Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 7 May 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?

User:60.240.178.196

Vandalised All-women band article more than once and then preceeded to threaten me by claiming: I'm watching you, yes you with the Red hair in Sydney stay right where you are in your lovely pink cap. What you don't realise is there is currently an Armalite AR-15 Assault rifle trained squarely at the head of the blonde to your left, and unless you do exactly as I say I am going to kill her.. While people might think this is funny, at the time this was happening I did not. I have no idea who this person is, I've never met them before in my life. They only apologised(?) hours after I had already left. I would like the IP to be banned if possible. This type of childish behaviour from 60.240.178.196 shouldnt be condoned. HelenWatt 03:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've blocked the anon for 48 hours. 24 hours for vandalism of All-women band and Pope Benedict XVI and 24 hours for the death threats. Mgm| 09:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't wish to be pedantic but surely death threats are more serious than vandalising Misplaced Pages? Or is it only the number of offenses, not their type? Djbrianuk 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an anon. IP addresses can frequently change owners, so long-term blocks are often ineffective or counterproductive. --Carnildo 23:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I was sort of shocked when I saw this. I don't mean to be critical, but I thought maybe a death threat might call for a firmer response. To be honest I don't know what options there would be considering the tranistory nature of IP addresses, maybe a longer block? Rx StrangeLove 03:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Rovoam and his anon IPs

Some of you probably remember User:Rovoam with whom I was engaged in an edit and revert war in various Azerbaijan- and Nagorno-Karabakh-related pages, who then descended from POV edits to banal vandalism and eventually, was blocked several times by admins and also placed under revert limitation and personal attack parole by the ArbCom following ArbCom decision on Baku Ibne et al. His actions have been previously reported in WP:AN/I too by User:Jwrosenzweig (see, )

After ArbCom final decision Rovoam disappeared for a short period of time, appeared briefly again, then disappeared and now, since April 24, he has waged a full-scale revert war in various Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh-related pages once again. These pages include Nagorno-Karabakh (his “traditional” target), Caucasian Albania, Artsakh, Azerbaijan, and since yesterday, Arran (Azerbaijan).

This person acts under various anon IPs, introduces POV edits, vandalizes the pages (including sneaky vandalism), puts irrelevant tags, simply for the sake of trolling (esp. in Azerbaijan and now, in Arran (Azerbaijan)) and and as a result, disrupts normal functioning of Misplaced Pages.

This person is very wily and smart which makes him rather dangerous. His edits sometimes are misleading and not obvious. Moreover, initially, he reverted pages more than once a day, but then, after being blocked by admins, he realized that he could more safely revert the pages just once a day. So, "legally" he's reverting once a day (although he may violate this rule whenever he deems appropriate and convenient for himself), but nevertheless, his actions disrupt normal functioning of Misplaced Pages. The history logs of the pages I mentioned above looks like an active volcano crater just because of one person uses Misplaced Pages for taking revenge from me...

Given the wide range of IPs I also suspect that he’s possibly using some program (e.g. anonimizer or smth like this).

Some list of his anon IPs is available in ArbCom Evidences Baku Ibne et. al.

Others (the recent ones) not covered there are:

213.18.248.25,

72.25.94.186,

67.150.42.147

and also possibly, 80.78.64.69

The list may not be complete and additional IPs may appear in the future.

I ask for your help to deal effectively with this person. I personally believe that this person should be banned from Misplaced Pages, his real WP account (User:Rovoam, should be closed down indefinitely, or at least, he should be banned (indefinitely or for a quite long period of time) from editing Azerbaijan-related pages. Hope for your help.--Tabib 05:41, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Socks, Socks, Everywhere, But Not A Pair To Wear - Another chapter in the never ending Iasson/Faethon epic Grecian saga

Please could somebody block user 99.54 (talk · contribs) for being yet another sockpuppet of user:Iasson. See their contribs, particularly this edit. Please also do the same to 99.55 (talk · contribs), obviously created as part of the same series and whose only contribution is to the only article 99.54 edited. Also, when banning please reset Iasson's ban timer for 15 months from today. Thryduulf 21:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous! 99.54's contributions date since 2002 ! how can you call him Iasson's sock? (you may ban my sock now, I hate socks!) Iasson's sock 10:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Erm, I don't get it either. This is Iasson? Why? Because he objected to you calling him a sockpuppet for one (!) edit he made to Ra? Has Iasson been using numerical socks for a while and did I miss it? JRM · Talk 10:32, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Regardless of who this is, something odd is happening here. The edit linked above is from 2002. However looking at the contribution history for 99.54, even when clicking the link at the top of that edit, no contributions prior to 15:07, 24 Apr 2005 appear (this is unlikely to be a problem at my end as the same happens on this Windows 2k PC at work as happened on my Linux PC at home). This apparent short editing history, first edit being a revert and accusion of Iasson being my sockpuppet led me to make the accusation above. The Faethon series escallated numerically, and a very recent sockpuppet was named for the first string of digits of Pi. Thryduulf 12:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If this is a series, then user: 99.44 (talk · contribs) may be part of it, but despite being registered (see user list) they have no contributions to date. Thryduulf 12:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Same name, different User ID, I'd guess. Ask the gods developers, what's going on.-Pjacobi 13:57, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

I think 99.54 is a Faethonian and not an Iassonian, for two reasons. D'abord he is related with Ra the sun-god, then his password is the same as his username (try it). I wonder how Faethonians managed to delete all previous contributions of 99.54 account. This is either a bug, or a miracle, or there is a Faethonian developer that has access to wikipedia database. Lets pray all together to Jimbo god, hoping he is going to do something and help poor wikipedia community to get rid of the Faethonian public accounts disease. In Jimbo, we trust. Yaft 14:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that Yaft (talk · contribs) is Iasson/Faethon for the following reasons:

• Their only contribution is to this section of this page (the comment and a minor edit to remove line inserted between Pjacobi's comment and signature, presumably accidentally).
• The style of English used is very similar to that used by Iasson/Faethon
• argues that Faethon and Iasson are not the same person - nobody else has done this since before the ArbCom case
• Knew it to be or to look for it being a public account (there is no mention of this elsewhere on this page currently, and the previous discussions about it were archived several days ago.
• "Yaft" nicely expands to "Yet Another Faethon Troll" (I know this isn't a reason in itself, but taken with the other things this immediately sprang to mind).

Thryduulf 17:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you try to log in and change the password? I'm unwilling to try right now because I'm on a static IP. Even if Yaft isn't a public account, it can still be blocked if it's an Iasson/Faethon sockpuppet. --Deathphoenix 20:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I did try earlier and the password wasn't Yaft. I'm not an admin and so can't do any blocking (although I did get caught by David's block of 99.54 earlier when I tested that password!). I present my thoughts here so that if any admins feel condfident enough to block they can do so. Thryduulf 22:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas, his anon ids and his false POV edits

Zininbudas has been engaged in an edit war on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Confederation, Vilnius, and Lithuania, (see the entry on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR) and is making other dubious edits on some other realted articles, I say dubious as I have been informed by other editors that his edits are blatantly false. I have protected all the pages, and he was blocked for editing for 24 hours due to his violation of the 3RRR, howver he then proceeds to edit as an anon. He has left abusive messages on talk and user pages. Someone has suggested a range block, I don't know how to do that, and I'm not sure how wise it is to apply a range block for an extened period, since this editor is persistant (he's been at it for at least a month). Comments on how to proceed would be appreciated --nixie 01:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Range blocks are easy - e.g. 10.10.0.0/16 to block everything from 10.0.0.0 to 10.10.255.255, 10.10.10.0/24 to block everything from 10.10.10.0 to 10.10.10.255. Try escalating range blocks if that's what it takes. Make sure your Misplaced Pages email is set up so you can unblock quickly in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 12:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm dealing with this guy on Vilnius. The tricky part to me is that occasionally he seems to say things that make sense, and then suddenly spouts off on a POV tirade. This makes him a bit tricky to deal with... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

GRider sockpuppet theatre

Thryduulf requested (on WP:AN/I) a check into GRider and Tallyman's correlating behaviour. They have similarities, but there wasn't enough for me to be reasonably confident they were the same person. There does appear to be sockpuppet theatre going on here, though. A combination of reviewing edits, IP checks and a check with Tim Starling for further technical info lets me state with reasonable confidence that GRider, HERMiT cRAB, Tallyman, ..-. ..- -.-. -.- ..- and almost certainly Jonahhh are the same person. Furthermore, they have also set up accounts G Rider, HERMiT CRAB, HERMiT cRAB and TallyMan (note subtle variation). I've blocked the lot as sockpuppets. There's another bunch on associated IPs I'm still checking further.

I'd always thought GRider behaved oddly differently from a regular single-account editor, and this would explain it a bit - the sockpuppeteer, whoever it is, was treating it as a role account for particular types of edit and not bothering to humanise it much.

I eagerly await the no doubt perfectly innocent explanation in my email.

This particularly pisses me off because I actually completely agree with their view on school articles - I see no reason we shouldn't have an article on every high school in the world ever, if we have verifiable sources. But the way they've gone about it is completely unacceptable. With friends like these ... - David Gerard 12:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Another possible sockpuppet: Relax (talk · contribs) has edited User:GRider/Schoolwatch to add three schools to the "On VfD" list with the edit summary "don't accomodate deletionists!!". Those edits are the user's only edits. --Carnildo 22:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This user is creating sockpuppet accounts to stack VfD votes? Everyking 22:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/GRider - presumably, he's creating the sockpuppets to evade his ban from editing deletion-related pages. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 22:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

And to stack votes and synthesise apparent consensus, i.e. precisely why sockpuppets are so ill-regarded in general. AC restrictions are per person, not per username, so apply to the sockpuppeteer - David Gerard 23:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

An inclusionists' sock puppet

A new user Quaalusionist (talk · contribs) has posted what is quite probably the most rabidly inclusionist piece I've seen on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) - its more partisan than the AIW pages!
Obviously they are a sockpuppet of somebody, but I don't know who. Please can someone block this Qaullusionist and take any apropriate action against the sockpuppeteer. Thryduulf 15:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Reading that, only one comment springs immediately to mind: YHBT. YHL. HAND. JRM · Talk 16:56, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't understand the acronyms, please could you translate for me. Thryduulf 17:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"You Have Been Trolled. You Have Lost. Have A Nice Day." See the Jargon File for a more thorough explanation, and our article on Internet trolls. In short: my comment implies that you have been giving the person in question exactly what they wanted by treating their screed as if it were meant seriously. JRM · Talk 17:34, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

This looks to be another Iasson sockpuppet, but this is based solely on a hunch after looking at the wording of the post you mentioned above, particularly "The encroaching hordes of deletionist" and "Friends, now is the time to come forth to do battle against the enemy. We must marshal our forces at once." The analogy of battle doctrine and fighting hordes of enemy is a particular favourite of Iasson. --Deathphoenix 17:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The four edits to my talk page to make one statement is also rather typical. Thryduulf 17:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The user also vandalised my user page after anouncing on my talk page he was going to do it (apparently I'm a deletionist because I defended Pcb21 although I'm puzzled what event this might refer to as I don't recall having interaction with them recently. Thryduulf 17:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Judging from spelling and grammar, though, I don't believe this is Iasson himself, but someone parodying his style; our troll has a little too good a command of the English language to reliably pass for Iasson, and he takes it just a tiny bit too far. Of course, these things are almost impossible to pin down for sure. JRM · Talk 17:34, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

user:Knowledge Seeker's userpage has been vandalised as well now by 205.217.105.2 (talk · contribs) who is obviously the same person just logged out (I'm trying to revert atm, but my connection is very very slow. WP:VIP isn't working either). Thryduulf 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 17:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that being a sockpuppet, even a loud and long-winded one, is not in itself grounds for being blocked. As far as I can tell, this person isn't serious, just having a bit of fun at the expense of our competing "ideologies" of inclusionism and deletionism. Everyking 19:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• True, but vandalising someone's userpage to get across those ideologies is grounds for blocking. Mgm| 21:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Obscenity

KapilTagore (talk · contribs) using obscenities in mky talk page. this person does not want to collaborate they want to troll, --SqueakBox 16:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Zapatero

I believe Zapatancas (talk · contribs), who is also Zapatero (talk · contribs), has created a sockpuppet SquealingPig (talk · contribs). Zapatanecas began reverting my work this morning here and here. he then switched to 138.100.17.69 (talk · contribs) to contineu here here and here. Note the SquealingPig ref, seems to be a reference to my name. He then begins to attack my user page here which he has now done 7 times, --SqueakBox 18:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I blocked SquealingPig as a pretty obvious case. dab (ᛏ) 18:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

User:FrepIySpang

Impersonating me. (The fifth letter of the username is a capital Eye, not a lowercase Ell.) This happened right after I reported the impersonation of Mel Etitis by MeI Etitis (same trick, third letter Eye instead of Ell). Changed my report on WP:RFC to say that I am impersonating him/her. (Hello? Check the user contribs to see who's been around longer). FreplySpang (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Compare FreplySpang (talk · contributions) with FrepIySpang (talk · contributions). FreplySpang (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Defamation complaint

A complaint was made to the mailing list by an individual who felt he was unfairly called a kook in Alt.usenet.kooks and that this was affecting his reputation and business. The page was protected because an anon (probably him) kept deleting the name, so I've removed the name but left the page protected. We're not supposed to use Usenet as a secondary source (especially not when using a person's real name), because it doesn't count as a reputable or credible publisher, and the posts are largely anonymous. It can be used as primary-source material for an article about Usenet, but that doesn't extend to naming people who have been criticized in Usenet posts. SlimVirgin 20:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

The article from which the material was removed is about a Usenet newsgroup, and said "awards" were in fact given to a person who posted to Usenet under that name for years and years. If the person making the complaint would like to claim that the aberrant Usenet poster is a different person, that's fine, but the information was correct and verifiable as it was presented. --iMb~Meow 20:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The kook of the month award is a major part of that usernet group and Edmond Heinz Wollmann is aparently one of the more regular winners (certianly far more regular than sollog) Since John Ennis claims that sollog is his real name by your logic we would have to remove any mention of him as wellGeni 20:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

They've even got a special page for him, full of things he's said online. Noel (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

A complaint about libel has been made by someone who is not a public figure. If we keep the material, or keep reinserting it as Delirium is doing, we're on sticky ground legally. This is a question of commonsense and sticking to policy, and also making an effort to be fair to named individuals. Usenet isn't a credible source. We can write about the group and we can write about its awards using Usenet itself as primary-source material, but we shouldn't name the award winners, especially once they have told us the issue might affect their business. Legally, it starts to look like malice. SlimVirgin 20:54, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's not libel or anything remotely like it, because truth is an absolute defense against libel. We are simply reporting the verifiable fact that the newsgroup alt.usenet.kooks has called Mr. Wollmann the "kook of the year". --Delirium 21:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

So does this mean you would support listing the name of high school girls awarded the name "slut" by their male peers under the respective high school articles, since it would simply be reporting the verifiable fact that boys at high school xyz have called girl abc a "slut"? --MPerel 04:56, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. SlimVirgin 06:52, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Non notableGeni 05:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. That straw man won't fly. Besides, we tolerate mention of the 666 fantasies about Javier Solana, etc, so reporting things that are not positive is clearly something we allow, provided we are just reporting what other people are saying. Noel (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm clearly outnumbered, so I won't go on about it, but I just want to add that media law isn't as simple as that, not even in the U.S. There are a number of avenues that could be pursued in a case like this. Anyway, the main point for me is that we shouldn't want to use Usenet posts as a source of criticism of private individuals. No newspaper would do it (unless there was some public-interest issue at stake e.g. if someone named kook of the year on Usenet had also been grooming young girls for sex) so we shouldn't either. SlimVirgin 22:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on this one. Even in articles about controversial biographical public figures, people are sensitive about using derogatory terms to describe them. And at least when they *are* reported, both the critics POV as well as the response to critics addressing the details behind the negative term are given for balance. But this case is just plain defamation and very unencyclopedic. --MPerel 04:56, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

and one we get a respoce beyond threatened legal action we will put it in Geni 05:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Or instead, repeating the slander of a private citizen by a web group could be removed from the article since as you said above it is non notable. --MPerel 06:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I removed it twice, but it was reinserted, and I don't want to get into a revert war over it. SlimVirgin 06:52, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

How is saying that someone is a kook "slander"? There's no objective test, so it's a matter of opinion, and opinions are protected. Slander is stuff like "you comitted a crime" (when it's not true). Noel (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. The article reports the fact that this usenet group gave him this "award". His beef is with the people in that group, not us. There is no malice involved in simply reporting the fact that this happened. Gamaliel 20:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I, too, see no reason to delete it. It's a fairly well-known award, and this user is a fairly well-known winner of said award. If there's an argument that the group is non-notable, the page should be nominated for VfD, but I don't believe that to be the case—I'd heard of this award before coming to Misplaced Pages. --Delirium 21:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm not sure he was a winner when I visited the page some years back, but the award is reasonably well known in the Usenet community. Noel (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to me we get to report that X believes Y about Z. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've won the award at least twice. Does that mean I get an article on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Nah. Not notable enough. When you get to be Kook of the Millennium, check back. JRM · Talk 22:01, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Tony:Please provide proof. If you're happy with winning that award, you could put it on your user page.-gadfium 22:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I campaigned for Kook of the Millennium, but the competition was too stiff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

GuyFawkes

GuyFawkes (talk · contribs) is not an appropriate name, very famous historical UK character, --SqueakBox 23:07, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it's not as if somebody's going to confuse the two. RickK 23:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• User:Guy Fawkes might not be an appropriate name, but User:GuyFawkes isn't too bad. Perhaps we should ask an administrator like User:GeneralPatton? You could make equal cases against a lot of other user names. We have articles about Camembert, Cyan, Fantasy, Gamaliel, Hyacinth, Lord Emsworth, Minesweeper, Morven, Roadrunner, Proteus, Rama, Solipsist, and Trilobite, and all of these are also names of admins. Grutness| 00:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC) (still waiting for an article on Grutness, Scotland)
• How is a historical figure not an appropriate name? I think it's perfectly permissible, since it's not offensive to anybody and will cause no confusion whatsoever. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 00:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a big problem here. The only historical figures I think should be off limits are those who are fairly recent or who provoke particular animosity among a substantial number of people. Everyking 02:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• His effigy gets burnt throughout Britain every Nov 5th, --SqueakBox 02:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's a tradition. I don't think people still actively hate him or would get offended by a reference to him. Everyking 02:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Guy Fawkes is not a controversial figure in Britain, hasn't been for at least a century. The name is just fine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I see what people think, which is fine; I was just commenting. No he is not actively hated, it just seemed wierd--SqueakBox 02:54, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Silsor

User:Silsor protected a page he was involved in an edit war on, and made a false accusation of vandalism (in the page protection header), despite a lack of talk page concensus. When addressed about this matter he suggested that he would take no action to remedy concerns.

Sam Spade 12:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• citations for Nazi anti-grav and other crazed concepts

Thanks, Jack. Here is some of the text in question, which you couldn't post here for obvious reasons.

With all their beliefs united Thule began funding construction of an inter-dimensional flight disc named the Jenseitsflugmaschine (Other World Flight Machine) in 1921. The disc was built through a series of psychic revelations of the medium Maria Orsic then translated by a Vril medium named Sigrun. Together, they provided the basic materials to be used in the construction of the machine and the first designs of the machine itself. This machine was then built in Munich in 1922 in secret under the leadership of Thulist Professor W.O. Schumann of the Technical University of Munich.

Thule and Vril experimented with the odd disc machine for two years and then dismantled it after Professor Schumann derived a levitator unit from the research. This was perfected over many years and aroused great interest by Hitler, Himmler, and Goering.

You heard it first here, folks: Hitler had interdimensional UFO flight capability. silsor 12:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

How else would he have found his dino mates? Apparently the hyperborean / atlantean / aryan gods were also lending a hand, so anti-grav time travel was no biggie. You should see their vril rods! Do a moments research before reverting, protecting, and making vandalism accusations against concensus, will ya? Sam Spade 13:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

For more fascinating insights in this underappreciated section of history, see . JRM · Talk 13:09, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Jack, I don't understand what you're arguing. You really believe that people from the far past living under the North Pole were behind the Nazis? Or that silsor should have allowed that information, unsubstantiated, into the article? RickK 17:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

he should have discussed the matter in talk, asked for cites, reviewed the cites, and respected concensus. In short, he should have taken part in the wiki process, rather than acting as a rogue admin. Sam Spade 18:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering... What consensus are you referring to? --Kbdank71 18:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I assume the anon agreed w me that his edits should be discussed rather than deleted as vandalism, eh? Sam Spade 19:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In this week's episode of "As the Wiki Turns", Sam Spade pockets the word "consensus" and blasts off into space, taking the humble dictionary dweller into strange new territory. silsor 21:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me there must be a pretty solid consensus against including that stuff in the article as is? Everyking 22:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is there wasn't concensus, and couldn't be, because Silsor wasn't taking part in the talk page. When he finially did, he requested citations, which are to be had, in plenty. I've been handing out links to them, and am perfectly willing to amass a mighty stack of them anywhere he'd like. How about here? Can we please get back to the point, his improper protection of a page he is edit warring on? Sam Spade 23:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall asking for citations. Also, I'm not aware of how citing instances of conspiracy theory is justification for presenting them as fact. Or are you just trolling again? Is this a big enough bite for you? silsor 11:22, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me this stuff would have to jump two hurdles to be worth including:

Be verified to exist as an actual and notable theory, with cites;

Be written in a NPOV manner.

So, if these two things are done, we shouldn't have any dispute, right? Everyking 12:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

No. There's a third hurdle - that its length be in an appropriate proportion with the length of the article and with the amount that can be said about the topic. Which is a variation on writing in a NPOV manner, but is still very much important. You can create POV if you insert 32kb of NPOV material about your personal conspiracy theory into a 5kb article. Snowspinner 13:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

If we went by that logic, articles would hardly ever grow, unless a contributor was careful to expand every aspect of the article at once instead of just one portion he or she might know something about. Ridiculous. Everyking 13:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be true only if the majority of contributors were prone to dumping huge amounts of text on specific points of view into articles and not adding to anything else. Mercifully, this is not the case, and so articles generally do grow. Note also that the issue is not adding to one portion - it's making one portion grotesquely overlong in comparison with the rest of the article. Snowspinner 13:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The exact issue in this case is that a user repeatedly inserted their own personal conspiracy theory as fact. silsor 13:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with you, Phil. The difference is, my opinions are just opinions. You talk about your opinions as if they're policy. Everyking 13:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

These are among the ugliest spots in the entire Misplaced Pages: Not only Nazi mysticism, but at Vril, and related pages, unverfiable nonsense keeps being added and User:Sam Spade trying to defend it against all attempts of cleanup. See Talk:Vril. --Pjacobi 13:11, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

ElKabong

I blocked

This account is a sockpuppet of Enviroknot (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

See }}

see also Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_user_page.2C_once_again_vandalized for violating the 3RR, and User:129.7.35.205 immdiately popped up making the same edits with similar edit summaries. I'm now not sure that I should have blocked ElKabong myself, as I had been involved in editing the page (at the time I thought that, given the 3RR issue isn't a subjective matter but an objective and mechanically verifiable fact, being an interested party shouldn't matter, but I should have checked the rules first). I'm therefore reluctant to do anything about the anon. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Blocking someone for 3RR seems to involve some subjective decision. I would recommend against blocking someone for 3RR in the future if you're involved with the article in question. Warn the anon, explain he's making the same edits as someone who was blocked and let someone else do the blocking should the need ever arise. Mgm| 19:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'll be much more circumspect in future (oddly, it was the first time I'd ever blocked for 3RR). The anon has been warned, but is clearly Elkabong, and has no self-control — swearing and shouting at other editors, calling anyone who disagrees with him an Islamist, a sockpuppet, etc. The page in question (Islamophobia) has now had to be protected because of him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• His latest sockpuppet is KaintheScion (talk · contribs). Someone else should evaluate and take action; I made the mistake, perhaps, of reverting one of his anonymous sockpuppet's changes to the loathesome Islamofascism article before throwing up my hands in annoyance and protecting the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I blocked User:KaintheScion for 12 hours for vandalism at Rachel Corrie, but he e-mailed to say he'd discuss the issue on talk (though I'm paraphrasing; it was nowhere near as polite as that), so I unblocked him after an hour or two. So far, he's behaving at Rachel Corrie. SlimVirgin 04:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Spymac

The Spymac community seems to have found their article in Misplaced Pages and are trying to convert it into a chat forum. I just deleted a completely unencyclopedic list of members. Apparently they're all coming over and letting us know they are and leaving little witty comments about themselves. RickK 07:11, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Added to watchlist for now. Inter\ 09:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Chadbryant

Our friends at rec.sport.pro-wrestling are having drama again. See (request for help from me), (Chadbryant rewriting TruthCrusader's comment on his talk page to make it sound like he called himself a "fat, stupid liar".) silsor 11:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've spent some time trying to protect Chadbryant from a string of vandalising sockpuppets, but it must be admitted that his own behaviour can often be just as childish as theirs. The only thing to be said in his defence, I think, is that he limits his silliness to his own User and Talk pages, whereas they extend their vandalism to articles and to his User page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Enviroknot