Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 5 August 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)

• 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?

138.130.203.178

Besides his 3RR nomination, to which he has just added his 8th revert, this user has been vandalizing Jonathan Sarfati, and calling others additions vandalism. He actually reverted all of my changes, even the ones that corrected the incorrect statement that the person was 23, NOT 21 when he got his paper published in Nature, and I provided a link to the source, which he also removed. H also reverted my fixing the POV statement of "secular science journal" to "peer-reviewed scientific journal", and reverted my correction to the incorrect statement that Sarfat "published a paper". Authors don't publish papers, they get them published in journals. So, 3+ blatant cases of vandalism, and to top it off, his edit summary claims my edits were vandalism. Something must be done about this user. -- BRIAN0918  23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:GrandCru and socks

GrandCru (talk · contribs) recently made a series of controversial edits that were reverted. Today, two new accounts were created that jumped right into the conflicts that GrandCru was involved in: BobbybuiIder (talk · contribs) (impersonating User:Bobbybuilder) and WiIfried Derksen (talk · contribs) (impersonating User:Wilfried Derksen, a.k.a. User:Electionworld). The impostor accounts have since been blocked, but GrandCru, assuming he is indeed responsible, has not been held accountable. --MarkSweep 03:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

GrandCru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claimed that he is not the imposter, meanwhile he reverted all vandalised pages to WiIfried Derksen (talk · contribs) or BobbybuiIder (talk · contribs)'s versions. Furthermore, the writing style from the impostor accounts are the same as GrandCru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please hold him accountable. Bobbybuilder 12:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

On the advice of Ilyanep, I blocked GrandCru as a sockpuppet. -- Essjay · Talk 20:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. (We won't be needing that stake, I think.) Related to this, what should be made of the following diff: ? It's the work of JiangsBellybuttonLint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the many accounts created recently for the sole purpose of harassing User:Jiang (see the history of his user page and his talk page). I'm starting to wonder if a single sockpuppet-master is behind these accounts. --MarkSweep 07:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw that last night, and I hit him with a permablock. -- Essjay · Talk 14:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. If you look at the history of Jiang's user page, you'll see that this is all part of a regular pattern, unfortunately. If they all originate from a single IP address, perhaps something could be done besides blocking individual accounts? --MarkSweep 18:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, I don't give a frog's fat ass if you block people that deserve it. But I (the original GrandCru) didn't create the fake Bobby or Derksen accounts. I was innocent, and got blocked anyway. If you look at Bobbybuilder's history, you will see that his profanity and vandalisms were far greater than mine ever were. He was the truly abusive one, but you guys keep overlooking it. Why was he not blocked? Go ahead, look up all the IP addresses, you will see that prior to today I had nothing to do with any of the Jiang bullshit. But, you know what? Since you guys blocked me permanently and put to waste all my effort and contributions, I will spend the same amount of time vandalising Bobbybuilder. (And Jiang, only because Jiang's group of vandals are going to help me get Bobby). One of these days, the vandals will rise up against the communists. You can prohibit freedom of speech in mainland China, but not in the rest of the world. Misplaced Pages was created so that everyone can contribute, but as it turns out, the people that have power (admins, beaurocrats, etc.) will abuse it to support their own POVs, etc. Fuck you all, I'm going to the dark side of wiki! --GrandCruTwo 03:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hum..."I wasn't a vandal before, but since I got blocked, instead of asking to be unblocked, I'll become a vandal." Methinks the lady doth protesteth too much. -- Essjay · Talk 23:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Methinks the lady is also blockéd frometh editing. -- Essjay · Talk 23:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Added a section on this vandal in Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts, includes an ever growing list of sockpuppets. -Loren 05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The most recent one is Oy Maatsulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has apparently not been blocked yet. --MarkSweep 18:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you better believe that I haven't been blocked yet. I will continue until the right people have been banned. As long as Bobbybuilder is in existance, I will continue.--BobbyButtSlime 01:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Essjay · Talk 01:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ooops. Not Blocked. Heh heh...--The Assjay Strikes Back 02:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Another GrandCru sock: User:JennaHaze --Calton | Talk 05:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• This issue is now listed on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#User:GrandCru and sockpuppets. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks at talk:Albanians

user:Albanau left a message on my talk page about personal attacks against him at talk:Albanians, by user:Chronographos, and asking me to block him for 24 hours.

After reading all the links, I decided not to block at this point but to give user:Chronagraphos a very stern warning on his talk page not to do it again or he will be blocked. I've encouraged user:Albanau to note here if there are any further problems as I'm not going to be online much longer this evening.

See user talk:Thryduulf, talk:Albanians , user talk:Chronographos and user talk:Albanau. Thryduulf 22:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

user:Theathenae have also repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against me and not just Chronographos, that what I told you on the talk page. But thank you very much for the help so far but I hope a administrator can leave a warning at Theatheane talk page as well. --Albanau 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically User:Albanau's contributions to wikipedia is nothing but trouble such as petty-vandalism, edit-wars and false complaints. Miskin 03:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to start a 'flame of words' with you so kindly remove your allegations from this topic, cause it is off topic. Albanau 03:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Pointing out User:Albanau's support for armed Albanian extremist groups was relevant and essential to the discussion at Talk:Albanians, as his edits are motivated by a violent Albanian extremism, and it is within this context they must be seen for what they are.--Theathenae 06:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone, any administrator, please delate Theathenae personal attacks above and perament or temporary ban him. Many thanks in advance! Albanau 12:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Albanau, I have just reviewed the behaviour of Theathenae on talk:Albanians and I see absolutely nothing improper in the form of what he says. On the other hand, I did see instances of you employing words such as "pathetic" toward other users (and not discussing tragedy).

I find it legitimate of Theathenae to explain his view of the situation, and your request to have him banned for doing so wholly unappropriate. You might also be interested to know that your usage of capitals and urging tone in the summary are rather rude.

I would like to advise you to calm down and fill in a Request for Comments if you cannot ease your differences together. Rama 13:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally, an admin who reads what has happened. As anyone can see by looking at the relevant talk pages and article histories, Albanau has been systematically rude to anyone who disagrees with him, to the extent of calling a fellow Albanian of his "very unintelligent", just because they disagreed. Albanau has also violated the 3RR rule multiple times (he even did 4 reverts within 51 minutes), yet he has consistently taunted other editors to revert and break the 3RR. If they take the bait, he immediately reports them. He has been very cunning in that he first edits in his own POV, and then creates a revert war, according to plan. He has also repeatedly given provocative titles to his edit summaries, and when offered neutral phrasings, he ignores them. In an vain effort to compromise, I even proposed using his own words in the article. Guess what: he started wiggling out of his own words. I will appreciate your involvement in this, if you have the time and disposition. I also suspect sockpuppetry in the Talk:Albanians page, but for the time being I do not intend to request its investigation as it would inflame things further. Milles mercis. Chronographos 15:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I merely let other editors know of User:Albanau's activities on the Swedish Misplaced Pages, in which he clearly promotes , armed extremist groups in the Balkans, claiming that they are fighting for "human rights" and against "cultural oppression". These are his words, not mine. His blatant promotion of these groups was later removed by another editor as "redundant propaganda": ,, while his dubious claim that there is a ""Çamëria Liberation Army" in Greece fighting for "human rights" was disputed, and no reference to such a group exists on the English Misplaced Pages. Finally, seeing as he is complaining of personal attacks, a non-comprehensive list of User:Albanau's personal attacks against me and other editors on Talk:Albanians follows: , , , . Who's the one who should really be banned?--Theathenae 13:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Albanau has been causing nothing but trouble with his untenable edits and style. How people react to him is a matter of taste, but hardly unprovoked; last time I checked, personal attacks per se were not blockable, only if it is "disruptive", so the complaint is pointless here, it should go to rfc, and then to the arbcom, and I do not think Albanau is likely to find much favour with the arbcom, in the light of his own behaviour. dab (ᛏ) 19:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching the edit patterns of both User:Albanau and User:Theathenae, and I must say that they are both atrocious Wikipedians who need to be disciplined. User:Chronographos has a fine edit history when it comes to his edits to actual articles, but he has unfortunately become well-known for his Ad hominem attacks on other Wikipedians(see Talk:Greek language where Chronographos launches a personal attack on User:Macrakis for no good reason), and one would hope that such behavior doesn't continue. Decius 19:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is amusing to see User:Decius pontificate on the behaviour of other editors, especially considering the dirty linen he has in his closet. Misplaced Pages policy specifically proscribes "racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor", but this didn't stop him from launching into a homophobic tirade on Talk:Ancient Macedonian language not so long ago: , , , , , , and (edit summary). I am confident that a review of my edit history would find nothing inappropriate in terms of content, even if I have defended some of my edits a bit too zealously on occasion and fallen foul of the 3RR - when I have felt an injustice being committed. For that you can blame my passionate Greek nature.--Theathenae 21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that, taken out of context, those edits would seem astounding to the average reader, and paint me out to be a cruel Marquis de Sade. However, one must read the history of that Talk Page and read Chronographos' comments which led up to it. The issue here is User:Albanau and User:Theathenae's edits. Decius 21:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What the average reader would make of your remarks is irrelevant, as is the context in which they were made. Your persistent homophobic attacks were a flagrant violation of official Misplaced Pages policy, for which you need to be disciplined. As for my edits, I stand by them as stated above.--Theathenae 21:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to be disciplined for anything. Chronographos knew what he was getting into when he kept prodding at me. I stand by my edits also. They were made after I lost all patience with the said User, after I attempted numerous times to settle things peacefully. But that's in the past, and I don't have any quarrel with Chronographos now. Decius 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about your personal vendetta against User:Chronographos. This is about you breaking the rules, whatever the reason. And you must face the consequences.--Theathenae 22:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want to start talking about "rules", then I'll remind you of User:Chronographos' breaking of the rules in his numerous personal attacks on me, not to mention your personal attacks on other Users. Bring it on. Decius 22:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attacks" are open to interpretation - his remarks could just as easily be seen as witty albeit acerbic ripostes. Your homophobia, on the other hand, is below the belt.--Theathenae 22:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No, there are attacks of his on record which are clearly personal attacks. Not to mention comments of yours, which I will bring up if I need to do, made on other pages. As for the "homophobia" charge, faggot can also mean, in American slang, "a man who has no balls". So I don't see any homophobia in those comments. Decius 22:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Is describing someone as a "deranged homosexual" in an edit summary also free of homophobic sentiment? I think you've been comprehensively outed as a homophobe, so it's pointless trying to hide in your closet now. And please refrain from editing my comments. Cheers.--Theathenae 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't edit your comment. That was a Wiki glich. I did not make that edit, nor do I see why I would have. Decius 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

guys, if you start denouncing each other now over all the frolicking that went down on the XMK talkpage, I'll be very disappointed in both of you. dab (ᛏ) 22:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not my intention to disappoint you, dab, but I will not be slandered, threatened or intimidated by a supporter of armed extremists or a homophobe.--Theathenae 22:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not homophobia, that was the impression that he gave me at the time: a deranged homosexual. I was not disparaging him for being a deranged homosexual, just giving a description. In those instances where I was using "faggot" and "fag", they were referring to the lack of balls that he was displaying (e.g., talking a lot of trash but not stating his name; whining like a bitch, etc.). Decius 22:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you had balls you would just admit your homophobia and face the music, or rather, take it like a man.--Theathenae 22:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I may have made personal attacks in response to his personal attacks, but they are not homophobic if you read them as I intended. Such a use of faggot is well-known and common usage. Decius 23:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the nature of this dispute is and I really don't care, nor do I care who started it, nor do I care about this tortured reasoning about how these comments aren't really homophobic. If I see anyone using these sorts of homophobic insults again, they get blocked for a month. Play nice and find something else to call each other. Gamaliel 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)==User:Christ est les quotidiens== I seen this user page in RC being edited by an anon. The text is not bad, just in French translation. I noticed that only anon's edit the page, and there are no contribs. So I'm not sure what to think of the userpage, if anything? Seems like a religious billboard. Any thoughts? ∞Who?¿? 10:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid my French isn't very good but surely the username is a violation of policy? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is probably a machine translation, or a very poor one in any case. "Christ est les quotidiens" means "Christ is the daily newspapers"; if you see what I mean by "poor translation". The rest of the text is made of incoherent rants and citations. Rama 14:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's anons editing the page, but just one anon, with so far two IPs in the same range (editing from Switzerland, it seems). OK, so, an anon with no contribs except to a userpage for an account—if there is an account by the name—which also has no contribs? I'm quite tempted to incur my first administrative action shitstorm by speedy deleting this page. "Nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia" isn't a speedy criterion, agreed, but isn't it kind of implied? Meanwhile, I've left a note at User talk:Christ est les quotidiens. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

delete away :) this is just kooky graffiti. If somebody cries bloody murder over your deleting this nonsense, we can always undelete it. dab (ᛏ) 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a user page at all. At best, it's an IP editor's misunderstanding of the term "user page." I think he or she has come to the conclusion that one's private sandbox page is created at "user:" plus the name of the page you want. Given what this page is, it will, upon publication, be immediately VfD'd. It's a collection of Bible prophecy coming true in the newspapers sort of thing, it seems to me. Properly, one would send it to VfD, but the problem there is that the current group of VfD voters seems congenitally incapable of reading a nomination. If you said, "This is not a user page," they'd vote "Keep! It's a user page! Leave it alone!" So, it's speedy delete as webhosting (Misplaced Pages is not a free web host) or nothing. Geogre 01:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's a similar one RIDCSP (talk · contribs). Two edits by one IP, which created the page. ∞Who?¿? 06:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Update on Christ is the daily newspapers: a third IP has edited the page, 80.218.237.225, which is in a different range but resolves to the same Swiss ISP. Nobody has commented on my talk page message. Step two today: an explicit statement on the "userpage" itself (I doubt that they know from talk pages, and I don't think they're ever logged in, to get a "you have new messages" message) that I'm planning to delete. Watch this space for step three, the actual abuse of admin powers, RSN. I'll take a look at User:RIDCSP, too. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, itchyfingers (=Geogre)! I was gonna abuse admin powers! :-( Bishonen | talk 11:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, well you could do RIDCSP, it looks more like it was meant to be an article, unless they have started contributing already. ∞Who?¿? 20:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it was meant to be an article, no doubt. I've cleaned up and NPOV'd the text and created the article, making the userpage a redirect. I feel virtuous. :-) Bishonen | talk 10:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good, hate to see good edits gone to waste. Now if I could find out the policy on userpages being completely in another language. ∞Who?¿? 10:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have a policy on that, and I'm not sure that we need one. I imagine that the same rules apply as for everyone else's user pages—editors have a pretty much free hand unless the material is highly offensive, patently disruptive, or otherwise damaging. We have quite a few editors for whom English is not their first language; I don't see the harm in a non-English user page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Me either really, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any policies on it. I wouldn't have asked, but I noticed anon's editing a userpage, and have no idea what it was only because it was in a type of cyrillic or script. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 08:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Irate personal attack parole

The AC has enacted the personal attack parole provision in Irate's case. As of 13:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC), if Irate makes any personal attack he may be blocked for up to a week. - David Gerard 13:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My personal suggestion (in no way enforceable) would be to start light and work upward as needed. This gives the offender a chance to learn what is considered a personal attack and what isn't - David Gerard 13:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

And of course what is a personal attack? I think that any admin carrying out such a block should discuss it here first and give us several hours to consider it before implementation, so that the decision isn't a matter of individual subjectivity. Everyking 05:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that you have not researched the subject of Irate in the smallest dot and so are talking out your hat - David Gerard 10:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And furthermore, it is explicitly a matter of individual subjectivity, as the precise wording is: "wherein Irate will be temporarily banned for a short period of up to one week if he makes any edits that an administrator judges to be personal attacks." Gosh darn that judgement thing! That's what a "short-leash personal attack parole" means - David Gerard 10:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be up to a single admin. Such a block could be hotly controversial. So it should be discussed here first. If I went around acting according to my subjective judgment about these things, I'd be before the ArbCom in a week. But the hardliners are supposed to get a free pass to ban somebody based on their own judgment? No, that's senseless. We have this forum here for discussion about admin actions; let's use it. If the block can't get a consensus here, it shouldn't be done. Or do you disagree with that principle? Everyking 03:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if you don't agree it should be up to a single administrator. That is the judgment that was passed. If you feel a block is controversial, by all means bring it up here, but there is no need to discuss every block before implementation, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Our opinions differ. In the case of differing opinions, it would seem, logically, that we go with discussion by default. Everyking 06:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of discussion. But community consensus already seems pretty clear in favor of following Arbitration Committee decisions. And I don't think this is the proper forum to challenge the authority or rectitude of the Arbitration Committee (and I know we disagree on this as well). — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

When did I say anything about not following ArbCom decisions? I said we should discuss and agree that Irate has indeed made a personal attack before blocking. I didn't say he shouldn't be blocked for personal attacks. Everyking 06:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just did some looking around and noticed something: Irate is already blocked! He was blocked by Snowspinner on July 25, the same day this was originally posted here. Yet Snowspinner has said nothing to justify his actions, much less engage in the reaching the kind of admin consensus I proposed above. Was he hoping to keep it a secret? I put heavy odds on Gerard also knowing about it and failing to mention it. Misplaced Pages is supposed to prioritize consensus, in case these two (the arb and his enforcer) haven't noticed. Everyking 04:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet Snowspinner has said nothing to justify his actions, much less engage in the reaching the kind of admin consensus I proposed above - actually, I think this comment on Irate's talk page sums up Snowspinner's reason for banning him quite nicely. In the future, you might want to do a modicum of research before engaging in casual slander. And I think you owe him an apology. →Raul654 05:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I meant here. The message on Irate's talk is how I found out about the block in the first place (how else would I?). And I think you owe the project a few dozen apologies, but that's beside the point. Everyking 06:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So you think the following is not a personal attack? Further more your should unblock me and resign your adminship, you are not fit to be incharge of anything --Kbdank71 15:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The way it is phrased certainly could make it a personal attack. Again, I don't believe Irate should get a pass on personal attacks. Everyking 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So then I'm not understanding what your problem with this is. The Arbcom left it up to the admins, Snowspinner was following the Arbcom's decision. What is there to discuss? If you disagree with the Arbcom's decision, perhaps you should bring it up with them. --Kbdank71 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Snowspinner isn't the only admin who thought Irate should be have been blocked. Have you researched the background on this user? He was banned for three months for personal attacks, and then when he came back it didn't take long for him to fall back into his old habits. So he was placed on personal attack parole. He made the choice to persist, so he was blocked. (Oh, and did I mention he's been banned from everywhere from IRC to the mailing lists to meta?). Posting a note here is, of course, an option worth bearing in mind for admins, but Irate's case is fairly straightforward. — Matt Crypto 18:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

By all means we can discuss it here, but I see no problems with him being blocked before it is mentioned here. violet/riga (t) 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue has been settled:

23:52, July 27, 2005, Jimbo Wales blocked Irate (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (Personal conversation in IRC in which he assures me that our rules are rubbish and that he intends to continue "following" them as he always has)

You don't get more blocked than that. -- Essjay · Talk 04:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've posted on his talk page asking him to discuss his block here. Everyking 06:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're the only person that disagrees with the block. As one of those that had problems with him (including via email) I wholeheartedly agree that he has not intention of becoming a good editor and his positive additions are few and far between. Starve the troll. violet/riga (t) 09:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Do I disagree with Snowspinner's block? Not necessarily, I just wanted him to present and discuss the issue here. I do, on the other hand, disagree with Jimbo's block, since it's outside the ArbCom decision. We will have grown up a bit when we start giving this kind of thing proper deliberation and exposure to community feeling before action is taken. Everyking 09:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This has had proper deliberation. The community sees irate as a PITA. That's why the AC put in the personal attack parole. Iate threatened to disrupt wikipedia. That's why jimbo blocked him. There is nothing for Jimbo to discuss here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

couldn't somebody write an Everykingbot, posting things like "I do not necessarily disagree, but want to draw attention to some basic human rights here" on every topic on this board? It would save Everyking a lot of typing :p dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, if you had had any experience with Irate, you would know that he is a thoroughly disruptive, unpleasant user, who delights in causing other users headaches. Why should we all have to wait for the ArbComm to get through the lengthy process of banning him for a year? He's been banned once already, and that did no good. Jimbo has the ultimate sanction, and he used it well within his rights. He is perfectly entitled to do this, and he has my full support. ] 10:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Drink! --Carnildo 07:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's mailing list post on the topic: . — Matt Crypto 08:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please everyone, cut out this mockery of Everyking. How can you expect him to behave civilly if you are adding these "drink" and "let's make an Everykingbot" comments? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Because megabytes of reason, argument, analogies, peer pressure, commentaries, advice, RFCs, and TWO ArbCom sanctions haven't put the tiniest dent in his sense of entitlement or proclamations of persecution: it's as if George Bush suddenly became a Misplaced Pages editor. Since being nice or trying persuasion haven't worked, maybe a little shame and mockery could be the clue-by-four he desperately needs. --Calton | Talk 12:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, why exactly does Everyking, regardless of the subject of the discussion, always bring up Snowspinner? Radiant_>|< 17:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just got the following email from Irate:

--- Irate <john@flypie.cix.co.uk> wrote:

> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:51:06 GMT
> To: Kbdank71
> Subject: Misplaced Pages e-mail
> From: Irate <john@flypie.cix.co.uk>
>
>
> Why are you vanalising the Merseyside Cats claim
> that vte went one way. You should revert them back
> and resign. You dishonest peice of shit.

I'm not going to worry about anything since he's permabanned. --Kbdank71 12:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just curious to know: Is there any discussion of Jimbo's decisions? Isn't the policy that once Jimbo speaks, there is no appeal? Isn't the ArbCom subject to him? (I'm remembering something about reserving the right to dissolve the ArbCom if it doesn't work and to overrule them if he sees fit.) The discussion here seems to suggest that perhaps Jimbo is also subject to community consensus, and I'd just like to know: Is He or is He not the final word? -- Essjay · Talk 06:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

In theory, you can appeal to the Wikimedia foundation. However, I'd be very surprised if they overturned any decision by Jimbo. --Carnildo

Jimbo is the (not always so benevolent) dictator, so there's nothing we can do to override one of his decisions forcibly, although he certainly has a moral obligation to account for his decisions and act responsibly, and we have every right to question and discuss his decisions (and I know someone is reading this right now and thinking "We'll see about that..."). Everyking 07:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That was what I thought; I was confused because the discussion seemed to suggest he might be subject to an overrule. The idea of the WikiGod having a moral obligation is an interesting thought, and I shall now go off to consider whether the pious is pious because it is loved by the Jimbo, or if it is loved by the Jimbo because it is pious. (As Plato begins to spin in his grave.) -- Essjay · Talk 07:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

At this point I would just like to point out that:

"In common terms, exploding Wales is what you get when you get Jimbo Wales really, really angry. Despite the evocative terminology, no known casualties or grievous bodily harm has been known to result from such an explosion." --Dmcdevit·t 08:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zapatancas and User:SqueakBox

User:Zapatancas persists in using his user page as a platform to launch personal attacks against me.; I have received a lot of abuse from this user in the past, starting when he used SquealingPig (talk · contribs) to launch a vicious attack against me, SqueakBox 15:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I am a user from Spain who has tried to do useful contributions in the article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. SqueakBox has harassed me repeatedly. He insulted me explicitly in my user page as it is found here (in any case, it is the version of my talk page of 17:16, 15 July 2005 by SqueakBox). He said "Fuck off Nazi scum".

I have described the harassment I suffer in the 14:59 26 July 2005 version of my user page, which has been vandalized by him . He claims that I am abusing him and that a page is not an excuse for a vicious and unjustified personal attack. The reason I included the description of his attacks on me in my user page is that he vandalized it when I have not created it, as can be checked in the history page, identifying me with a blocked vandal I have no relation to as I have said him once and again.

I have always tried to be polite with everybody. I simply believe that SqueakBox could have some mental problem because of how he behaves (for example, he once talked about supposed death threats from other users in his user page what I considered absurd after reading it). I have not tried to be hard on nobody and much less on a sick person (if that is the case), I have simply tried to express what I consider to be the source of the problem.

Thank you for your attention. Zapatancas 16:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is This user seems to suffer from a mental disorder (I am talking totally seriously) not a vicious personal attack, the latest in a long, long line. Calling me a sick person is out of order, and I want Zapatancas to stop. Also SWquealingPig made his vicious attacks moments after Zapatancas and I had an edit war. His denial of being SquealingPig is not credible. RexJudica\ta has been permanently blocked for death threats by CesarB, SqueakBox 16:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am from Spain and my English is not perfect. I believe SqueakBox suffers a mental disorder because, among other reasons, he has included in his user page passages expressing he was receiving death threats from other users what I considered totally absurd. If I sounded rude in English I am sorry but I do not master the language and I have only tried to express my opinion honestly.

Effectively SqueakBox tried to start an edit war after destroying some articles I have contributed to without giving any logical reason. There was not edit war because I did not try to recover them after he destroyed them for a second time. Zapatancas 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox has just removed the following text from the article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero some minutes after I introduced it:

Zapatero has been accused of telling the Spanish media in the aftermath of the attacks that suicidal bombers had been found among the victims (something discarded by all the specialists). When he was asked in December 2004 about the issue by the Parliamentary Investigative Committee created to find the truth about the attacks he declared that he did not "remember" what he had said.

I have tried to describe an objective fact related to Zapatero's biography. I have included a source to an article in Spanish I spent some time to find for those who may not have previous information about the fact to help them contrast the information. However, my contribution has been removed providing no reason only because I added it.

The article has not been updated since SqueakBox accessed it for the first time some months ago and removed everything he pleased. He continues removing everything usually giving no reasons at all.

Is that the kind of behavior encouraged in the Misplaced Pages? Zapatancas 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this user should not acuse me of having mental problems. He is viciously attackoing me. Why should I tolerate his abuse. I don't have amy illnesses. I just want Zapatancas to cease attacking me and gegt over the fact that I edited his work months ago. is he incapable of not attacking m,e. CesarB permanently blocked RexJudicata for death threats. So it is Zapatancas who trivialises other trolls and his own vicious attacks, SqueakBox 17:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

At 10.23am on May 5 Zapatancas reverts my edits here. At 10.47 SquealingPig appears, complaining about me on the Zapatero talk page here. I revert him at 10.50 here. He then gets in a rage and attacks me as SquealingPig many timesw in a below the belt fashion, starting here, SqueakBox 17:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

He then insults me saying A question, do you live in Honduras because your family could not stand you any longer? here. I reacted to this by telling him to fuck off you Nazi troll, mild in comparison. He is now using his personal page to accuse me of being mentally ill. I have not attacked other than this one time. I think I am being very patient and tolerant to a nasty interne t troll, SqueakBox 17:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I advise to search in Google for SqueakBox and vandalism (Click here for example). I got 678 results. SqueakBox is getting in continuous problems with everybody and he is always accusing others. I have taken a look at his "contributions" and it is clear he always provokes other users on purpose. He never tries to explain his deletions. And that is difficult to justify. He has a huge experience here and knows others can get angry if they are not told why their effort (usually evidently honest) are removed. He really looks for the excitement of arguing and humiliating other people. And, of course, a lot of times his page has been vandalized. Of course, that only adds to his fun as he used every attack to fuel his continuous harassment.

It is not true he has attacked me only once. He harasses me continuously. Today he vandalized my user page eliminating all the text in it, he has added a lot of obscene comments in my talk page, he has reverted my edit in the Zapatero's article as I have already reported, he has accused me of being unable to write a NPOV article (this can be found in the Talk page of Zapatero), he has said I hate Zapatero (what is completely absurd as I do not know him personally), he has used improper language in a comment addressed to me (he has used the word bulls**t), he has called me a troll and he has removed the headline User:SqueakBox I added to report his mistreatment. And that only for today. Zapatancas 18:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me but it was you who made those obscene commenbts, I was reminding you of what you are really like. Yes, you are not the only troll here. So whatr dioes that prove. That I don't like POV warriors,. and they get angry when I remove their POV. If you can't handle your work being mercilessly edited don't contribute. It was not fun for me when yopu attacked me and my dog as squealingPig. Maybe you were having fun, but I wasn't. I have not vandalised your user page, I have removed your deeply offensive personal attack against me. Misplaced Pages do not give you that page to launch persobnal attacks against users you don\'t like. You have used endless insults against me. just take responsibility for your actions and stop trolling. As I have elucidated above, you are SquealingPig, and you have deeply insulted me on many occassions, SqueakBox 18:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

RickK and vandalism brought up 954 pages, while with SlimVirgin it was 779. I am in good company. Zapatancas needs to differentiate between vandalisers and those who fight the vandalism of users like SquealingPig, who only got 5 google hits, substantially less than the number of vandalsims he did, SqueakBox 18:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/84.65.183.7

Re-emergence of formerly banned User:B1link82, calling people cocks and the like. Would someone please handle this. Thanks...  ALKIVAR™ 16:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

this page is f'd up

http://en.wikipedia.org/George_and_the_Dragon

What 146.186.230.234 (talk · contribs) was trying to get across here was that the page had been vandalised on 22 July and no-one had noticed; the page continued to be vandalised up to today. I have reverted the multiple edits and will continue to watch the page. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 19:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

User:LaLa

Has been creating articles with material clearly copied from outside websites. Insists the articles are not CopyVios, and is removing the copyvio notices. Jayjg 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Has mysteriously disappeared forever. Snowspinner 19:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, I'm more inclined to side with the user in question. This looks more like a case of a confused newbie than a delibrate vandal. The user in question has created a new account, and claims to have been harrassed by Fawcett5. I don't know whether or not that's actually the case, but the notes left on the above account's talkpage seem to bear that out. I think that if there is fault here, it isn't all just on one side of the incident. --Chanting Fox 03:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• An INFINITE block? Snowspinner, I'm no admin, but an infinite block for copyvios seems a bit harsh. Are you sure that was warranted? --Chanting Fox 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If an account appears to have been set up only for policy violations, indefinite blocks are entirely in order - David Gerard 18:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • But it did not appear that way. That's irrelevant. Everyking 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that I'm going with the blocked user on this one, despite the copyvios. The infinite block is a clear violation of blocking policy and if not bad-faith is almost certaintly far too severe a punishment. The user in question appears to have been here for less than a month, and is almost certainly NOT doing this to cause trouble for people. In fact, she seems more confused than disruptive to me. --Chanting Fox 03:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is only by the grace of Phil that you have not been permabanned as well. Be thankful for that, and question no more. Everyking 03:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ok... I'm stumped. Exactly what is that supposed to mean? --Chanting Fox 03:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It was a joke. He bans people for the equivalent of looking at him funny. Everyking 04:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Was that really necessary, Everyking? For what it's worth, I agree that the indefinite block is too heavy given the circumstances, but I'm sure that Snowspinner will review his decision based on Fawcett5's polite note on Snowspinner's talk page. File an RFC on Snowspinner if you want to, but keep your snide remarks to yourself. I might suggest that you examine Fawcett5's comments to Snowspinner as an example of how to phrase constructive criticism. You're an excellent editor and admin in virtually all other regards—why can't you maintain at least a veneer of civility (or just remain stolidly silent) here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Drink! Radiant_>|< 17:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• I have unblocked User:LaLa, based on Fawcett5's remarks and my understanding of the blocking policy. However, I have left the autoblock in place, as a short-term block seems justified based on the disruptive behaviour. I've also notified Snowspinner of what I've done, so he can review the situation before the residual autoblock expires. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:DrZoidberg

Has been messing with the wikipedia:sandbox for a while now, but managed to find a way to break it completely... The devs in #wikimedia-tech don't seem interested, but it's quite worrying, at least to me :-) Dan100 (Talk) 20:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Left a warning on the user's talk page. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe they should institute a hard page size limit on wikipedia articles? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't DrZoidberg move the sandbox a little while ago, leading to a big mess? Looking at his contributions, he seems to only edit the sandbox. Wait—he also had a self-nomination for adminship. Warn him, and if he mucks up the sandbox again block him for disruption. He's not contributing anything useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

He's experimenting, which is what the Sandbox is for. ‡ Jarlaxle 02:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Experimenting seems to be the only thing he does. --Deathphoenix 02:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

True, the sandbox is for experimentation. However, DrZoidberg (talk · contribs) hasn't contributed to any articles in his nine months on Misplaced Pages (See also Kate's count: ), and now he's broken the sandbox. He's soaking up bandwidth and server space, but has been tolerated because until recently he's not actually been acutely harmful. If he continues to not contribute and to do things that require cleanup, then he should be blocked. Misplaced Pages isn't his personal webspace or playground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be taking perverse pleasure in breaking the sandbox now:

• diff Edit summary: SANDBOX GO SQUISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• diff Edit summary: So two sandbox self-destructions walk into a bar...
• diff Edit summary: So two sandbox self-destructions walk into a bar...

Keep an eye on this one.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time to block him. He's already been warned about not doing stuff like this. --Deathphoenix 20:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that we have tolerated more than we should already and have left a message on his talk page asking him to cease his edits to the sandbox entirely. If he continues to pose problems, he should be blocked. Because he is not a contributor to the encyclopedia, I don't believe there is any reason why he can't be blocked. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I note that David Gerard has blocked Zoidberg indefinitely, a move I support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nooo, sandboxian! :( El_C 19:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the devs explained what was happening - the software simply rejects the rendering of pages (or diffs) of a certain size to prevent the site bogging down; it's set up this way for ages. I guess the error message does say that if you think about it :-) Dan100 (Talk) 15:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well according to Misplaced Pages uses the Difference Engine. No wonder it's so slow! the wub "?/!" 19:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This user now seems that he may be geninuinely interested in contributing, see User talk:DrZoidberg, if anyone wishes to consider unblocking. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:Agiantman

Agiantman (talk · contribs) -- engaging in personal attacks, disruption, and uncompromising POV warring on Talk:Joseph Stalin (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Among other many other unpleasantries directed toward Trey Stone and me, he made the attack on Mikkalai (one of Misplaced Pages's most respected editors), even after several warnings.

• Mikka, you are clearly too much of a Stalin fan to be editing this article.--Agiantman 03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Since directing him to the relevant policy pages on civility and NPOV have not worked, an administrator is responsible for enforcing them through a temp block, or at least a warning. 172 | Talk 04:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I also want to add that the idea that Mikkalai is a Stalin fan is a joke. On the contrary, he has filled Misplaced Pages with documents, testimony and so forth that reflect poorly on Stalin, and the CPSU during the time Stalin was the general secretary of it. Mikkalai is not pro-Stalin, he is anti-Stalin. Unlike Agiantman however, he does not make personal attacks and he is not disruptive. While msot of his material is anti-Stalin, he makes sure all of it he puts in is referenced and factual, and in neutral language, letting facts speak for themselves. He is also willing to compromise. A look over Mikkalai's edit history over the past year will show most of what he has done is fill Misplaced Pages with evidence about Stalin's misdeeds. But at least he uses references, sources, facts and so forth. People like Agiantman just hysterically rant that a page which consensus was reached very carefully is POV. I myself think the page is too anti-Stalin, I don't agree with this in the opening: "collectivization triggered a bitter struggle of peasants against the authorities in many areas, which significantly contributed to famine and millions of peasant casualties, particularly in Ukraine." I know the consensus-building is a delicate balancing act, so I am waiting for everyone to work other issues out before I come in and point out my problems with this sentence. AGiantman walks in on day one and starts disrupting this article which it took a long time to reach consensus on, a consensus which is ongoing. He thinks he is more important than the dozen or so people trying to achieve consensus, he is even attacking his allies like Mikkalai, who is on the anti-Stalin side but is neutral, a consensus builder and does not do original research. Ruy Lopez 20:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Siegerz

Vandalism at Talk:Islam and Human rights in the United States: appears to be a sockpuppet of the user Yuber who is under a temporary ban by the Arbitration Committee. This user also appears to be the exact same user as User:63.70.62.84. Existentializer 16:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuit threat by User:YusufIslam at Talk:Pardism

Looks like a no legal threats violation:

This kind of insensitive bigotry would, at best, get you sued. Deleting such an article is a form of religious hatred and should not happen. I have a good mind to sue you for wanting to do such a thing. -- User:YusufIslam on Talk:Pardism

User has no contributions worth speaking of. May be the same as User:82.34.57.87 who created the article. That address has a smattering of abusive conduct to its name, e.g. --FOo 18:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The context suggests that the best solution to simply ignore this silly threat. mikka (t) 23:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Libellous Image Captions on User Page of User:Cognition

I've had a look at the user page of this individual. There are libellous statements on it about people like Donald Rumsfeld, Alan Greenspan and Queen Elizabeth II. They take the form of image captions. I have put a notice on the talk page of this individual telling them to remove the captions inside 24 hours otherwise I'll do it myself. Given this user's persistent 3RR violations, use of Misplaced Pages as a blog and now this libel I think quite a strong case can be made for a permanent ban. Please let me know if you agree. David Newton 22:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with him expressing his opinions about non-wikipedians on his user page. --Golbez 22:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've seen a lot of those same senitments in vandalism to those articles. Yeah, yeah, bla blah, "Schwarzenegger's a Nazi!" But wait a minute. Erm. Now, Peter Camejo, I mean Pete Camejo, a genocidal fascist? I mean Pete Camejo?! Dmcdevit·t 22:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. He aimed too high. The ridiculousness of these statements makes them decidedly non-libelous. --Golbez 22:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose. It just, er... Pete Camejo?! Dmcdevit·t 23:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"A written or pictorial statement which unjustly seeks to damage someone's reputation." I don't think any of these people are having their reputations damaged by Cognition's comments. -Thatdog 22:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Though lacking in taste, such commentary with regard to highly public figures falls far short of libel. I believe that the captions say more about User:Cognition's discernment than they do about any of the figures pictured. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh...please allow me to make a personal attack: Cognition's political likes and dislikes exactly match those of Lyndon LaRouche, ie: he is parroting the sentiments of the "LaRouche movement". Like all followers of a cult of personality, Cognition doesn't really have personal opinions...LaRouche has them for him. Func( t, c ) 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid phrases like "Hitler-like tyrant" may have wikipedia sued pants off. This is not a joke. Such comments about contemporaries must be removed immediately. mikka (t) 23:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You can be afraid all you want, but I fail to see how that makes it true. --Golbez 23:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've always wondered why people think Misplaced Pages would be sued at all, and not the individual. I mean, it's not as if Misplaced Pages sanctions all the content it hosts, otherwise it would be sanctioning loads of vandalism at any one moment. Isn't the individual responsible for whatever they say and do (especially where it is their own user page involved)? Of course, IANAL, so that was probably some stupid/naive comment. Dmcdevit·t 23:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's because Misplaced Pages is the bigger target. Most likely, what will happen is that Misplaced Pages and the individual user will both be named as defendants, then after a lot of expensive legal wrangling to determine that Misplaced Pages does indeed fall under the "safe harbour" provisions of some law or other, Misplaced Pages will be dropped from the lawsuit. --Carnildo 00:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I think that it is a good thing that Cognition puts all of his chips on the table by making his opinion clear. It makes the nature of his edits easier to understand. As for Misplaced Pages getting sued because that page calls somebody a tyrant... you're joking right? --Bletch 23:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for trolls. We're perfectly within our rights to insist that he refrain from such behavior. Gamaliel 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite me policy which states that personal opinions about non-wikipedians are not allowed to be stated on one's own user page? --Golbez 00:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

All Wikipedians should have the right to express their political and/or philosophical views on their user pages. Leave it alone. Everyking 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Also: is the objection to the user page as a whole or only the bits condemning people who are still alive? I mean, I think most people would agree that Caligula was a "mass-murderous imperial Roman lunatic". Everyking 00:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the interest of accuracy, it's not just living people. Try Aristotle, Malthus, Locke, Galileo, Newton, Adam Smith, Kant, Hegel, Russel, and on and on. I think Caligula, Tiberius, Mussolini and the Nazis are the only ones anyone would ever consider agreeing. I mean, the Beatles are in there. Dmcdevit·t 00:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

A) All Wikipedians should not use their userpage to host philosophical manifestos having nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. B) I am considerably more offended by the comments about Kant and Aristotle than about the bit on Lieberman. C) I haven't looked lately, but if Cognition has managed to tone down his psychotic LaRouche advocacy, which is the real problem with him as a user, why not let the user page slide and call it "good enough for one day's work." Snowspinner 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

(I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as a legal opinion) It's also perhaps worth noting that the US and UK libel laws are significantly different. Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted in the US, so if there's any suing to be done I'd image it would have to be under US law. In the US, you can say pretty much anything you want about a public figure and, I gather, this is not the case in the UK. This difference might be behind some of the different views on this issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can hope - and can even try to assure -- that it is sued where it is hosted, but there's no guarantee it won't be sued wherever it's distributed. Ask Vanity Fair, a U.S. magazine sued for libel -- successfully -- in Britain by a Polish director residing in France and unwilling to enter England for fear of extradition... Misplaced Pages has no need to host inflammatory speech which has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 04:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive section, since Cognition hasn't edited in two weeks, and I suspect he's gone away. Snowspinner 04:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Even if Misplaced Pages was sued in Britan and the British courts awarded Jimbo's house to the plaintiff, they'd have to get a US court to enforce it, and that's quite unlikely. A British court decision has no force in the United States without a US court decision to enforce it. (Then again, I'm not a "real" lawyer.) -- Essjay · Talk 04:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think just about every Wikipedian who has created a userpage with content that expresses their own views, if one finds them offensive, then don't visit the page. Unless they are making direct attacks against a user or specific racial comments, then there is no harm. There is no difference in these comments then that of the Opinion cartoons. As far as Vanity fair getting sued, they are a corporate magazine expressing its or the editors views, and not a personal userpage. Especially since a Polish director not a public figure sued them (yes I think some directors can be considered public figures, but not the majority of them). ∞Who?¿? 04:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I enjoyed the original version (before deletion), quite creative if misguided. And public figures can't sue for almost anything (that's why the tabloids are still in business). --Noitall 04:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Public figures can't sue for almost anything": simply not true outside of the U.S. Liberace won his libel suit in Britain when a reviewer merely insinuated he might be gay. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that anyone could be sued over opinions expressed on a member's user page is preposterous. The practice of editing other members' user pages is nothing more than sophomoric vandalism, the more reprehensible when cloaked in the guise of administrative propriety.

Cognition ought to be commended for disclosing his POV with such candor. Would that others would be as forthcoming, particularly those surreptitious types who routinely abuse adminstrative authority by selective banning members, or protecting particular versions of articles, in the service of their POV allies. The manner in which some conduct POV warfare using administrative intrigues, shunning honest debate, is a form of corruption which has hurt Misplaced Pages. --HK 20:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment on libel issues. It would be libelous for me to say for instance "Hamster Sandwich is a donkey molesting drug dealer" whereas to say "I think Hamster Sandwich is a donkey molesting drug dealer" is legally acceptable. People are legally allowed to voice an opinion, but they have to make it perfectly clear that it is an opinion. The content in question is on a personal user page; this would tend to negate Wikipedias responsibility regarding the page. Also, I am certain that if Jimbo is half as smart as I think he must be, there is a disclaimer in here somewhere that defers legal responsibility away from Misplaced Pages and places the onus on the individual editor. We are here voluntarily, after all. The difference betwen a user page being libelous and citing a case vis a vis Liberace vs. The Evening Standard is that the author who wrote the Liberace article was paid for professional services rendered. The paper has paid fact checkers and frankly, they got screwed in that judgement against them in that case. That being said, I am not yet a lawyer, but I have played one on television. Now I have to go and find that damn donkey, he keeps hiding all my drugs. Hamster Sandwich 21:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

anonymous vandal attack

adsl-11-21-184.mia.bellsouth.net 65.11.21.184

A person using above IP has been vandalizing my articles amd making false and damaging comments. I cannot follow yoru process because thsi vandal is not registered so it is an anonymous person. Can you please help me by banning the person? He made terrible. false, damaging comments that are despicable and ruining me. It is a terrible experience to have someone do this with no way to reach them. Thank you,

Dixie Randock

• The poster of this complaint, still not content with other people editing her advertisements articles, has now resorted to legal threats. - Thatdog 18:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

(some of these remarks may be redundant, I had an edit conflict with Thatdog above.)

The anon user who left this notice (63.227.103.140 (talk · contribs), presumably Dixie Randock or someone related to her) has been removing apparently factual statements from the article about her. Apparently she has been accused (repeatedly) in the press of operating one or more diploma mills; she is continuing to remove references to this (external links to news articles, and a descriptive paragraph) from Dixie Randock. Normally this would be a matter for RfC, but she has also been leaving legal threats.

• Legal threat directed at User:65.11.21.184, on User talk:65.11.21.184; link to revision. In part, the message reads "We are tracing this vandal's IP...and we will take legal actions."
• Edit to Dixie Randock diff, edit summary: "I have turned this over to my attorney as defamation and harassment."

I shouldn't take any admin action here as I have become something of a party to the dispute (I VfD'd Dixie Randock a little while ago). Could someone have an outside look at the situation with this editor? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Rhobite has already blocked User:63.227.103.140 for making legal threats. She was close to her fourth revert anyway... - jredmond 19:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I did edit the article but I don't have a problem blocking her. She has made legal threats a couple times now, and removed negative content about herself from the article. Rhobite 19:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Plautus returns

'Just wanted to make sure everyone was aware that Plautus satire's one year ban has explired and he has returned. For those who don't know, he was banned by the arbcom last February for being the most disruptive user ever (and reset the ban last July by using a sockpuppet). →Raul654 04:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap, what a flood. Are we banning him again? -- Khaosworks 06:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

He's already been causing trouble, and he's already been hit with a 24 hour block for violating the 3rr on his old RFC. So now he's bellyaching on his talk page (remember, Tim recently tweaked it so you can edit your own talk page whiel blocked). →Raul654 06:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

To ban him again we'd need a new ArbCom decision. If it's expired that makes him the same as anybody else. Everyking 06:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Based on the near universal comment of "Can't we just ban him," and the fact that he's very obviously not reformed AT ALL, I'm thinking this is a good case for an addition to "banned by the Misplaced Pages community?" Any comments or objections? (Besides you, Everyking. We already know you object.) Snowspinner 17:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

If he goes back to doing the same things that got him blocked the last time, then it strikes me as reasonable for an admin to block him–for short periods, up to say 24 hours–for disruption. In the interest of keeping the peace here, I'd suggest placing a block request here and allowing a second admin to actually block (in the absence of clear vandalism or outright destruction). If he accumulates more than one or two such blocks, I imagine that it would be very easy to persuade the ArbCom to impose a temporary injunction against editing. In such a case, we might also be able to save a lot of time by direct appeal to Jimbo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom is already looking into it. --cesarb 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Aren't people jumping the gun a little here? At the above link, it sites 3 alledged problems . But when I look them up the first is on his own talk page, the second is not disruptive at all, and the third is a some what impolite but none the less reasonable disgreement with another editor on a talk page. Perhaps I'm a little sensative because of why own problems with adminstrator User:Gamaliel (see below), but these calls for another year of banning seem premature to me.--198.93.113.49 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Look at this. Is it time to protect his talk page, to workaround the annoying new misfeature? --cesarb 19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There are less than 500 active and semi-active admins on Wikipeida. That's a scant number for such a huge project, perhaps if admins didn't waste so much time worrying about petty criticism of them on users talk pages that really don't ammount to much then they'd have more time to do the really important things and thereby attract less criticism. Which is more imporatant? Making sure there are no petty criticisms of admins on talk pages or making this into a real respectable encyclopedia. I fear that stamping out all dissent will only lead to more disent or more bannings of editors who would make useful contributions instead of arguing with the admins if the admins whould just loosen up and not be so sensative.

I freely admit that I've lost my cool recently, and I don't blame anyone for that but myself, but now I still have an admin hounding me who even blocked my for 12 hours for violating a rule he made up, and I'm not getting any support from the other admins below. So perhaps my opinion of the adminstrators is unfairly tarnished right now, but admins need to keep in mind that while there are rules in place to help easily address problems with editors, it's very hard to do anything when an admin becomes abusive and that's going to frustrate a lot of people. Admins can take the hard line in those cases if they want, but I doubt any good will come from it. I certainly doubt it will make this into a respected encyclopedia.--198.93.113.49 19:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but given that Plautus was blocked indefinitely (and never unblocked), how is he still editing pages other than his talk page? Carbonite | Talk 16:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There were conflicting blocks, now expired. Now blocked permanently. ] 16:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that when a block was placed, it would replace any existing block. Am I just wrong now or have I always been wrong about this? Maybe this behavior changed with MediaWiki 1.5. If block is already in effect and I want to place a block of a different length, should I first unblock and then re-block? Carbonite | Talk 16:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I asked the devs recently and was told that "no one really understands the blocking code". I think that blocks act independently of each other. So if I block user X for 5 hours, and then 1 minute later another admin blocks him indefinitely, in 5 hours my block will expire, the software will unlock user X, which causes both blocks disappear from the block list. →Raul654 16:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

DING DING DING! What's that sound? It's the sound of Plautus doing what he does best, injecting his first conspiracy theory into wikipedia since his return. →Raul654 16:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Was any procedure followed on this most recent indefinite block or did someone just do it?--198.93.113.49 19:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

no procedure was followed and it would seem there is less than universal support for a permanent ban, even right here on this page there are several comments that a ban is premature to say the least...is snowspinner also raul654?

Hmm, completely spurious and ridiculous conspiracy theory. Could Plautus be hounding us again? I would like to note that I made the second infinite block, as a good-faith reversion to the most recently-instated one, which was cancelled for technical reasons. I believe there is a good case for "banned by the community" here. ] 23:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the block; I think we need procedure. Plautus' behavior since his return, and I'm not saying it wasn't abhorrent before, seems more along the lines of harmless rambling and mild mischief. Really I don't think an open and shut case can be made for "banned by the community". I would support having a community vote over it, though, with an agreed upon threshold in advance, followed by an ArbCom case if that fails. Does this sound reasonable? Everyking 01:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I support some kind of process - right now Plautus is being mildly disruptive, but not overly so (most of his edits seem to have been in the Talk areas). Granted, I can see where this will eventually be going given the obviousness of his behaviour patterns, but let's at least do by whatever book we do have. --khaosworks 02:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Surely you don't think that statements like "Fuck this monkey bullshit and fuck you, Fred!" (see edit summary here: ) indicate that this user has had some miraculous transformation during his year-and-a-half ban. How does that old saying go... troll me once, shame on you--troll me twice, shame on me. There's a point at which we have to just say that enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Plautus satire — I agree that the gloating is probably unneccesary. Without knowledge of the case, the page in its present state still looks a bit malicious. A link to some relevant discussion instead of just the blocking policy would seem appropriate. 80.219.219.208 19:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Plautus satire (talk · contribs). He had been blocked indefinitely by Snowspinner, but the pending arbitration case would block him only for one year. He is unblocked to present a defense in his arbitration case and to demonstrate if he can that "continuation of disruptive behavior" is not true. Fred Bauder 19:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lamb Chop

sock created solely to revert TJive's edits. i have my own suspicions, but i won't comment because i can't check IPs. a similar incident happened recently with Bee Hive. J. Parker Stone 05:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It's User:Ruy Lopez. And "Bee Hive" was permanently banned by Jayjg after a 3RR, for being a sockpuppet created for policy violation. --TJive 05:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please remember: User:Lamb Chop ≠ user:Lambchop

Thanks :) Lambchop 05:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

So, my arch-nemesis has returned..... Charlie Horse 12:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's see what we have here. I am accused of being a sock puppet by someone who the Arbitration Committee has banned from editing pages. Then TJive, the sock puppets of all sock puppets, accuses me of being a sock puppet. Please go to TJive's first edits and tell me whether or not he is a sock puppet. Lamb Chop

Lopez, you can't counter your bad behavior by pointing to the behavior of others. Trey Stone is facing sanctions; is that what you want? Very well.

BTW, as I explained weeks ago when you first tried that, I did work here anonymously before I joined, which is why I knew about simple things like what a "revert" is; pretty elementary in the first place. --TJive 06:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well Ruy you just kinda proved that you're a sock. How many times have you referenced that I've been temp-banned, been short-blocked in the past, OMG WHAT THIS IS NEWS J. Parker Stone 06:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Permanently blocked as a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:I love PENIS lots lots lots

Innapropriate username? ∞Who?¿? 07:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, probably. Then again, the user appears to be making good contributions. Everyking 07:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea I seen that, was thinking it was a vandal, but all good edits so far. Granted someone will complain about the userpage eventually. ∞Who?¿? 07:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's invite the user to change names. Also the page needs to be blanked, or something needs to be changed about it. Everyking 07:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I would hate for them to get deleted or blocked over a silly name, probably did it for fun. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 07:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At this point I think I should point out what SqueakBox said in his welcome to this user: "Hello, I love PENIS lots lots lots, and welcome to Misplaced Pages." I wonder how I should interpret that... --Dmcdevit·t 20:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You should interpret it as me being a part of the welcoming committee. I do hundreds of these. Everyking had left a message saying maybe he should use a different name, so I left a message saying The best way to do this is to press the above move button and folow the instructions. Meanwhile and added the welcome as it was made clear here that his or her edits are fine, and therefore we want to encourage the user to be a regular contributor. It just seemed wrong to me not to welcome him or her, SqueakBox 21:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Try reading the sentence... Cheers, ] 21:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Erm. It was, you know... ha ha...? (Of course I appreciate welcomers, and even remember the excitement when I first saw that "new messages" alert) Dmcdevit·t 21:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

That, of course was the wikipedia template interpreting the {{welcome}} template. I take no responsibility! SqueakBox 21:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Block him for user name and tell him to contact a bureaucrat to change contribs. We've had other offensive names with good contribs but we still have to block them. Redwolf24 22:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I just did the deed in line with our username blocking policy... Redwolf24 22:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Sjakkalle, User:IZAK and the VFD debate on Religious persecution by Jews

I closed this VFD debate: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews, as a "keep (no consensus)" since there was not a two thirds majority for deletion. I see that User:IZAK is most displeased with this. He has called my decision "dictatorial" and "ridiculous", and has proceeded to send this message to a number of other users. I refer to my talkpage for my explanation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like "no consensus" was a proper call to me. Note that a kept article can still be moved to a different title or merged or what-have-you after the VfD, of course, if consensus arises to do so. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking for the "proper channels" regarding the discussion that's broken out with IZAK two days now, and any assistance would be appreciated. Shem 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with that no consensus. Redwolf24 22:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel blocked me for 12 hours without cause

Please help me. I was blocked yesterday for this edit by User:Gamaliel.

There is a long discussion of it here: User talk:198.93.113.49. I know it is long, but please read everything under 12 hour block. I think it will show that I am being delt with unfairly. Now Gamaliel has started list of greviances against me here User:Gamaliel/todo. I'm embarrassed to admit that some of these things are true. I have viloated the 3RR rule in the past and did handle the John Byrne edit war badly, but I am a good editor and no troll. I'm paticularly pround of the cleanup I did of Oak Island: ], but most of what Gamaliel says about me on his page is just a personal attack. Please read my response: User:Gamaliel/todo.

Thank you, --198.93.113.49 14:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a very random and irrelevant place to leave a comment. I can see no plausible explanation other than it being an attack on Gamaliel, intended to be read by Gamaliel. The anon in question has a single edit and is unlikely to be back to see it himself. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I had no reason to think Gamaliel would read it and was surprised that he did read it. What exactly is the blockable offense here. Gamaliel has said many things far worse about me and yet my attempt to discuss the situation on Roy Lichtenstein with a user who had had similar problems with Gamaliel is considered an attack. Is it now Wiki policy that admins can block users for anything if they think is inapporiate even if it does not violate any policy? Please read the converstaion at 198.93.113.49. Gamaliel is all over the place on his reasons for blocking me. They're either old issues that have already been delt with, things which violate no policy, alledgedly trollish behavior that he himself engages in, or simply innacurate accusations against me. --198.93.113.49 17:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The talk pages of new users should not be forums to air unrelated grievances. They should be for greeting new users and informing them of Misplaced Pages policies and customs, not for drawing them into preexisiting conflicts. I feel very strongly about this matter, and in light of the anon's previous history, I feel my actions were warranted. My to do list was merely a personal record/memory refresher of my interatctions with other users (as well as a list of articles I wanted to get around to editing) not meant for public consumption or as a public attack, but I suppose everything on Misplaced Pages is for public consumption in the end. Initially I reverted his comments to my subpage and locked it, but I decided to let them remain for the time being. Gamaliel 16:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Now Gamaliel has deleted my last comment to Talk:Rob Liefeld, please help me resolve this. I do not know what to do?--198.93.113.49 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that 198.93.113.49 has been adding to the Talk:Rob Liefeld page for quite some time, leaving unconstructive comments while failing to actually add anything noteworthy to the discussion, or to the betterment of the article. Some genuine users are trying to reach a consensus as to the content of the (currently protected) article however are being constantly hampered by this, and other, anonymous IPs. It is unfortunate that we have now progressed to blocking these IPs if they do not desist from their behaviour. We are also automatically reverting any edits that do not have anything to do with the article in question. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a gunuine user and this is nothing more than a personal attack. Yes, I was involved in an edit war on Rob Liefeld and yes I lost my temper when a different standard was applied to other users than the one being applied to me. That has no baring on the issue here which is Gamaliel's blocking me 12 hours for a compleately unrelated comment on another page or the fact that he just today deleted a perfectly reason comment I made to the Rob Leifeld talk page which is still in the history for any one to see that it should not have been deleted.--198.93.113.49 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Note, the edits in question were:

Francs2000, These idiots will never setle these disputes, it a better idea to scrat the whole article. rob liefeld doesn't need to be metioned on this website. by 69.243.46.93 (talk · contribs)

wikipedia=censorship by 65.220.54.20 (talk · contribs)

Why was User:65.220.54.20 comment reverted. It was not a personal attack. And while it was negative toward wikipedia and extremely terse it was also relevent to what's been going on here. I agree the sentiment that a spirit of censorship infects Misplaced Pages, and while I would have expressed it a little different that 65.220.54.20 that hardly means his comment should be reverted. by 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs)

198, Your fighting a losing battle the admins at this site all have god complexs. by 65.220.54.20 (talk · contribs)

To be honest I stepped in as an independent admin following a request for help on this very page for assistance and I'm now spending far too much time being accused of every bias under the sun by anonymous IPs on a page about someone I couldn't care less about. Sort it out amongst yourselves, I'm not going to touch the page again. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 19:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it is obvious to everyone, but I want make it doubly clear that my comment which was deleted was

Why was User:65.220.54.20 comment reverted. It was not a personal attack. And while it was negative toward wikipedia and extremely terse it was also relevent to what's been going on here. I agree the sentiment that a spirit of censorship infects Misplaced Pages, and while I would have expressed it a little different that 65.220.54.20 that hardly means his comment should be reverted. by 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs)

I also want to reiterate that this is a side issue. My main objection was that I was blocked for 12 hours without cause.--198.93.113.49 19:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please help. Gamaliel continues to delete my comments at Talk:Rob Liefeld. Please go there an see for yourself that my comments are appropriate and should not be deleted. Here is the most recently deleted comment which was in response to Gamaliel ording me t stop commenting--198.93.113.49 20:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you get to determine when a discussion is over? I'm still concerned that there is too much deleting of comments going on here and while most of the comments deleted so far problably won't be missed I want to make sure this does not get out of hand so that this discussion of Liefeld can continue smoothely

Why does no one care about this abuse by Gamaliel?

Now he is threathening me on my talk page:

Get this straight: Misplaced Pages is not your personal message board. You are not entitled to post your complaints anywhere you want. The sole purpose for an article talk page is for productive discussion of the content of that article. It is not the place for comments like These idiots will never setle these disputes, it a better idea to scrat the whole article and wikipedia=censorship from you or anyone else. Those useless comments do not add anything to the productive discussion of an encyclopedia article, nor does a long discussion of the worth of comments like those contribute anything of worth to the article. You have recieved clear, repeated warnings from both User:Francs2000 and myself about your behavior on that page. For the last and final time, keep your comments on the topic of the article and nothing else. I will not allow you to make Talk:Rob Liefeld your personal soapbox nor will I allow you to continue to waste my time and the time of the productive editors there actually trying to improve the article. If you actually wish to be a productive, contributing editor, I suggest you start acting like one. Your lack of positive contributions combined with your constant trolling over the last several weeks makes me think more and more that a permanent ban on this IP as a troll account is warranted. Gamaliel 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please somebody go to Talk:Rob Liefeld. You can clear see he is lying about what I am doing.--198.93.113.49 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The best way for you to demonstrate that Gamaliel is mistaken about you is for you to start making constructive comments on that talk page about how to imporove that article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I was blocked for 12 hours for no reason at all. I have no recourse what-so-ever and no one cares, and now I'm told that it's my responsibility to prove Gamaliel is wrong!? He's decided I'm troll, attacked me on his todo page, and used this is an excuse to block me when he feels like whether I've done anything or not, and I am burdened with showing that he's wrong about me!?!. I cannot win. This much is clear. Gamaleil has bocked me without cause, deleted my discussions on the Rob Liefeld talk page, and left vague threats on my talk page. And the only admins who care are the ones that think this is okay. All a person has to do is go see for themselves that I've done nothing wrong in this instance.--198.93.113.49 13:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of the comments you guys are attributing to 198, belong to me please do not credit him with those remarks.

Ok, I went to Talk:Rob Liefeld. Let me ask you this, 198.93.113.49, did you, in fact, make ANY comments about Rob Liefeld, or how to improve the article? Or did you waste everyone's time by trying to defend a vandal? Because unless I missed it, none of your comments had anything to do with Liefeld. You complained because irrelevant comments were being removed? Why? --Kbdank71 15:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevet comment?! Three of my own comments were removed and they were completely relevent. Some of the comments made by others may ahve been questionable, but even then I think that when in doubt it's best to avoid deleting comments in a discussion. I think that this is a very valid point of discussion. I'm sorry that you and Gamaliel disagree, but we will just have to have a difference of opinion on that. However, just because you and Gamaliel don't find an issue worth discussing does not mean that those comments should be deleted. Gamaliel is at it again by the way. He's made it very clear on his talk page that he intends to revert edits to Joe Scarborough no matter how many people oppose his version and made a wildly unfounded accuasation about sock puppets (even though he's taken me to task for accusing some of being a sock puppet once) and when I tried to comment on the matter (I'm a part of the group who opposes his POV pushing on Scarboroug) he deleted my comment and left a nasty note on mt talk page.User talk:198.93.113.49--198.93.113.49 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Granted, I only went back one page in history, but this is what I saw: Vandalism. Vandalism removed. You complained because vandalism was removed. Repeat. Add in removal of your complaints, and that's it in a nutshell. So what's the problem there? BTW, you didn't answer my question: Did you make any comments about Rob Leifeld or his article? --Kbdank71 19:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User uploading suspect fair use images

Please see Flgook's upload log. Seems suspicious to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The tags smell bogus - the bunnies, Jeff Probst (I only looked at the first five or so) all look like they were taken off IMDB or professionally taken photos at public events and probably copyrighted. Even the GQ "cover" isn't a cover - the "Click here to subscribe" tag suggests that it's grabbed off the GQ website (and indeed it is.) I suggest going through them with a fine tooth comb. --khaosworks 08:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate content?

Yesterday, on RC patrol, I noticed Misplaced Pages Username (talk • contribs) creating User:Misplaced Pages Username/Letter, a letter to Hollywood stars about their failure to support the war in Iraq. I asked him to take it down, as I felt it was inappropriate content. To his credit, he did so, although he did label be a "fascist", and accuse me of double standards, since I have some slightly irrelevant stuff on my user page. I do, however, marvel at the comment, And anyway I wasn't "calling" you a fascist, you are a fascist, so I was merely stating fact. Now, having deleted the article, all should be fine and dandy, right? Wrong. He now creates User:Misplaced Pages Username/Facist Beating (sic) with exactly the same content. Firstly, is the content appropriate for Misplaced Pages? My reaction was no, although I concede that I may be wrong. Secondly, with the letter actually being written by Charlie Daniels, is the letter copyvio? This is the point when I don't really want to start acting unilaterally, so any advice would be appreciated! Cheers, ] 10:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Since it's a copyvio, it should probably be listed as such.--nixie 10:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So it is a copyvio then? ] 10:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is, see http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html I also copyvio'd the page, just seen this after I did it. Gonna leave a note on the talk page for them. ∞Who?¿? 10:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Who. ] 10:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say for the first part of him writing a letter to stars, that's perfectly allowable, its his own user page and its his own subpage. Saying he's not allowed to is like saying that we can't write about how old we are, etc. at our page. However him calling you a fascist was totally out of line. Redwolf24 22:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I had that debate with him. He came up with the extraordinary statement And no ones going to ask you about stuff that is apart of your life, unless they're stupid because I don't care about your life, so no one else should either. From Misplaced Pages:User page, section "What should I avoid": Generally, you should avoid any substantial content that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages and Opinion pieces not related to Misplaced Pages or other non-encyclopedic material. I was asking whether the content fell into these categories. ] 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Smoddy; stating your interests is relevant, because it helps other editors find you. For example, listing my Ph.D. on my page helps others realize that I am a good source of information with regard to theology. However, an open letter to Benedict XVI in my user space wouldn't be relevant to my work here. If WU wants to write an open letter, he should do it on his hard drive or on a free hosting site, like Yahoo!. If it's a copyvio, then that just makes it worse. The user should be warned to avoid personal attacks, and blocked for 24 hours for disruption if the letter-posting and/or attacks continue. -- Essjay · Talk 22:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Essjay. Some unrelated content, like the pictures people have on their user page are, IMO, fine. An open letter of complaint to the Misplaced Pages community is fine. Even Cognition's man-beasts, while distasteful, are useful in identifying him/her as a LaRouchie. But open letters to celebrities are not connected to Misplaced Pages. Of course, if it's a copyvio there's no excuse for it to be there at all. Guettarda 23:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Louis Epstein

Louis Epstein, who has never registered an account but contributes from the fixed IP address 12.144.5.2 (talk · contribs), has been using the Lynx browser in Unicode-unsafe mode, damaging pages and sometimes destroying links. In one case, a wrecked interwiki link was subsequently removed. I pointed this out to him at User talk:12.144.5.2#You_need_to_change_your_browser_settings. I am not totally certain as he has had a history of replacing dashes with hyphens, but his edits to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith strongly suggest that he has not acted on this. I am wondering whether the corruption counts as compromising integrity and seeming to ignore the problem is bad faith, which is the definition of vandalism in Misplaced Pages. This is a separate issue from his present round of revert warring. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

ProudWHITEIsraeli

• ProudWHITEIsraeli (talk · contribs)

If I came across this chap's edits in the normal course of events I might summarily block him for having an inappropriate username for Misplaced Pages, or at least have a word with him about engaging in political advocacy (his userpage). However he has made an apparently good faith VfD and this is being taken seriously, and I have taken part in the discussion, so I don't feel comfortable dealing with him as an administrator. But it does seem to me that he probably intends to use Misplaced Pages as part of some campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Er... good faith nomination? In the nomination, he directly accuses Mustafaa and others of being "racists" (I would block him for that personal attack). His userpage, which I wish you hadn't forced me to read, ew, verifies my worst fears about his motives. The irony is that he is most certainly the racist. Oh well, I guess we're not all Jews this week, maybe we'll be Muslims. --Dmcdevit·t 05:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• I think Dmcdevit captured my feeling exactly. I don't know if you could call it a good faith VfD, but if nothing else, someone needs to remove the personal attacks on Mustaafa. I won't do anything, since I don't want to be accused of taking racism personally (again), and I have edited his VfD. But I advise any uninvolved admin to take a look at this. Guettarda 06:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  Perhaps what I saw was the edited version of the VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  (I'll warn you I just had a run-in with sockpuppets on VfD today, so I may be on high-alert.) But, any account that is created with a throwaway username, makes its first few edits to VfD a contoversial topic and make racist personal attacks, and then makes allusions to Misplaced Pages's past and familiarity with an established Wikipedian ("it has been established time and time again on wikipedia that Mustafaa is biased against Whites and Jews") reeks of sockpuppetry. I don't know what conflicts Mustafaa's been in, but this is no newbie. --Dmcdevit·t 06:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely. This guy was obviously a sock puppet. I don't have a problem with socks per se, only abusive socks. The reason I listed this case here is that I'm involved in the VfD discussion so I don't feel that it would be appropriate to deal with this chap myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Plus, sorry to jump in, I think a username change could also be in order. That name will just call for possible accusations of racism against this user. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I would agree with this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If it was ProudBLACKIsraeli would it have accusations of racism? ‡ Jarlaxle 23:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question yesterday, then speculated that people's opinions would vary. Either would seem disruptive to me. Wyss 00:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• That question is a false dichotomy. ProudWHITEIsraeli is mostly only disruptive in the context of his racist user page, personal attacks and sockpuppetry, not the username. If the hypothetical ProudBLACKIsraeli acted the same, then the same would apply to him. And by the way, ProudWHITEIsraeli is also not accused of racism because of his name, but because of his own words (read the user page, he thiks all Blacks should go back to Africa!). I think either proudWHITEIsraeli (or BLACK) would be an acceptable name if it were in the context of a history of valuable contributions. --Dmcdevit·t 00:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

In the username itself, to me the all-caps white hints at disruption/confrontation, not editing. Wyss 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand the argument wrt this guy, but was this appropriate? Has -Ril- been made an admin sometime that I was unaware of? Tomer 02:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone should be aware that he is a special kind of sockpuppet, a strawman sockpuppet, and it's pretty clear who the puppetmaster is. Jayjg 05:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful. That still doesn't deal with my question about the appropriateness of what -Ril- did. Tomer 05:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

There. I've undone -Ril- to make clearer my point that what he did was inappropriate. Will an ADMIN now please do the job? Thanks. Tomer 05:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was already blocked when I made that edit. I was just removing the racism. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked his new account, User:TelAvivKid, indefinitely, as it's clear he's a disruptive sock puppet, and I believe he's banned user Alberuni. I've left a note on his talk page inviting him to discuss it with me by e-mail if he wants to continue editing. SlimVirgin 21:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Existentializer, suspected sock of Enviroknot

• Existentializer (talk · contribs)

This user has been accused of being a sock puppet of user Enviroknot (talk · contribs) who has been banned from sock puppeting and is banned from editing for one year according to an arbitration committee decision. I've looked at his editing and his behavior does seem similar, but I'd like third party opinions before taking this to arbcom for a reset of Enviroknot's ban. He does seem to have Enviroknot's trademark toxicity--I feel like I need a shower after reading his comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

First edits

I think these edits establish very well that this editor has a style extremely reminiscent of Enviroknot--in effect, a charm-free zone. The pattern of articles edited, and subjects, also closely fit the Enviroknot pattern.

• 18 July: Somewhat POV edit on MoveOn
• 19 July: Abusive response to User:Radicalsubversiv on Talk:MoveOn
• July 19: Revert edit on Jihad making accusations against a certain User:BrandonYusufToropov. See also 212.247.200.185 (talk · contribs)
• 19 July: Rather trollish Follow up to 3RR report by User:212.247.200.185
• 19 July: Good edit on Simulation game.
  • User:Elkabong, User:KaintheScion and User:Enviroknot were all sock puppets who interspersed their trolling with serious edits on gaming.
• 19 July: Revert edit on his user page by one User:Envirofuck, accusing him of being a sock of User:Enviroknot.

Because of this editor's continued abusive comments and in particular recent removal of comments from a talk page, I'm blocking him pending a decision on whether he is a sock of Enviroknot. The closer I look the more obvious it is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I've been out of the loop, but who makes that "decision"? Since when do we hand out pre-emptive blocks without conclusive decisions as to identity? - Seth Ilys 16:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! How about contacting David Gerard for an IP check before making hasty decisions based only on somewhat hazy associations. P.S. Wouldn't you expect someone who isn't a sockpuppet to also revert a sock template on their user page? HKT 18:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with you. His edit summaries, particularly those accusing random users of being sockpuppets of Yuber, are very clearly those of Enviroknot, and he was immediately very familiar with WP procedures and policies, unlikely for a new user. ] 14:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to see what your justification to do this is. Having looked at the circumstances surrounding his edits there is some bad language but nothing otherwise out of line. When the presence of good edits is used as "proof" of something wrong, I think you are misconstruing things. And since the same users he was facing off with have vandalized my own user page, I think it is most likely that you are abusing your own authority because you have an axe to grind and need a target.Ni-ju-Ichi 04:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Further, I'll note that nobody has reverted the removed comments yet, quite possibly because they themselves were trollish and a direct violation of the group's mission statement. What he did wasn't out of line.Ni-ju-Ichi 05:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• User:Envirofuck is Yuber Sockpuppet. It's Existentializer's own user page and he can moderate it as he see's fit. BYT is well known as wiki-Islamist, which is why his admin request fell through, BYT has been known to pig-fight with other editors. Again let's not bite the newbies. Klonimus 05:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, from the edits (focusing on Islam topics and now especially out of nowhere jumping back to Vampire and Vampire fiction to take up the cause of the banned editor) it seems pretty clear that User:Ni-ju-Ichi here is a sockpuppet of User:Existentializer, and most likely for all the other banned aliases as well. DreamGuy 05:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not, DreamGuy. I took a look at the users in question and I've watched Existentializer's page ever since mine was vandalized. YOU have been repeatedly told to stop making the edits you're continually reverting at Talk:Vampire by multiple users, not just Existentializer, and it is quite clear that you are in the wrong. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet to get rid of people who stand in the way of your conduct is no way to act on Misplaced Pages. Ni-ju-Ichi 05:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only "multiple users" reverting that page are the now banned user, an editor who has a long history of reverting my edits no matter what they are (see his RfC) and yourself (a clear sock... allegedly watching his page since it was vandalized in no way explains your sudden need to jump into and make edits to all the same articles he was making, and your history here is short and extremely suspicious, not to mention your comments use the same over the top accusatory style trying to quote policies you as a new user would likely be unfamiliar with). You can deny it all you want, but your edit history makes it all too clear. Claiming mutliple users oppose my actions when it's really only one (you) and then a person who doesn't oppose my edits so much as everything I do (all the way to his reverting my edits when I changed capitalization in articles to fit the Manual of Style) is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts... and one clearly calculated by a person banned mutliple times and trying to game the system to get his way. DreamGuy 06:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

If this is the way you act, Dreamguy, then there's no wonder Talk:Vampire is full of people telling you to knock it off. Ni-ju-Ichi 06:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah... "full of people" sure. You won't fool anyone. Your edit history suspiciously features Isalmic articles, those two vampire articles, and video game articles, and nothing else. It's mighty peculiar that the triad of topics obsessed upon by those previously banned users happen to match you perfectly right down to specific articles, and that all of the socks used the exact same arguments and claims you now use. You must think the admins are stupid. DreamGuy 06:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, because nobody at ALL is interested in Islam, nore in video games, nor in Vampires... do you do Punch and Judy acts too? DreamGuy, you have already been warned by me and other contributors to this article. You do not own this article. Do not make drastic changes without opening it up for discussion. What you are doing is vandalism. (courtesy of Evmore) And now your fallback is to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a sockpuppet? I'm sorry, but you need to chill and you need to start working WITHIN wikipedia policy please. Ni-ju-Ichi 06:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a venerated principe of Western jurisdiction is "innocent until proven guilty". The described incidents in which Existentializer was involved do not seem to be of an extremely intrusive or abusive character which warrants a ban of this user. A mere suspicion should IMHO not be a reason for a ban. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 11:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody that WP is not a project to emulate western jurisdiction. It is a project to write an encyclopedia. No real-life disadvantages arise for unjustly blocked users. Fairness is an a posteriori desideratum, in the interest of a good community spirit. I do think the evidence acted upon by Tony is conclusive enough, although the arbcom may want to have a word in this. I repeat that I think admins badly need to see IPs to facilitate decisions such as Tony's. Also, note that User:Ni-ju-Ichi has been accused of being a sock . It seems pretty obvious that the account is a sockputtpet of somebody, see its early edits . I do not think he is Enviroknot, but I suppose they are coordinated via some online forum. Note that, a Dreamguy has pointed out, the "do three harmless edits with your new sock account before diving into trolling Islam articles" stunt has been pulled by Enviroknot before. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As I indicated at first, I did not initially think a block on Existentializer necessary while we investigated his then-suspected status as a sock of Enviroknot. I did watch him closely, however, and his persistent abusive behavior led me to conclude that a block was justified. We assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we stand back and permit some editors to abuse others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Ni-ju-Ichi blocked as sockpuppet of Enviroknot

I've blocked Ni-ju-Ichi as a sockpuppet of Enviroknot. Ni-ju-Ichi edits follow the exact pattern of User:Kurita77, who was another sockpuppet of Enviroknot. Besides the unusually strong interest in Enviroknot, there's also the "harmless" edits to Nintendo articles and Eyeshield 21 (anime) (which Kurita mentioned was the reason he came to Misplaced Pages). Compare Special:Contributions/Kurita77 and that of Ni-ju-Ichi and also see the history of Eyeshield 21 (anime) . If any admin believes I'm wrong, please unblock, but this is far too coincidental to be different users. Carbonite | Talk 20:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of due process for determining this? Subjective opinions of an individual about editing patterns do not seem like due process to me. I'm sure that someone around here can look at IP logs to see whether or not the sock puppetry accusation is true. --Zeno of Elea 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot is known to change IPs very frequently, but I will post a message on David Gerard's talk page. Since Enviroknot recently was banned by the ArbCom, this may be something David can look into. Still, this is a very obvious case with Ni-ju-Ichi and Kurita77 (another one of Enviroknot's sockpuppets) being the only users to ever edit Eyeshield 21 (anime). . Also, please see the nice messages left by Ni-ju-Ichi after he was blocked. I asked Ni-ju-Ichi to contact the mailing list if he had further concerns. So far, it appears he does not. Carbonite | Talk 21:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, I think that demonstrable evidence of disruptive or anti-policy activity pre-block on Ni-ji-Ichi's part should be put forward. He's upset, but I think that's understanable. I'm taking Carbonite's suggestion and unblocking Ni-ji-Ichi for the moment. -- Seth Ilys 22:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Concur, personally I think potential non-disruptive though abusive sock puppets ought to go through the RfC process. I think that there is enough uncertainty that one can't directly claim that Ni-ji-Ichi == Enviroknot. I think we have to assume good faith untill, proven otherwise. Klonimus 22:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot is banned by the ArbCom and thus all of his sockpuppets are also banned. I've provided evidence above that Ni-ju-Ichi is Kurita77 and it was already proven that Kurita77 was Enviroknot. I strongly request that the block be reinstated. I've already asked David Gerard to examine the IP evidence, but as Enviroknot uses dynamic IPs, I'm not sure how much he;ll be able to learn. If Ni-ju-Ichi has concerns, he may present his case to the mailing list or on his talk page. So far, he has done neither. Carbonite | Talk 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I sent my concerns to the mailing list. I got a "your submission has been rejected enviroknot" message back. This is total BS. I'm not a sockpuppet and I'm not Enviroknot. Neither is Existentializer. Although I fully expect that you're going to turn around and IP-block me for even posting this. -Ni-ju-Ichi

Please post on your talk page then. The software allows blocked users to freely edit their own talk page. Carbonite | Talk 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

22:56, 31 July 2005, Carbonite blocked 66.69.128.146 (expires 22:56, 1 August 2005) (contribs) (anon IP of User:Enviroknot) - No it doesn't when you block their IP addresses, Carbonite. Are you quite done with the doublespeak yet?

First, I hardly think you'll have a problem finding another IP. Second, it's already been confirmed that you're a sockpuppet, so discussion is somewhat moot at this point. Carbonite | Talk 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the ArbCom decision bans Enviroknot for one year and prohibits him from using any sockpuppets (abusive or otherwise). Ni-ju-Ichi is a virtual clone of Kurita77, displaying the same editing beahvior and interest in all things about Enviroknot. Carbonite | Talk 22:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Having had an extensive IRC with Ni-ju-Ichi, and having had dealings with Enviroknot in the past, I am convinced that they are one and the same. He claimed to be a "friend" of Existentializer, and that, to me, means he is Enviroknot. My good-faith assuming has been worn out on this user. ] 22:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the definitive evidence: It's already known that Enviroknot (and his sockpuppet Kurita77) are from Houston. . After I blocked Ni-ju-Ichi, he posted using IP 66.69.128.146. This traces to...Houston. . I again request that the block be reinstated. Carbonite | Talk 22:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And he was kickbanned from IRC with a Houston ISP address. It's Enviroknot. ] 22:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That IP address is within the same range as one used by Elkabong, an earlier Enviroknot incarnation. SlimVirgin 22:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've reinstated the block. SlimVirgin 22:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Both User:Existentializer and User:Ni-ju-Ichi have been confirmed as sockpuppets of Enviroknot by David Gerard. Carbonite | Talk 23:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This means that the one year ban on Enviroknot should be reset according to the ruling of the arbitration committee. I blocked User:Existentializer only, because the evidence in the case of User:Ni-ju-Ichi, whom I also suspected, was at that time less clear cut. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

note that Enviroknot will almost certainly be back in more incarnations. He has been known to repeatedly lie through his teeth about his identity, and to adapt his behaviour to the way he was found out in earlier instances. The best of these so far was the story about the neighbor cutting his cable in the garden (Kurita77, I believe? I think that was supposed to explain why he had the same IP as Enviroknot :) Any new account with a strong interest in Enviroknot and similar edit patterns will very likely be another sockpuppet. We are dealing with a troll with above-average persistence and resourcefulness (although his main strength is our reluctance to act on circumstantial evidence, he has never been great at simulating different personality profiles) dab (ᛏ) 07:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made a note on the discussion page of the arbitration case as a reminder that the ban on this user should now run until 31 July, 2006. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ni-Ju-Ichi is Enviroknot or an unreasonable facsimile. He came on IRC yesterday claiming abusive reject messages on wikien-l messages. Then I kicked him as an obvious querulous idiot, then he came back in the new name with a remarkably similar IP. Either his luck with DHCP IPs is so bad he should be in Vegas rather than Houston, or it's Enviroknot. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not play pitter-pat with this fool. He has a string of other usernames too - use your good sense - David Gerard 09:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Devilbat might be worth keeping an eye on

Based upon his comments on Talk:Vampire and his likely being the same as the two anon users earlier making the same reverts to Vampire that the two sockpuppets above made (as well as harassing comments) it might be worth it to keep on eye on this account just in case it's the same guy. Too early to tell on the small edits he has, and if it is the same guy he'll probably be trying to make his edits less predictable this time. DreamGuy 05:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I await developments with an especial trepidation. El_C 06:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Even with only a couple of contributions, it's quite clear anon IP user 212.202.190.53 is being used by this guy recently to get around his ban. DreamGuy 19:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

user:John Kenney's page moves

Please can somebody investigate whether the series of page moves made by user:John Kenny of Russian queen consorts was apropriate. I have reverted his move of Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse to Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse) as there is currently quite a contentious discussion/vote over what the title of that article should be, but Alexandra Fyodorvna (Alix of Hesse) has no support votes and 1 oppose vote. He moved a whole lot of other articles to similar titles, all afaict without any discussion on the talk pages concerned.

He has proposed a standard, at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Inadequate, but (again afaict), this is not linked to from any of the talk pages concerned (with the exeption of the Alexandra of Hesse talk page - in a comment left after the page move), so many of the editors will not be aware of it. It is not the clearest discussion in the world, but I can't see any consensus for any proposal there at all.

I am tempted to revert all the page moves, but don't want to get into a war over it, and so I would like to get consensus here. As John is an administrator, page move protection would not stop a move war. Thryduulf 11:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, regarding those who still were under their German birth names, the Kenney moves were towards better direction, but arrived not in the best placements yet. Those ladies could well be at Maria Fedorovna of Denmark, Maria Alexandrovna of Hesse, Alexandra Fedorovna of Prussia, Elisabeth Alexeievna of Baden and Maria Fedorovna of Wurttemberg, instead of those parenthetical disambig placements which mix Russian and German first names. I am however not asking to revert them to German names. And, Thryduulf did very correctly when returning Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse to its that location which is awaiting the result of the vote. Arrigo 17:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin, I could well understand John's frustration with the situation. The vote had reached stalemate, mainly as a result of one contributor's determination not to comply with naming standards. This contributor had previously himself carried out a move without consensus, and I had done so prior to that (before this round of voting began), for much the same reason as John. So yes, it was wrong, but not as mind-numbingly so as the current title is. Deb 17:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Deb is correct in her summary. The vote is stalemated not because a decision can't be taken but because one contributor is determined not to comply with naming standards. I don't think the name picked was right, but the current title is ludicrous and unworkable. John's frustration with the determination of one user to force their clearly wrong name on the page is understandable. (BTW, in case someone misinterpets this: the user in question is not Thryduulf who is also simply trying to untangle the mess.) FearÉIREANN\ 18:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)