

• SlimVirgin blocked me recently for a variety of reasons:

• These reasons are bogus in the extreme, could be send to apply to many other editors but were exclusively applied to me

• SlimVirgin was enforcing the will of a group (probably sockpuppets) who have agenda pushed in the Ward Churchill article to the point that it is protected and marked with warnings as to its neutrality etc. It has been the battleground of competing groups of sockpuppets who have either added false claims against him or removed all claims against even if reported in the mainstream press and well sourced.

• SlimVirgin (without warning) purported to block me for 24 hours for breaching the 3RR rule (which he'd earlier found that I hadn't breached!), unspecified edit warring and a false accusation of 'sockpuppetry'. He provided no reasons beyond this, no facts in support of it, proposed no process other than if you don't like it email me. I believe that offer was intended to improperly force a bargain over the content of the abysmal Ward Churchill article. I am - I should say was - a new user so I am not aware of how things are meant to work but I can smell a deceitful abuse of power and this is one.

• The consequence of this is that I will not be editing at all. Let Misplaced Pages become owned by the online equivalent of the opinionated angry freaks that call up Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps though the next time SlimVirgin blatantly abuses the blocking power he has been trusted with, he will be scrutinized. It is wrong for someone who has demonstrated a strong agenda (without even contributing to it!) on an article to selectively block editors who are not acting within that agenda. He is unfit to administer anything. He should be removed from any position of trust. He has abused it and undermined Misplaced Pages. TonyMarvin 11:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:TonyMarvin

In response to Tony Marvin's complaint about me, he was clearly warned, and furthermore appears to be engaged in sockpuppetry that is causing considerable disruption. Details as follows:

For the record, I know very little about Ward Churchill, have no POV about him, and haven't edited the article, except to revert the sockpuppetry yesterday and protect the page. TonyMarvin (talk · contribs) has made 224 edits, most of them to Ward Churchill, a controversial native American academic. Tony's edits have included POV and unencyclopedic contributions: his suggested intro kicked off with the claim that Churchill may not be an American Indian, and that he's being investigated for fraud, ethnic impersonation, and plagiarism. Even Saddam Hussein's intro manages to say something neutral about him. During the 12 or so hours leading up to his block, Tony reverted numerous times against the wishes of several editors, and was reported by Viajero for a 3RR violation at WP:AN/3RR at 16:41, 21 Apr 2005.

Regarding Tony's claim that I blocked him without warning:

• 1st warning to User talk:TonyMarvin 18:07, Apr 21, 2005
• 1st warning to User talk:Kelly Martin 23:55, Apr 21, 2005
• 2nd warning to both on Talk:Ward Churchill 01:09, Apr 22, 2005
• Kelly Martin stopped, TonyMarvin didn't; therefore Tony was blocked for 24 hours. I left a note on User talk:TonyMarvin, asking him to e-mail me if he felt the block was unfair, but he didn't. 04:47, Apr 22, 2005
• I unblocked Tony after around 13 hours as a gesture of goodwill. Note left on User talk:TonyMarvin 00:26, Apr 23, 2005

Regarding the suspicion of sockpuppetry, the page had been edited by several sockpuppets between Tony's first warning and his block. After he was blocked, four sockpuppets repeated his editing pattern and were blocked for having been created to violate 3RR. The page had to be protected and still is. Another four vandalized the talk page, one of them called Slamvorgin (talk · contribs), who replaced the page contents with a personal attack against me.

For the record, there are three remaining accounts suggestive of a link to TonyMarvin, who have also been engaged in disruptive editing. A new account set up yesterday UDoN't!wAn* (talk · contribs) has placed on his user page the contribution lists of nine editors he seems to want to keep an eye on, seven of whom were involved in opposing Tony's edits to Ward Churchill: Viajero, Kelly Martin, Grace Note, zen master, Rama, Cberlet, and myself, involved only to protect the page and block TonyMarvin and the sockpuppets.

This morning, 12:03, Apr 23, 2005, Chunkyhoyo (talk · contribs) was set up. Six minutes before this, TonyMarvin made his last edit, in which he announced he was leaving WP because of me. Chunkyhoyo's user page lists the contribution histories of the same Ward Churchill-related editors that UDoN't!wAn* lists, and s/he has started to make some of the same controversial edits as another new and problematic editor LevelCheck (talk · contribs). LevelCheck was set up on April 15. S/he has made almost no useful contributions, and has been warned for vandalism, disruptive editing, and creating POV categories (e.g. Category:People often considered to be evil). S/he is currently the subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/LevelCheck. SlimVirgin 14:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• "SlimVirgin blocked me recently for a variety of reasons:" Instead of calling them bogus, I'd like to hear why he thinks he's being blocked. Still, complaints should be taken up with the blocking admin first. Discuss! If you don't respond to an invitation to appeal a block by e-mail, then how is SlimVirgin supposed to respond? I'll give SlimVirgin's evidence closer scrutiny, but I think (s)he was acting in accordance with policy. Mgm| 22:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not a sockpuppet. Check my IP against that of User:TonyMarvin if you doubt it. LevelCheck 00:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube vandalism

There is several-times-daily "Time Cube–related" edit-warring by an anonymous IP using multiple dynamic IPs. The following articles are affected so far:

• Greenwich Mean Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coordinated Universal Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Time zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It would be useful to have more admins add these pages to their watchlists. -- Curps 09:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added them. Think it's Gene Ross himself, or a (gasp) follower? Signed, Nature's Harmonious Four-Day Rhobite 02:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected these three pages in hopes of discussing this issue. This is my first protection; if I was in error, please remove the protection. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I get a sockcheck?

Could I get a sock check on User:Moral Clarity? The user page, POV edits and editor antagonism, suggest a sock of the banned users user:Cap. Freedom and user:Captain Liberty, both banned on April 17. I have banned the user for now. --nixie 10:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a tick...did you block this user for being a possible sock? Should users be presumed innocent until proven to be socks? I'm lowering their ban to 24 hours until they're proven to be a sockpuppet...if they ever are that is. If the user warrants a block longer than 24 hours, feel free to do so, but I don't think that an infinite block is appropriate for a suspected sockpuppet. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not to seem rude, but you didn't even look at the User pages! All three are mirrors of the same "article" about what the US must conquer. Word-for-word duplicates. If that isn't sock-puppetry, then it's idolising. Master Thief Garrett 00:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee, that "invade every country on earth" manifesto looks familiar. It even has the same typo ("prusue"). —Charles P.  00:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right- that was definitely a mistake on my part, and I apologize for my carelessness. I'm so sorry about that. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block them for less and them some kindly RC patroller has to deal with this jerk again. This account obviously belongs to the same person as the other two or a copycat trying to be disruptive, I'm reinstating the longer block until someone proves otherwise.--nixie 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: By chance, a broken User link took me to a potentially suspicious new user, Freedom. The User page merely says "i prefer freedom" and the user has made NO contributions since signing up in January. It may be perfectly coincidental, but the freedom comment reminds me of this whole redneck idea JoeM has. And I have a habit of agreeing with my gut feelings. Someone should maybe keep tabs on them, it could be a sockpuppet our friend has created but hasn't gotten around to using yet. Or it could just be me being a xenophobe! Master Thief Garrett 02:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like a sock-check too, if poss... I suspect that User:Starky is a SP of User:NoPuzzleStranger - earlie this month NPS was online at consistent times every day except one, when Starky came online (his one and only spate of editing) to back up NPS and start adding to the reverts that NPS had reached the three-time limit on... Grutness| 01:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A self-proclaimed sockpuppet?

I'd like a sockcheck too. I came across a user, Newnoise, who says on his User page that he's a puppet! I couldn't resist asking him who he really was, and he generously gave a clue here. Now I'm not saying that's grounds for warning or anything, nono. I myself can't identify the user from the hints he gave, but is this the legendary Iasson back from the dead? Or something? Just thought someone should keep an eye on him... Master Thief Garrett 21:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for IP address check

128.237.231.116 (talk · contribs) has just appeared in order to vandalise, but the first example () suggests some knowledge of Misplaced Pages; could someone check to see it this is in fact a registered User, please? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:217.70.108.3

This IP spammed the wikipedia:about page with links. I followed him here from another wiki where he did the same thing. (24.222.9.242 18:51, 25 Apr 2005)

Curps' and AndyL's possible inappropriate use of admin power at The Matrix

Curps unprotected my protection using the excuse that "AndyL's user page says he is on wikiholiday until May 1; not appropriate to protect page under these circumstances" which seems to be a rather slim justification for lifting a page protection prior to there having been any discussion on the related talk page. There is no policy saying an admin on holiday cannot protect a page nor justifying quick reversal of said protection because of that. In any case, a perusal of my edits would make it clear to anyone that I was not on wikiholiday, in fact. Curps simply wanted the page unprotected and seems to have found the slimmest of pretexts for rationalising an unprotection prior to any discussion on the page's talk page of the edit war in question. AndyL 20:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You protected the page at 16:59, added a "protected" template at 17:01, but then reverted to your preferred version at 17:35. If you protect a page, you should not turn around and edit it yourself. You should not abuse your admin power if you are a partisan participant in a content dispute (particularly when the interim consensus is against you). -- Curps 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Background: Mista-X (talk · contribs) has been adding external links to a fair number of movie-related pages; across these various pages, a total of 6 other users have reverted him (including some admins). One of these pages was The Matrix. AndyL has now joined the content dispute, taking Mista-X's side. Protection was premature in any case, since there was active discussion taking place (at user talk pages rather than Talk:The Matrix, since that is where Mista-X left his comments. -- Curps 20:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There would have been no incentive for going to the Talk pages had I protected the version you prefer and in any case, since the external link in question is not a violation of wikipolicy there's no reason to protect the version excluding it. I had intended to protect the earlier version to ensure Talk was used but erred and then corrected my error. That does not justify your editing a protected article.AndyL 20:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The person who edited a protected article was in fact yourself (and you were the one who protected it). I believe the justification you cite for doing so is a rationalization and doesn't hold water.

In any case, the discussion which was previously scattered across user talk pages (because Mista-X left his comments there) is now at Talk:The_Matrix#MIM_review. The page remains protected, but I think upon reflection you will agree that your 17:35 post-protection revert was perhaps not a good idea; I have applied your own 17:01 version. I will leave messages at the various user talk pages where Mista-X exchanged comments, and invite them to centralize the discussion at Talk:The Matrix as you suggest. I believe we can come to a consensus in the usual Misplaced Pages way. -- Curps 21:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for "joining the debate" my comments were intended to facilitate and then to justify the protection. To whit:

On what basis do you disagree? What is the justification for removing the link besides the fact that some people disagree with the page's content? What policy, if any, does inclusion of the link violate? Given that there are external links to articles that discuss the Matrix from philosphical and Jewish viewpoints what is the objection to having a link to an article with a political take? AndyL 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mista-X has stated that he is neither a member of MIM nor a MIM supporter. The reverts, as far as I can see, have been carried out without any discussion in the Talk pages which seems to me to be a violation of wikipedia policy. Further, the reversions don't seem to be based on any wikipedia policy but simply on the fact that some editors dislike the links. Certainly the argument one editor put forward that they are POV is not a justifiable reason as all film reviews are, by definition, POV and that in any case there is no policy against POV external links. If editors are reverting without justification then the problem is with the reverting editors. All I would like is a discussion of the arguments in favour and against keeping the external links rather than a mindless editwar. If agreement cannot be reached than the parties should seek mediation, not enforcement of a majority view through superior firepower. AndyL 19:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above comments are related to the content dispute, not to any alleged abuse of admin power. Therefore, this is not the place to reply. See you at Talk:The Matrix. -- Curps 21:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are a response to your contestable claim that "AndyL has now joined the content dispute". In any case, if you wanted to contest the version protected you should have brought it up here, not taken it upon yourself to revert a protected page.AndyL 21:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the person who reverted a protected page was you, and you reverted it after you yourself protected it (timeline: 16:59 you protected, 17:01 you added the "protected" template, 17:35 you reverted). You did the very thing you are trying to accuse me of... in complaining that reverting a protected page is an abuse of admin power, you are actually damning yourself. You can either protect the page, or do an ordinary edit (revert), but not both in that order. It was appropriate for me to undo the latter (either by unprotecting or by returning to the original 17:01 protected version). Your doing a protect-then-revert clearly indicates that you were joining the content dispute, and your supposed justification (you had to revert in order to permit discussion to take place on the talk page) simply doesn't make sense at all. -- Curps 21:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"You can either protect the page, or do an ordinary edit (revert), but not both in that order."

Wrong. When one is protecting a page one is under no obligation to protect the latest version. It is quite common not to do that, in fact. Look at the protection log.

"Your doing a protect-then-revert clearly indicates that you were joining the content dispute,"

No, it indicates that I was correcting my mistake. If you wanted to contest the version of the page that I protected you should have brought it up here, not taken it upon yourself to revert a protected page. As I said, I was intending to protect the version that would ensure the parties involved went to talk. Protecting your version would not have done that. AndyL 22:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protecting a page is surely sufficient to garner a dialogue on its content, IMHO. Slac speak up! 23:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not for the editors who agree with the protected page.AndyL 23:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, you have failed to adequately defend your initial unprotection of the page. An act made with a dubious justification. AndyL 22:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're both in the wrong, really:

• AndyL: Admins should not protect a page because of a content dispute and choose which version should be shown - articles should not be edited while protected.
• Curps: You violated the 3RR and, while I understand your part the edit war, you should not be doing that especially on a protected article.

Hopefully the discussion at the talk page can resolve this. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page because of an edit war that wasn't being discussed on the talk page though I agree I should have left the article alone once it was protected. AndyL 20:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, if Curps felt I was in the wrong he should have taken the matter here rather than unilaterally act to unprotect the page and do so using the dubious pretext that my page said I was on wikiholiday. AndyL 15:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:ChiveDreams

It appears that User:CheeseDreams is back. I suggest that people keep an eye on their edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It also appears that people are reestablishing the Jesus and syncretism article. This should have been merged into History of Christianity, as was stated in Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. Basically that syncretism article (which is a POV piece) is now a subpage: see History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. It awaits someone to try to merge the article into History of Christianity. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ChiveDreams blocked indefinitely. Snowspinner 21:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Falling Up (band)

This article is listed on VfU. It is repeatedly being undeleted despite the valid VfD vote. Undeleting an article before the VfU vote has run its course is exactly the same thing as deleting an article before the VfD has run its course, and the admin(s) who keep doing it should be treated exactly the same as I would be treated if I started deleting articles before the vote was over. I will not deal with this article after the VfU vote has completed its proper time, and after the person who undeletes it follows proper VfU process and relists it on VfD. But until such a time as everyone has had a chance to vote on the undeletion, I plan on continuing to delete the article every time it's undeleted, since this is an improper procedure. RickK 23:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

This article was improperly speedy deleted. As such, I've undeleted it until it undergoes VfD. This isn't really all that hard to understand. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was not improperly speedy deleted. It was speedy deleted as a recreation of a VfD'd article, all of whose votes were for deletion, all because the article was about a non-notable band. RickK 23:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Your second sentence is accurate, your first sentence is not. It was speedy deleted AS a recreation of a VfD'd article, but it ISN'T. That's the problem, Rick. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, if a person thinks that, even though a VfD vote was to delete, they want to keep an article, all they have to do is add a couple of sentences, and it becomes an entirely new article, and cannot be speedy deleted, but must go through the VfD process all over again? RickK 00:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, if a person thinks that, even though a VfD vote hasn't happened, they want to delete an article, all they have to do is delete it and claim it falls under speedy criteria, and then the article must go through the VfU process? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I see you can't come up with an answer to my question. I, however, can come up with an easy answer to your question. The VfD has happened. If you want to keep this article, just let it go through the VfU process and we'll all be happy. Of course, if, after the VfU process, the vote is to undelete, then it still has to go through VfD again. RickK 00:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I see you can't come up with an answer to my question that's based in reality. Be as clever as you like, Rick. The VfD hasn't happened. The article that you've deleted 3 times today has never undergone VfD. Oh, and just FYI, I don't want to keep the article. I couldn't care less about it, and it should probably be deleted... but through the proper channels, of course. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Note: (sorry if I've put this in too many places) The old and new article are at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for all to see. --SPUI (talk) 00:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, RickK keeps insisting that the article was deleted because it was a non-notable band. As pointed out several times, the VFD votes for delete were because the article didn't establish notability, not because the band itself isn't notable. CryptoDerk 01:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted and protected for the VfU request. There. Snowspinner 15:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Aaronescott

This gentleman has had a bit of a tumultuous introduction to Misplaced Pages. He created an article Aaron Scott which was promptly (and rightfully) nominated on VfD. He then replaced the content with "DELETED BY THE ORIGINATOR." which I interpret as a request for deletion. It really isn't necessary for this to go through VfD; I was going to delete but then I thought it would be better to move it to the his user page. Problem is that the VfD notice says "Please do not ... move this article while the discussion is in progress." I don't want to violate any rules, but just want to use common sense. I am therefore closing the VfD and moving the article to User:Aaronescott. If anyone objects, please note it here or on my talk page, and reverse my changes if you feel it appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Aaronescott also vandalised my User page in a minor way (see here). He also vandalised Master Thief Garrett's user page (here and here and here). It seems that, in part, this vandalism stems from his not knowing how to use talk pages, but he seems to be learning. Dsmdgold 01:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see any problems with closing a VFD on a obvious vanity if the name of the article and the user show they're the same. Mgm| 09:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:GRider

User:GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page. At 23:15 25 Apr 2005, he edited Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion. See diff. Since I was involved in a discussion with him today, I believe another admin should impose the block. The ArbCom ruling states that he should be blocked for up to a week. He has already been blocked once for violating the ruling. Carbonite | Talk 02:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:RickK has already blocked him for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 02:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With this edit at 21:09, 27 Apr 2005 GRider violated his arb-com injunction for the second time in three days by moving Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Yucai high to Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Yu Cai Middle School. Thryduulf 22:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24. Snowspinner 22:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

It is quite clear now that GRider has no intention of following the ArbCom ruling. I've blocked for 1 week (maximum permitted by the ruling). Carbonite | Talk 22:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I thought the ruling capped at 24. A week is much better. Snowspinner 22:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:SPUI

SPUI has gone insane. Watch out for him. --SPUI (talk) 08:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 second. Snowspinner 15:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please see these edits: . RickK 05:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

That's like the pot calling the kettle black Rick blocked me for nothing (although I agree SPUI is a troll he's the lesser of the "problem") --198 05:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would not characterize either user as a "troll"—both have made vast amounts of positive contributions to Misplaced Pages and I would be sorry to see either go. Perhaps "temporary lapse in judgment" would be more appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SPUI is an admitted GNAA member, but, I do agree maybe calling him a troll is too strong a word...--198 06:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see...for a GNAA member, he has improved Misplaced Pages by quite a bit. May I ask where he admitted it? Are you sure he isn't joking? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a GNAA member, but I haven't been active or in their IRC channel for several months. --SPUI (talk) 07:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sock check

Please could someone check Raving Loony (talk · contribs) for being a sockpuppet of someone, probably Iasson? Some of their postings, particularly the one above, seem familar. Their first edit was to correct the precise version of List of ancient Greeks used by Iasson/Faethon on the pre-Arbitration evidence page agiainst Iasson. Their 2nd, 3rd and 4th edits were to WP:VFU debates, and the only pages unrelated to deletion or Greece edited have been here and Money - another article Iasson contributed to. Thryduulf 11:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bang! (Sock shot on sight) Snowspinner 15:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Could you toss in a block on User:213.16.155.80 while you're at it? --Calton | Talk 15:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? Snowspinner 15:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Careful on that one - that's in a forthnet.gr DHCP dialup pool (which makes it plausible it's Iasson), so watch for collateral damage - David Gerard 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bang! Hey, was this user making disruptive edits per se? If not, shouldn't it be checked by a developer, and not just left up to one admin who thinks he is the law? Everyking 16:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The general attitude towards people who act like banned users and subsequently get banned is "Well, don't act like a banned user then." Snowspinner 16:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom case against Iasson (or its request for clarification, I forget which) explicitly stated that all socks of Iasson (who is banned for 15 months) could be shot on sight. Thryduulf 16:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well you don't know it's a sock until you get a developer to check. Everyking 16:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the evidence at the top of this page? Thryduulf 16:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The evidence suggests it. But I didn't see any proof. Everyking 16:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing certain pages isn't a bad thing in itself. We don't punish people for editing the article on money just because some banned user also used to edit that article. Everyking 16:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. We punish obvious socks who resemble banned users. Please stop making straw men - it's unproductive. Snowspinner 16:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

My point was that resembling a banned user is not a bad thing unless one is resembling the banned user in a bad way. Everyking 16:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a very bad thing - it suggests that arbcom rulings can be skirted and ignored. Snowspinner 16:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No. Resembling a banned user is not the same as being one, and emulating a banned user would only be a bad thing if one was emulating that user in a bad way. I consider it much worse to think that you can instantly block whoever you like without any proof of wrongdoing, and then declare "Bang!" There is something very, very wrong with that picture. Everyking 16:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm, how can emulating a banned user ever be done in anything other than a bad way? Raving Loony was resembling Iasson's editing pattern - i.e. trolling about deletion and public accounts in exactly the same style of phrasing as Iasson. Why is it you feel that Snowspinner and RickK always act improperly? Thryduulf 18:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Say the banned user wrote good content about something or other, and a new user was behaving similarly to that. In any case, of course I see what the evidence suggests; I don't feel like looking into it, but I'm not all that concerned about the individual case. What concerns me is that Snowspinner can throw down a block without any proper justification beyond his opinion that it's a sock, without getting a developer check, and then declare "Bang!"—I guess he imagines himself as an old sheriff who shoots first and asks questions later. I know I'm supposed to just nod my head and accept that his actions are beyond reproach, but somebody ought to say something. Everyking 19:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. It isn't just his opinion that its a sock. I posted the evidence in this section, Calton and I have been discussing it above, linking to more evidence. Deathpoenix's comment also suggests he agrees (although I haven't checked the timestamps of his comment and Snowpinner's block).
2. I trust him to review the evidence before acting.
3. That others haven't protested suggests (not conclsively I agree) that they also trust Snowspinner to review the evidence.
4. He is acting on the explicit authority of the ArbCom
5. This isn't like shooting someone in the Old West, blocks can be undone, killing someone can't
6. If you can't be bothered to look into the evidence how can you claim Snowpinner didn't act in accordance with it?

• I can't speak for Snowspinner or RickK, but if I were on the receiving end of your comments, I would be feeling pretty harrassed by now. Thryduulf 20:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If the user in question was making good edits to the encyclopaedia then nobody would care if they were doing so in the style of a banned user, Jimbo Wales, or J. Random Editor. Thryduulf 20:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify #1 above, you can change "suggests he agrees" to "he agrees". :-) --Deathphoenix 20:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Say what? Harassment? I criticize abuses of sysop power when I see them. If you want to talk about harassment, take a look a Snowspinner, with his promise to watch me like a hawk and "come down on like a hammer". Everyking 03:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since, according to you, enforcing ArbCom decisions = abuses of sysop power, that comment above coming from you, someone under ArbCom discipline, seems to be a case of "gaming the ref". --Calton | Talk 03:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think one might naturally expect a victim of abuse to be more vocal in opposing it. It is easy to fool yourself about it if you haven't actually experienced it. Everyking 03:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course. And if I ever actually meet one of these victims, I'll be sure to advise them to act accordingly. --Calton | Talk 21:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem as it appears to me is that you see abuse of sysop powers where nobody else does, and seem to consider RickK and Snowspinner as incapable of excercising any admin powers without abuse. Thryduulf 21:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's false on both counts. RickK makes plenty of good decisions. I don't criticize him when I agree with him. As for Snowspinner, he seems to make abusive use of his admin powers more often than not. It seems pretty much all his activity on Misplaced Pages involves harassing people, and I can't really endorse that. That he has a certain mentality and acts a certain way isn't my fault. Everyking 23:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Everyking! Fancy seeing you here! You don't often turn up after arbitration decisions, actions by Snowspinner, or actions by RickK! silsor 16:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Snort*. RickK 19:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Xiong

I have blocked User:Xiong for threats on User talk:Netoholic and for general disruption (c.f. his litsing of WP:TFD on VFD). It's a 24 hour block that I hope he'll spend reflecting on the manner of his interaction with people he disagrees with. Snowspinner 19:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. Netoholic and Xiong are both adults; if Netoholic finds the message threatening he can ignore it or respond to it as he chooses. Neither user needs Principal Phil to tell them how they can and cannot interact with each other. —Charles P.  19:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Threatening other users with suggestions that you will drive them off Misplaced Pages if they don't leave you alone is not acceptable behavior. Snowspinner 20:24, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is not a blockable offense either. --Conti|✉ 20:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

File it under "disruption" then. Snowspinner 20:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems a lot of things get filed under "disruption" these days. You will note that Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Disruption does say "disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies", which you have not done. Furthermore it is should not be up to a lone sysop to determine what is and is not acceptable behavior. I think that constant attempts to control and bully other users, combined with negligible contributions to the encyclopedia, does not constitute acceptable behavior—but I'm not going to block you. —Charles P.  21:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did threats stop being personal attacks recently? Snowspinner 21:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks can be removed. They are still no reason to block someone. If you want to change that, start a proposal and a vote on that, don't block people because you think you're right. --Conti|✉ 22:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

He tried that—twice—and it failed—both times—yet he continues. "Common sense" covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it. —Charles P.  22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's puzzling to say it failed the second time, with the lack of any, you know, vote. Snowspinner 22:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

(left again) Hmm, and why is that? Could it be that there was so much opposition in the discussion phase that nobody thought a vote would succeed? Oh, and if threatening to take certain actions on this site (not in real life) is a blockable offense, then why wasn't the author of this edit blocked? That looks to be much the same type of threat that Xiong made. —Charles P.  22:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot see a difference between telling someone to leave them alone or you'll drive them off the site and warning someone that threats are inappropriate, you have no place being an administrator.Snowspinner 22:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

So if Xiong had admin powers, and couched his threat as an official warning (to, I don't know, stop disrupting Misplaced Pages?) backed by a threat to remove Netoholic from the site by technical rather than social means, it would all fine and dandy? Okay then. —Charles P.  22:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Good faith warnings from administrators of behavior that will lead to blocking are not threats or personal attacks. Snowspinner 23:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

And yet, you know, administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users. Or shall I tell Squealer to get his paint pots and ladder? —Charles P.  23:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Informing a User of policies that they may be in violation of isn't an administrator specific action, so I'm unclear why you bring up "special power". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the block, not the warning itself—though since the block was illegitimate, I believe that the warning was nothing more than bullying. Exactly the sort of thing for which Xiong himself was threatened and blocked. —Charles P.  01:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here I was thinkin' that you just didn't like me. Snowspinner 04:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that there is any overt or implied threat of physical violence in Xiong's statement. That Xiong has taken such a strong stand wrt Netoholic is troubling, but it is hardly grounds for a block in and of itself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think threats need to be threats of physical violence. Snowspinner 22:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've reblocked, clarifying that this is under the disruption policy for both the personal attacks against Netoholic and the violation of WP:POINT in listing TfD on VfD. I admit puzzlement to the objections here - normally I'm criticized for escelating things to the arbcom. This time I'm trying to deal with a disruptive user with more mild measures that give the user a chance of reform, and I'm power mad. Take your pick - either disruption goes through the block feature or the arbcom. I've sent this one through the block feature. Unblock, and I'm happy to just arbcom him for the continual disruption. Snowspinner 22:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'll unblock, then. I strongly feel that the arbcom is the place to take disruptive editing--this is almost never clear-cut enough to rely on individual judgement. Meelar (talk) 22:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll submit the case as soon as my exam schedule lets up. Snowspinner 22:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, then. I've got no opinion on the case, just wanted to voice my opinion on the procedural question. Best, Meelar (talk) 22:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, it's my choice too, but if people are going to complain that I use the arbcom procedures, I figured I should try something else. I'll go back to plan A presently. :) Snowspinner 22:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose "minding your own business" and "engaging other users constructively instead of trying to control them" aren't options, then? —Charles P.  22:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you really object so much to my efforts to remove trolls and other disruptive users from Misplaced Pages? Perhaps you'd like to lift the bans on Lir, Xed, and CheeseDreams? Snowspinner 22:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, I object to the way you constantly choose threats, intimidation, and force as the first resort rather than the last—to the way you hound and persecute users who have contributed more in a month than you have in your entire time here—to the way you try to stamp out reasoned dissent—but most of all, to the way you wield an imaginary authority willy-nilly, despite constant disagreements and objections. Lir and Cheesedreams don't enter into it. —Charles P.  23:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I feel I must point out that, regardless of other comments, Snowspinner is at least unbiased. It seems to me that Snowspinner and Netoholic seldom agree about anything, and it would have been easy for Snow to not interfere between Xiong and Netoholic. The fact that he did interfere is a noble act, and should be taken in good faith. Radiant_* 12:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:Grace Note

While doing an RC patrol, i came across Grace Note (talk · contributions) removing {{cleanup-notability}} tags from several article. The majority of these article were school related articles, a contentious issue here on Misplaced Pages. The reasons he gave for the remove of the tag were the following. (these are only from article in which i contested his removal of the tag)

1. Labelling schools as not notable is trolling. Please stop doing it.
2. Labelling particular types of article as not important enough is tantamount to trolling
3. Please don't use this tag on articles that you know some people feel are important.
4. Please don't tag schools as unimportant.
5. It's a terrible article but some believe schools are important. Please don't misuse these tags.
6. Please don't misuse these tags on schools.
7. I know. It's rubbish and probably should be deleted. So do the VfD, all above board.
8. See other schools with this tag.
9. This is already marked as a stub. That indicates that it needs expanding. No other notice needed.
10. Already marked as stub.
11. Mark as a stub, not cleanup.
12. Better to use stub than cleanup, which it doesn't need.
13. inappropriate tag changed to stub

The vast majority of the tags were placed by Vegaswikian (talk · contributions), whom Grace Note has accused of being a troll, with several also being placed by Allen3 (talk · contributions) and Android79 (talk · contributions). Based on the edit histories of the users who placed the tags on the articles, i have no reason to suspect that any of the users that were trolling any school related articles in anyway, more then likely the user seems to have been engaged in RC or RP patrol at the time that.

Though i do believe that the actions taken by Grace Note are seriously bordering on trolling if not editing in bad faith. GN also put a comment on Vegas talk page, that combined with the statements that the user left on my talk page leads me to believe that he is, and i do mean this in a slightly joking way, part of the militant faction of school inclusionist that have been found here on Misplaced Pages. Also based on his comments, and his somewhat knowledge of the Misplaced Pages workings, the user leads me to believe that it has been involved with Misplaced Pages longer then his User contributions would lead us to believe, which based on his edits would still put in (IMO) as a noob, which raises sockpuppett questions of this user.

I am not going to said what was said between the users, all can be found be appropate talk pages, if any "administrator" needs a clarification of my position, please feel free to contact me threw my talk page. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I couldn't help but notice the broken link, so I fixed it. Wiki-links use a verticle bar (|) and double ], BUT external links use a space ( ) and only single . Hope that helps you!

Since I fixed the link I can't resist sticking my oar in, even though it's probably not wanted, but I'm going to ramble on regardless!

It seems to me that Grace's "all schools must be saved!" mentality has blinded (her?) to the fact that they are still supsceptible to Users' (non)-notablility concerns the same as with any other pet topic page. NO page should ever be percieved as automatically protected unless there is a matching clause in one of the semi-/policy pages to back it up, and yet Grace has worded (her?) statements as if they are authoritative and not to be questioned under any circumstances. Note that I say "blinded", rather than implying any sort of intentional maliciousness on the part of the User, that it is, that good-intentioned actions overpowered good reasoning actions.

However, Boothy443's sockpuppet suspicions seem to me to be fairly well-founded, but, again, I'm not in any way condemning, merely seconding this suspicion. But it could be the User merely guessed at Boothy's experience (rather than manually checking) and so deemed (her?)self the elder. Master Thief Garrett 10:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These are extremely controversial templates in no way represent Misplaced Pages policy. In fact, the statement that something may not be "important" enough to be in Misplaced Pages is a very serious misstatement about Misplaced Pages deletion policy. There is a proposed policy (Misplaced Pages:Importance) but this enjoys no great consensus and is extremely controversial (Misplaced Pages talk:Importance). I think it's fair to describe the systematic misrepresentation of one's opinion as Misplaced Pages policy as trolling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The template in no way states that it represents a policy - and in fact, many templates used on Misplaced Pages don't represent a policy. The template simply states that "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article, or explain on its talk page why it is notable. If no expansion or explanation is provided, this page may be nominated for deletion." That is a lot nicer than nominating it for VfD outright, isn't it?
  • The template was earlier nominated for deletion, and kept (here).
• I do, however, agree that the school issue is troublesome, and would really prefer if both parties somehow found a compromise. Adding 'NN' templates to a lot of schools is just as spurious as removing them all. Radiant_* 12:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The wording of the template is as follows: "The subject of this article might not be notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.". That is a false statement. There is no established Misplaced Pages policy on notability. It is a falsehood. However this falsehood can be addressed by editing the template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm in the camp in the cross-fire. I think some schools should be included others shouldn't. I think there needs to be enough material to actually write a solid article, so I tend to find cleanup tags more fitting than importance tags (they'll spur disputes anyway). If no actual info is conveyed in an article, it should be either expanded or deleted. BEEFSTEW is a good way to assess the worth of a school article. Mgm| 12:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's clear enough to see what has happened. I object to people pushing the POV that there are subjects not important enough to include in WP in this way. There are other forums for expressing that view. I'm unapologetically in favour of a broadly inclusive encyclopaedia but I understand others have their own views and, because I staunchly support both the NPOV policy and the right of editors to right as their conscience dictates, I have no problem with that. I put a polite notice on Vegaswikian's page because I felt that as a very new user he might not be aware of the contention surrounding this issue. Boothy, a user I've never encountered before, slammed a rather rude message on my page. I'm not sure why he thinks I'm trolling. Anyone can see from my contributions that I often pick random pages to copyedit, and I happened on one with this tag. I had a look-see to see what other pages it had been used on. I think it's wrong to push this particular view through what appear to be "official" notices, particularly where those using them don't attempt to communicate the originating editors. It seems to be the standard-issue complaint these days though. Call someone a troll and that excuses any sort of personal mudslinging you want to indulge in. The other guy's just stirring. I'm here to work on an encyclopaedia, not indulge people who have a bone to pick. Too many articles in need of my tender mercies to waste too much time on satisfying the needs of these fellows. Thanks, Tony and MGM for the considered comments. Grace Note 13:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe that anyone has said that schools, in and of themselves, are "subjects not important enough to include in WP". As far as I know, each school's importance has been judged on a case by case basis. On the other hand, there are several people who are under the belief that all school articles, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how non-notable, no matter what the content of the article, are, sui generis, required to be kept. Now, how's being pedantic? RickK 22:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning

With regard to the very controversial article Teach the Controversy, Kim Bruning (talk · contribs) has been behaving very oddly. When one editor, after a long and acrimonious battle over the page, suggested that the article be merged with Discovery Institute, and asked others to vote on the proposal, Kim Bruning suddenly appeared on the Talk page with the statement: "Voting is not permitted on wikipedia" (backed up within minutes by Fennec (talk · contribs) , who had also not been involved on the page before, and Sam Spade (talk · contribs) . This led to some considerable and understandable confusion. The poll stands 9:4 in favour of merging at the moment, though it seems likely that some people were put off voting by Kim Bruning's statement.

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Teach the Controversy was then called, and Kim Bruning proceeded to question the integrity of the person calling it, with no evidence that I could see or that he was prepared to offer. He has now accepted that he was wrong, but taken together with his intervention on Talk:Teach the Controversy, I find his behaviour in this to have fallen well short of what should be expected of any editor, much less an admin.

I have no wish to open an RfC on this, but I think that the problem should be aired here, if only to mark this sort of approach to controversy as something that should be avoided in future. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an innappropriate place for listing such matters, but your interaction w Kim is certainly indicative of why I voted against your adminship. your ability to handle conflict is astoundingly poor. Sam Spade 09:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing about voting not being permitted on Misplaced Pages is very strange; we vote all the time, we'd be in bad shape without it. Nevertheless, if Kim acknowledges that he was wrong, I don't see any reason to take it any further. Everyking 10:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He never said he was wrong about that, he wasn't. The wikipedia is not a democracy. Sam Spade 10:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kim's actions do not seem to go beyond anything any editor could do. I fail to see why this merits discussion on this board—not everything admins do should appear here because they're admins. I find it highly unlikely that what you mention can be generalized in some way to be put up as a valuable lesson for all admins on "how not to do it". "Incidents" is not a neutral word; don't slap things on this board too hastily. Your disapproval is elevated to something the whole adminship community should review, which is arguably going too far.

Kim's full comment (vote, even!) on the voting procedure was

Voting is not permitted on wikipedia ( Misplaced Pages is not a democracy) , changed to strawpoll format, but note that even strawpolls are really discouraged. Try for consensus :-) Kim Bruning 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The remainder of the discussion is at Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive5. Reading the VfD vote, we find this:

I think that this is a borderline article content vote, something which is a really bad idea for an online encyclopedia. We should ask Ian Pitchford what his intent was. In fact I've dropped him a line already. :-)

That "line" included the following, which I presume is where he's supposed to question the integrity of the nominator:

There's a collision between the VFD poll and the poll on Talk:Teach the Controversy. Since you were the one who started the VFD poll, could you explain your motivations for doing so? (can be anything from "oops, didn't see the other poll" through "vfd seemed better" to "I thought you said..." , etc..)

Correct me if I'm wrongly filling in the details on any of this. From where I stand, this seems like a classic case of misinterpreting (or overinterpreting) someone's actions. But regardless of that, I don't think this belongs on this board at all. And furthermore, I'd like to express the hope that we could have many more admins as courteous as Kim, regardless of how "oddly" they are perceived to behave. JRM · Talk 10:40, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

this is the right place for informal complaints about admin behaviour, which is exactly what Mel was doing. "voting is not permitted" is not a corollary of "WP is not a democracy". We do have lots of votes, we just cannot vote to disregard policy. The problem seems to have been resolved, but it is presicely the purpose of this board to ask for opinions when admins think they risk clashing with other admins. dab (ᛏ) 10:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, mea culpa. It's my fault for failing my good faith and having come to see this board as place where admins go to crucify each other; the "informal" bit seems about right, though. No opinion on Kim's "voting" comment, which I regard as valid a personal opinion as any others, admin or no. There was even a follow-up discussion in which exactly the points you mention were discussed, so I still fail to see the "incident", or any sort of clash on an admin level. JRM · Talk 10:57, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

I see it as highly indicative of the sorts of admins voting has been providing us with as of late. Polls are evil, Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. The majority has no claim to the truth. Sam Spade 11:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm very careful with my words, and I have already done my best to address all of Mel Etitis' concerns clearly, concisely and adequately at the appropriate times. This means that either he has missed something, or that I have been unintentionally unclear. Since I don't want to repeat myself here, I suggest that Mel Etitis check back what has already been written to discover where this misunderstanding stems from. If I have missed anything pertinent, he should be advised that I am quite approachable on my talk page, which I hope he'll turn to ahead of AN/I in future. Kim Bruning 15:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What JRM said, and thanks to JRM for digging out the pertinent quotes from the daunting archives at Talk:Teach the Controversy and setting up an overview here, so we can all more easily see the posts Mel refers to. To say that Kim and the others "appeared suddenly" on the talk page of an article they hadn't edited seems to be intended as criticism, but I totally don't understand why. Doing just that is generally supposed to be a helpful and useful thing, in case of content conflict and acrimony. We even have a special page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, devoted to asking people—"outsiders", non-editors of the article—to go to the talk pages of conflicted articles and post comments on them. This is because calm outsider eyes and voices are considered to be promising remedies when a conflict has started to feed on itself. And, while I admit I can't face reading through all those archives, how can it be wrong to call for consensus instead of majority vote? That is the wiki way. If Kim Bruning, of all people, is supposed to behave "oddly", Misplaced Pages needs more oddness, not less.--Bishonen | talk 16:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This probably isn't really the place for a discussion on voting, but I wanted to add an opinion. Traditionally, voting has certainly been highly discouraged - we work by consensus, not democracy. Voting can easily shut down the options, making both sides dig into their positions and neglect to attempt to find mutually acceptable solutions. Polling can be useful at times to clarify the current thinking of contributors - but certainly shouldn't be the be all and end all of decision making on Misplaced Pages. Kim perhaps put this a little more strongly than I would have done, but the sentiment is very valid. Jimbo's talk at Harvard this week touched on this. The transcript doesn't seem to have caught it all, but basically he talked about voting being of limited use on Misplaced Pages, and that even where we do use it (he mentioned VfD) it is best used as a form of dialogue rather than as a simple numbers game. Recently there has been a move towards more voting on Misplaced Pages, in my opinion this is very anti-wiki and should be discouraged. We need to get back to the ideal of consensus - hard as it can be with the larger community we have now. -- sannse (talk) 16:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few responses to comments above.

1. I certainly didn't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with "outsiders" contributing to a Talk page which has seen long and acrimonious disagreement, though doing so in order either to leave inaccurate claims about what's permissible on Misplaced Pages, or merely to leave slogans about voting, is at best unhelpful.
2. Whatever might be said about voting, the plain fact is that voting is permissible on Misplaced Pages, and to state that it is not is therefore to make a false claim. It's as simple and as straightforward as that. If Kim Bruning had said that voting isn't encouraged, or that votes shouldn't be allowed to take the place of discussion and consensus, or any of a number of perfectly true claims, I shouldn't have objected. It is not, however, merely a case of putting things too strongly; voting is permisible, and he stated that it wasn't.
   This is all independent of any view of what Misplaced Pages policy on voting should be; it concerns what the policy actually is, and what Kim Bruning claimed that it is. I find it disheartening that so many editors should care so little for the importance of restricting ourselves – whether as admins or non-admins, but especially as admins, whose claims about policy are often taken as authoritative – to the truth.
3. "In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll" . It doesn't take an exhaustive or detailed trawl through the archives to show this was a long-running dispute. I had come to the page because of an RfC, and had tried to mediate between two entrenched sides, each pushing a strong PoV, mainly VorpalBlade (talk · contribs) and Ungtss (talk · contribs) on one side and Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) on the other. There were times that I thought consensus was near, but it never really came (or it came and was immediately disrupted). The vote/poll seemed to be the only sensible way forward. Kim Bruning's false statement that voting is impermissible affected that poll, and was certainly (see the Talk page) the reason that some Users gave for supporting the idea of a VfD.
4. Finally, I pointed out all of this on the Talk page, and on the VfD page; I don't think that any of Kim Bruning's responses were adequate, but they're there for others to judge. I couldn't (and still can't) see the point of repeating them on his Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Smell Etitis

Smell Etitis (talk · contribs) posted abusive comments on Mel Etitis's Talk page and vandalised his user page . He also posted {{delete}} messages on User:Chadbryant's User and Talk pages. I suspect the name alone is enough to earn a block, but his behaviour is also unacceptable. Guettarda 18:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, too slow, DropDeadGorgias has blocked him already. Guettarda 18:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Why post here? It's obviously an abusive name. This could easily have been blocked on sight. Mgm| 20:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because he's not an admin and he couldn't block it on sight? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards