Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:04, 12 October 2005 edit213.3.64.145 (talk) →Decius again← Previous edit Revision as of 12:07, 12 October 2005 edit undoU6A4Til5Y9P (talk | contribs)1 editm rvNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
SUPER COOL.
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}

<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->

== ] I ==
I'd welcome some outside comment on ]. See his , and the past ] decision regarding him. The vast majority of this user's edits are disruptive and seem to be trolling. He is currently engaged is several edit wars over date styles, spelling styles, and other issues. His past arbcom decision specifically warned him against revert warring, which he ignores. Most users have accepted the compromise to not change date styles, except for ]. For example:

He has changed date styles on several articles, including:

*]: (to which he has made '''13''' reverts, after initially changing date styles)
*]:
*]:
*]:
*]:
*]:
*]:

He also seems intent upon stirring up more revert wars over spelling styles, for example:

*]:
*]: ,
*]: ,

He also performs unexplained deletions from articles, and subsequent revert warring to enforce his POV: , , , .

These are just a few examples, and represent the tip of the iceberg of this users deliberate and provocative edits, and all have occurred since his arbcom case. He has also been quite uncivil towards me, accusing me of various unsubstantiated charges. I would appreciate it if someone would inform this user of Misplaced Pages's policies regarding styles, civility, consensus, and revert warring. Regards ] 01:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, I'm not entirely happy about this myself either. Jguk, could you do both yourself and us a favour and steer clear of date-notation issues? --]] 03:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:Seems rather bad. Hopefully Jguk will show up to give his side of the story. ] 04:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What seems bad? First, please look at Sortan's contributions. It probably is a role account that has been trolling on this date issue for sometime (as well as a bit of wikistalking of myself and personal attackes). Second, which of Sortan's edits are you defending? Does anyone doubt that when an anon changed some dates in a page titled up 52 BC that they should be changed back to (i) be consistent with the title?; (ii) be consistent with the WP approach of not changing these things? What motive can Sortan have to edit-war over that other than to be disruptive?

:So wikistalking in the defense that every vandal can now use? You are allowed to make article "consistent" without violating the truce, but others aren't? Please elaborate... ] 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The other examples that Sortan gives bar one are of other editors (mostly himself) aggressively edit-warring to change the date styles from a stable version that used BC to suit his personal preference - again contrary to WP policy. The exception is the article on "cheese", which, after I changed wording so that it was more vivid (and didn't use any date style whatsoever). The aggressive edit-warring by Sortan and others to make sure that it did include their date style at all costs has resulted in an error arising in the article (which, of course, I can't correct because it would be edit-warred back to the error). Have a look at the initial insertion of date references and what they say now.

:Please elaborate on what you think the error is? Your change resulted from a desire to remove references to BCE rather that an attempt to improve the article, and the changes you instituted made the article worse and inaccurate, as noted by several others. As for the aggressive edit-warring.... do you want to count up the number of your reverts vs. anyone else and see how much greater your number is? ] 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So the links above all show examples of my enforcing wikipedia policy about not changing date styles. Sortan's user contributions, however, show the opposite.

Once you've examined Sortan's history - and questioned why he has made this comment just below my comments on him - you'll see which user is acting in good faith, which one has a strong history of supporting wikipedia, and which one whose vast majority of edits have been knowingly disruptive. I'd welcome support in reminding Sortan of why we are here (ie to write an encyclopaedia) and to tell him to stop the disruption he is causing, ] 06:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:Not sure what Sortan's previous account was (and this is such a blatant role account), but his next one was going to be ] - ] 10:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

::and this is supposed to mean what.....? ] 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:Can you please point out examples where I've changed date styles against policy? Which (imaginary) anon editor changed date styles on ], ], or ]? Why are you now reverting articles that use BCE/CE back to an inconsistant state (, ), but continuing to change styles for "consistency" to BC/AD ? ] 14:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

::I'd also like to ask Jguk to stay away from the issue of dates and reverting over other style issues he disagrees with. After recently reverting BCE five times in 72 hours at ], including once against me, he followed me to ], a page I'd recently edited, and which he'd never edited before, and changed spokespersons to spokesmen , reverting another twice. This kind of thing is practically ] and all it does is leave people annoyed with each other, so I hope Jguk will consider letting these issues go once and for all. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

SV, you may recall that the WP approach to this style issue is not to change the style, and I abide by this. The flip side of this is that when someone does attempt to change the style, it is reverted. That is all I'm doing - enforcing the current policy, and I urge others to join me in doing so. As far as issues on verifiability are concerned, I have a long record of being interested in similar issues, and when I saw there was a long discussion on there, I was interested to see the page. I made a small copyediting adjustment to bring consistency to the language (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the BCE style issue) and bolstered up the language in some places. You then decided you did not like my copyediting adjustment to give consistency as you preferred to adjust for consistency in the opposite direction - and take umbrage at me for it too. Please don't make this disagreement personal, thanks, ] 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:Don't play games. I don't see this as at all personal, but you know you followed me to that page, and you made a little anti-PC edit while you were there just to be annoying. Please point me to the policy that says style issues ought not to be changed. You argued precisely the opposite for weeks on end over the British v American English issue on the MoS, namely that they ''must'' be changed, no matter how established one style was, in order to make the style consistent with the subject matter, and so far as I recall, you ended up getting your own way because you wore the opposition down with constant reverting and arguing. Now suddenly you've changed your mind because the first-contributor rule suits you over the BC/BCE issue, and now that you see things differently, you claim that policy supports you, which you also claimed when you were arguing exactly the opposite. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I made numerous edits on that page, unfortunately you concentrate on the one you disagree with. You now fault me for abiding by current policies and approaches whilst arguing that, where I think they are wrong, they should be changed. Isn't that what we're meant to do when we disagree with a policy? Where my preferred approach and current policy give the same end effect (albeit for different reasons), of course I have to cite current policy, not my preferred reasoning, as the justification - one has the weight of an agreed approach, one doesn't, ] 20:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:I have no idea what your post meant, but I ask again: which policy do you claim to be adhering to? Please point to it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand your positions at all. When it comes to spelling styles, popularity and google counts are not to be taken into account (for example ], where you gleefully changed AE to BE , and ), but when it comes to date styles, popularity suddenly becomes all important. When it comes to spelling styles, the style should reflect the subject matter, but when it comes to date styles the first contributor should be followed. Consistency is paramount, except where you disagree with that consistency, in which case, the article should be inconsistent. ???? ] 21:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask what policy you believe you're applying here ? Is it the "Eradicate all mention of Common Era, BCE, and CE" policy that only you've been able to find? ] 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:I'm with Sortan on this one, BCE/CE are perfectly fine and you have just randomly deleted stuff which seems alsmost like a form of stealth vandalism... just stop it. ''']'''<span style="background-color:#C1FF5F">]|]</span> 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:: IMO, this is a matter of ]: certain minorities consider BC/AD notation inappropriate and offensive in articles deeply related to their religion & history, and prefer alternative denominationally-neutral and commonly accepted BCE/CE . Jguk deliberately stomps those feelings under various pretenses (strawman, misinterpreted/nonexistent WP policies, ad homs, denial of facts), and uses talk pages as a ]. I can provide diffs if needed. ]&larr;]] 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I make no apology for preferring what I see to be a more reader-friendly approach than the "don't change date notation" compromise, I do abide by it. I continue to urge other editors to do likewise. Remember it cuts both ways - WP says both BC/AD notation and BCE/CE notation is acceptable, but don't go changing the style. Where others have edited inconsistently with that compromise, I have reverted them, and will continue to do so. Similarly where certain editors have tried to change articles that are stable in using BCE notation to BC notation, they have been reverted by others enforcing the compromise, ] 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

:That's not quite what WP policy is. The arbcom ruling was don't change from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Editors on some pages believe there is a substantial reason. You revert their edits nevertheless, in what looks to me like a violation of the arbcom ruling. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:: ] continues his offense to change denominationally neutral and commonly accepted BCE/CE date notation to Christian-centric BC/AD. In some articles this is highly inappropriate. ]&larr;]] 21:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==Stray Ed Poor RFAr==
I found ] lying around. What should be done with it? ] ] 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
*Obviously it should be ignored, because creationists are above the law, especially if it's their goal to remove all credible reference to evolution--] 13:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
**It was not that I was thinking about. The template used to make that page is for cases where a Request has been accepted by the Arbcom. If you want to file a request, it is done in the "requests" section on the main ] page. Now, in my view, I don't think your chances of getting it accepted are particularily high because the Arbcom usually stays out of content disputes unless there is a lot of 3RR violations going on. ] ] 14:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
***That seems fair, in that case I'm going to start my own 1 person wiki project ], to combat Ed's new wikiproject(''badly misslabled'') that seems to exist to be ].. I was going to start an RFC on ID, but clearly it won't be as ''legit'' as ], becasue ''that'' was obviously approved by your ArbCom--] 14:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
****Actually, I'm not on the Arbcom so I can't be sure that my evaluation of your case being a likely reject candidate is sound. In fact, the business around arbitration is usually so sad and frustrating that, as a rule, I prefer to put as much distance between myself and it. ] ] 14:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The request needs to be made at ], not at some /page the Arbitrators don't even know about or might find only by chance. ] 14:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
*So, then either he's above the law, or ] doesn't really exist?--] 14:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
**Right first time, I'm afraid. ] | ] 14:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
***Well, in all fairness, Ed Poor ''did'' lose his bureaucratship. But still, I dislike the presence of the Ed Poor barnstar since it seems to encourage vigilante behaviour from admins. ] ] 14:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
****since when didwe stop being vigilantes?] 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
*****Well, perhaps "vigilante" should be replaced with "reckless". I have now seen some admins who have done some pretty reckless things be awarded a barnstar for actions which were needlessly disruptive without many redeeming points. I am left thinking that if a newbie started doing some of those things (they cannot delete AFD discussions, but they can blank them), we would be sending them angry messages not to do so and then threaten with blocks. Personally, I think administrators and established users should be held to ''higher'' standards since they should know the rules, while the introduction of such a barnstar seems to suggest that they are not even held to the ''same'' standard. ] ] 15:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

== Spaland returns ==

After a two month absence, spaland has returned to linkspam various travel-related pages as {{user|81.183.165.119}}. Previous sightings showing various other IPs are listed on ]. ] 15:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:It hasn't been 2 months, s/he's been spamming through other ips. I can dig those up if there's interest. ] 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

==Abuse of Admin Rights by Chris_73==
Abuse of Admin Rights by Chris_73
Admin Chris_73 has violated several rules in regards to to blocking policy on Wiki when he blocked me(http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Molobo#Double_Naming.2FAbuse_of_Admin_rights_by_Chris_73)

1.That Admin that is in dispute with somebody can't block the person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy
Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict.
2.To push his content in article
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy
Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute
3.Admin Chris_73 didn't give exact reasons for the bloc against me.Since the only topic in the time period I edited that could be given for a reason was in regards to using the catholic term for Archidioecesis Varmiensis(http://en.wikipedia.org/Bishops_of_Warmia) I suspect this is his reason which earlier he claimed falls into Gdansk Vote http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gdansk/Vote:.This is no way violation of the vote since it concerns only Polish and German names, not Catholic terminology regarding hierarchy of the Catholic Church which I put into the article.
4.Chris_73 has expressed opinions that suggest he is not an neutral person in regards to Polish culture, editors and people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:24.7.179.169&diff=9421756&oldid=9421733
5.Chris_73 has blocked other people or threatened to do so during his conflict with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Witkacy#Abuse_of_Admin_rights_by_Chris_73_.28again.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Space_Cadet#Double_naming_2

Due to agreement with Admin I will not engage in editing of article pages until the ban has passed.
--] 15:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

== Cornchips vandal ==

I noticed a vandal using a series of nicknames that begin with Cornchips has been vandalizing articles, making them
redirects to ]. I noticed this in the ]'s history pages.

Anyone know how to stop this?? --] 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

== INJUSTICE ==
I'm not ] at all, I've confused WP:AN with WP:ANI. Check ]. ] <small>]</small> 19:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN is probably the wrong place, and here the right. Sorry but I'm not WP:COOL. ] <small>]</small> 19:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

===Use of brief blocks on ]===
Administrators who were watching ] last week may have caught the brief but very clangorous battle of words between some participants in an apparently trivial war over the ] articles, and those who have watched ] will have seen a related failed attempt by one participant to bring an arbitration case against another. The edit wars continue on the article, so I have issued a three-hour block on the three worst offenders, {{user|REX}}, {{user|Theathenae}} and {{user|matia.gr}} for extreme incivility, personal attacks and edit warring. It's a controversial move so I invite review and possible prompt reversal of the blocks. --]] 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:I have no problem with it. Just from a cursory glance at the talk page, everybody needed to cool off for a bit. Three hours is a drop in the bucket. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 20:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::I agree (I'm not an admin. though. Does my opinion count?) ] 20:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:::It does. It means Tony got his point across, which I'm sure he'd be happy to hear. - ]|] 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:::: I wish. I see no significant improvement in the behavior of any party to this argument, save a marked reluctance to resume the edit war. They're still not ''listening'' to one another. --]] 02:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
==== INJUSTICE ====
I demand a formal apology and the removal of my username from the list of the blocked users, with regards to ]'s '''misuse''' of admin priviledges. ] <small>]</small> 19:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

==== *offensive remark removed* ] ====
You engaged in an ]. You know that edit wars are harmful and yet you did. You got what you deserved; anyway, it was only three hours. Just accept the punishment for what you did. I did. ''Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!'' ] 19:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:I was offline for '''23 hours''' and when I got back I saw your friend's message on my talk page ]. You got it REX. You've made me mad and furious for the 3rd and the last time. I'm gonna clear my name and then I'll leave wikipedia. ] <small>]</small> 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::Anyone is highly encouraged to read my previous discussions with these user (or this user and his sockpuppet) on my ] and the evidence regarding his behaviour on my ]. As I've stated, while asking various admins what to do, before I don't want ] to be blocked. But I do want him to stop provoking. And I do want a '''formal apology''' from the admin who blocked me without even asking my opinion or telling me anything! ] <small>]</small> 20:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:::CALUMNY ALERT! MATIA accuses me of calumnies against him, but in his own logic, it is OK for him to make calumnies against me. MATIA, do the phrases ''innocent until proven guilty'' and ''the burden of proof rests on the prosecution'' mean anything to you? You are behaving in a very childish way and this does not say much about your ability to work with others. You're making such a big deal over this. So you got blocked, so what? It just proves that you are like everybody else here. Not perfect as you seem to think. Are you telling me that you don't think that Tony was justified in blocking you. So Theathenae and myself can be blocked, but you are too '''holy''' to be blocked? And for the record: those two books were in Greek. They don't qualify as sources under ]. And as far as our dispute over the status of Arvanitika, you couldn't provide a single source, you just wanted me to accept your word for a claim that contradicts UNESCO, Ethnologue, Encarta, the Helsinki HR Commission and Britannica. So don't use that "holier than thou" attitude here. ] 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::::You are the one who disrespect ], not me or anyone else. If you didn't repeatedly attack me I would ignore the rest of your attitude. Innocent what? ]. Or maybe just ] <small>]</small> 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::And of course I am like everyone else. I just volunteer as a contributor. I don't offend people or try to push my pov every 20 days or so. ] <small>]</small> 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::And you disregard ], ], ] and ]. Gee, I guess you aren't that innocent either. '''Who woulda thought it!''' ] 21:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

=== what has happened in ] during the last 5 months ===
At first it was a user who said he was Albanian and wanted to force that Arvanites are an Albanian minority in Greece. I've told him that he should respect the '''culture''' and the '''history''' of Arvanites. He had discussions with various users and at some point he gave up. During the '90s the Albanian president Berisha did the same claim and there were many written protests from Arvanites in Greek mass media. Arvanites and Albanians same a partly common origin, yet Arvanites don't want to be labeled as Albanians. REX got involved at some point, and after a while, he prefered to label the people he talked with as greek-extremists instead of. And later he copy pasted again and again parts from a Unesco report and a helsinki watch report and today the talk page is very '''difficult to read''' for people, like '''the admin who blocked me'''. He asked for an RFC and I've supported him. Unfortunately the RFC's on balkan history are left unanswered. Check the history of the wiki and see who labels other users in his edit summaries as Nazis. ] <small>]</small> 20:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::] arguments. The above is a pack of lies. What a pity you can't prove it. I insisted on what UNESCO, Britannica etc say. That Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. The Eperiote Arvanites DO call themselves Albanians, a fact which you choose to ignore. And if you stop lying and check you'll see that I have '''never''' used the word Nazi to refer to anyone. You are caught lying yet again. ] 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:At some point around september, after seeing that RFC didn't work, I've started looking for sources on Arvanites. Two of the books I've found are listed with '''their ISBNs''', the first about '''history''' is called: ''Arvanites, the Dorians of Modern Hellenism'', it was published in 1960, and it is the book that most scholars refference and cite about Arvanites. The other book is about their '''culture''': it has Arvanitic songs and few pages about their '''language'''. Anyway, i'm not wp:cool (as can be seen from my writing) so I'll probably logout for today.] <small>]</small> 20:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, those books don't qualify as sources under ]. I have a book in Zulu. Should we use that as a source as well? You don't have sources and you are contradicting mine: UNESCO, Ethnologue, Britannica, Encarta etc. Remember: when you are wrong, quit! ] 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously MATIA sees fit to reject my proposals and sources on the grounds that ''know its untrue'' and ''that report is biased''. Well MATIA, OK well reject Britannica, Encarta, UNESCO, Ethnologue etc as '''liars''' because you know that what they say is untrue and we'll reject the Helsinki Report because you know it is biased. Well, given that you know ] we must believe you instead. Oops, we can't; because ] and ] don't seem to allow that. What a pity! :-)) ] 21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

==== MACEDONIA related articles ====
] talked ] into helping him forcing REX's pov regarding an imaginary census of ''Macedonian Slavs'' in Greece. This matter was discussed before, and the consensus was that this census didn't happen. See ]. Why the admin who blocked me didn't check who was edit warring and where? ] <small>]</small> 20:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue gave those figures. According to ] those results can be used whether you like it or not. The world is not made to please you so stop wasting everyone's time. ] 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:Ethnologue are linguists. For greek census check http://www.statistics.gr ] <small>]</small> 21:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::Greek censi don't include that question anyway. Or do they now? When did a Greek census ever ask: ''how many people speak Macedonian here?'' Never. So obviously Ethnologue is refering to some other census, a census which DID ask that question. Something which you choose to ignore. ] 21:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This matter is somewhat subtle, but it is obvious that Greeks who have lived in Greece for 500 years don't like being labeled "Albanian". REX's insistence on that point is quite overbearing. ] 22:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:It may sound inappropriate but GOD BLESS YOU and THANKS! ] <small>]</small> 22:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

::The Arvanites of Epirus would appear to disagree with you Fred. Also, I never called them Albanians, that is just another of MATIA's calumnies. I am quoting UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue, the HHRC etc who indicate that their language is an Albanian dialect. MATIA is insisting on something that would be like saying that ] is a separate language from ] because the Arericans don't identify as Britons. If you think that all my sources are wrong, you should notify them ''immediatly'' and tell them that they are wrong. ] 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

=== dropping the masks ===
Finaly ''that user'' labeled formally '''all Arvanites as ethnic Albanians'''
(see ). I've added the proper totallydisputed tag, as this edit not only ignores the previously reached '''consensus''', not only offends the culture and the history of one of the bigest group of '''Greek people''' but it also ignores '''all facts'''. I must thank now ''that user'' for proving that I was always telling the truth. ] <small>]</small> 17:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:I don't get it. Everything I said can be found on . I never used the phrase ethnic Albanians, MATIA. You are lying (as usual). I also think that it's fair to point out that a consensus was never reached, there was always dispute, from the top of the talk page till the bottom. You also say ''all the facts''. Which facts? You haven't provided a single source to support your arguments and you directly contradict the word of such reliable documents such as the cited report. You are a liar, there is no doubt about it. Gee, it's so sad the lengths you will go to try and discredit me. So sad :-))) ] 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

----

If anyone had a close look at the above interactions between {{user|REX}} and {{user|Matia.gr}}, they will have a pretty good idea of what's been going on over at {{article|Arvanites}}. The solution to the disagreement would seem to be actually quite simple: there are multiple points of view involved, and they should be properly attributed and represented neutrally as diverging points of view. Instead, each side takes their own POV as The Truth and tries to discredit and malign the other side. Several attempts at getting the parties to work towards a compromise have failed: the article was protected, the editors were given a forced cooling-off period, etc. We need some new ideas. One thing to try would be to start imposing sanctions for inflammatory or insulting remarks (such as accusing others of lying) and general stubbornness (such as insisting on formal apologies). Not sure if that would have the desired effect though. --]<big>]</big> 18:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:I agree, I have already asked MATIA to draft a proposal, so that I know what he wants. He refused. He has started this conversation in a lame attempt to discredit me. The tactics are well known and such tactics are employed by people who have no sources to support their claims. I have made proposals twice, I have proposed mediation twice, I have found all the sources and I have requested comment (no one answered). MATIA hasn't provided any sources. Everything he said was in the form that he knows better and that I should listen to him because I know nothing about the Arvanites. I want to get this over with. MATIA is not co-operating, I want to know what he wants, I want to know what his sources are. He won't respond. MATIA, how about writing a proposal on how you want the article and present it with your sources like I have done on at least two occasions? It'll give you something to do instead of spending all your time writing that hate-list on me, ] and the administrator who justifiably blocked you. ] 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel bad. That post of mine above is not very inviting. MATIA, I'm willing to co-operate to solve this dispute of ours. If you agree; then hopefully, we can work something out. ] 19:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If you check MATIA's ], you will see that he has been active and knows what is going on on ], presumably through his watchlist. He evidently has ample time to do things like that, he however chooses not to answer my offer to co-operate which I made above. If I'm not much mistaken, that would only take about a few seconds and it is very easy to type something like ''yes, let's co-operate''. Do tell me, if I lost my temper with MATIA's indication of bad faith and unwillingness to co-operate and come up with the first consensus that ] has ever had; would it be wrong? ] 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==]: personal attacks & stalking==
I know that a number of admins and other editors have run up against this person, and have dicovered that he's not amenable to reason. After an instant flare up when I copy-edited an article on which he'd been working, he's been following me around. I've already explained his (admittedly futile) attempts to gather a group to do things to me, they know not what, but they shall be the terrors of the Earth &mdash; he approached anyone he could find with whom I'd been in less than friendly contact, including banned vandals and sock-puppets, people I'd blocked for 3RR violations, etc. He's also taken to following me around to articles in which he'd hitherto shown no interest, reverting my edits with personal-attack edit summaries (e.g., , leaving childishly insulting messages on the Talk pages of people to whom I'm replying (e.g., ), voting "against me" at AfDs, TfDs, etc., and generally making an annoying idiot of himself. His Talk page gives a good idea of the intransigence. Even if I thought that an RfC would do any good, it'd take time, of which I already have too little. Could someone please try to get him to see sense? I know that that's not likely to be easy, but I can't think of anything else. --] (] 20:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:I went to his talk page to offer an olive branch, but Shauri has already left a lovely message that was much more generous than any I would've made. Hopefully it'll take. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 22:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

::You're likely using the wrong stick: I think the time for olive branches has long past. Reading his Talk page, I can see that first I, then Knowledge Seeker, then Ann Heneghan, and now Shauri have all cautioned him in the most polite of terms against personal attacks, all to no avail. The pattern of Anittas' behavior and the utter groundlessness of his objections to Mel is such that I'm inclined to think that RFC would serve as nothing more than as another pulpit from which to bash Mel and his "defenders." I strongly feel the next step is a clear and unequivocal warning that continued stalking, personal attacks and the recruiting and encouragement of other nogoodniks to his campaign will result in temporary blocking for disruptiveness. I'll be pursuing this course with Anittas with Mel's permission should Shauri's attempt fail. ] 22:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to think that Shauri's message will have the desired effect, and it's only fair to give it a chance. If it doesn't work, I'm beginning to think that yes, that's the only route; thank you. (Thanks to ] too.) --] (] 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

:I suggest you to have a look at the reply at his Talk Page. I was expecting a better reaction, but I'm afraid that's all I could achieve. I may be naif, but not enough as to realize that his "offer of good will" means only a "surrender without conditions". Mel, my apollogies for taking action without your express consent - but despite we have only talked twice before, it's the least I could do for the person who welcomed me when I joined WP seven months ago. I'll keep an eye over this matter, and please, let me know if I can be of further assistence. Warm hugs to the three of you, <font color="green">]</font color> ] <small><font color="peach">]</font color></small> 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> - that was a beautiful message on his talk page. He's probably just mad or something and not thinking straight and probably needs a week off :). I'd try not to take it personally, as its always good to be nice :). Maybe things will be different in a while... <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel, stop trying to make people do your (clean - not dirty) work. Hannibal and Byzantine relied too much on mercenary troops and look what happened to them. Yeah, I'm sure you don't have time to waste on a RfC against me - especially when you're busy with the RfC made against you.

Shauri, thank you for your lovely message. It was nice. I offered Mel peace. I offered him status quo. He didn't care to take it. He won't address me directly. He only likes to address me in third person. How am I supposed to communicate with him? If Mel wanted peace, he could have gotten it from day one. Then day two. Then day three, and so on. He could make peace, to-day, if he wanted to. But why would he want peace? He feels stimulated by my bitriol comments made against him. Mel, you're a philosopher and stuff. Tell us: what philosopher argued that man needs an enemy to define himself? It was something in that direction. You need me, Mel. See you tomorrow. --] 05:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

== timescapes article ==

I am afraid, the article titled, "timescapes" was premeturely deleted. I was planning to add more content and finish the article, in a short period of time. I am also in the process of wrting a book with that title and decsription, even though, there is a novel with similar name from the author Gregory Benford. Could you please contact me at: <address removed> to discuss this further? I appreciate your response. Thanks

:I imagine you're referring to ]? If you want to get it back, you'll have to go to ].--] ] 22:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

==Year-long block of IP==
I notice Redwolf24 has blocked ] for one year for death threats. The contributions of the IP sure make it look shared, though. Comments? ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:I picked ] up on a similar block with another user recently. Personally I think it's a bad idea all round, and with little actual use. After all how long is it going to take that user to find a different computer to edit from, or a different Internet service provider? Probably less than a year, I'd imagine. -- ] ] 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:It looks like a canadian telecom company. Don't know about its shared status. I agree that it's a bad idea to block for a year. Perhaps a month would suffice? &mdash; ] ] 00:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::I only block for that long if it's a real issue with threats and personal attacks and I think it's necessarry in some cases, you're more than welcome to check my blog log if you'd like, you'll notice on the contribs and the talk page history of all the IP's that I have blocked for that long it has been because shorter blocks don't work and/or they were openly flaunting the fact that we couldn't block them for longer (almost always at the same time they were threatening me and attacking me) so at that point I figured that a longer block was the only way to stop the vandalism sprees from these users. <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 00:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Yeah sorry for placing you on the defensive there, it wasn't intentional, just stating my opinion. -- ] ] 00:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Ryan Delaney showed me a dif in IRC, this is what I saw: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ARyan_Delaney&diff=24852428&oldid=24749469 though, apparently it was three different edits, and I blocked the wrong IP. I have 0 tolerance for death threats. I thought Ryan showed me only one diff, so thats why I blocked the user I saw. I'll revert the block then. ]]] (]) 01:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:I don't see how you could say its a bad idea to block an IP for a year (provided its not shared) in the case of death threats. Jimbo has stated the overall seriousness of death threats, and they should not be tolerated. For all we know, its a sock of Mr Treason. So now I have blocked the real death threat-er, 195.56.229.232, for just as long. If you think that's too harsh, revert me. I would never engage in a block war. ]]] (]) 01:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::I won't go so far as to 'revert' your block, but I think that switching IPs is as easy as switching gloves these days. &mdash; ] ] 01:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:::And switching accounts is yet easier, so why even bother blocking Willy? Why clean your room if its just gonna get dirty? Why brush your teeth if plaque will be back after the next meal? (sorry for the sarcasm, just want to push my point.) ]]] (]) 01:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I agree with Redwolf's overall thought on this, blocks may not do much but hopefully at least for the time being we've stopped this person from using his/her home computer to vandalize thus making it harder and possibly not worthwhile for him/her to vandalize. <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 01:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::::Username blocking forces vandals to take extra effort. If IP-switching were the only issue I would support long-term IP-blocking, but the bigger issue is collateral damage - because someone else will probably use that IP in the future. Gods, I can't wait for ]... DOWN WITH DHCP!! ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 02:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Collateral damage applies to proxies. The true IP was not a proxy, so there's nothing to worry about. ]]] (]) 02:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::::Collateral damage applies to dynamic IPs as well. This could easily be one. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 02:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::::(after edit conflict) For most people, once someone hangs up a dial up connection or turns off a DSL connection they give up their IP, and the ISP then reassigns it to someone else the next time someone connects to the system. Hence if you block an IP, they might just hang up their modem connection, redial and get a new IP. Meanwhile, the IP you have blocked for a year could be picked up by anyone who uses the same ISP, and suddenly they would be blocked even though they are entirely innocent. ] 02:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::I doubt its dynamic just because it only has one contribution. And to Dragons flight: I've had the same IP for 4 years, even with resets...... ]]] (]) 02:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::::::Not that many people edit Misplaced Pages. My IP is dynamic, but having checked several different IPs I came into possession of, none of them had any contributions. I think, to be safe, the block should be dropped to a week (at absolute maximum, a month), but I won't do it myself.

::::::But consider: for this person to threaten a user, they must have been pissed off by him in some way. Which means that they must have been editing, and been blocked from, Misplaced Pages at some time shortly before. If they had been using a username, it would have had to be more than 24 hours ago, or the IP autoblocker would have got them. I doubt any vandal stays that mad for 24 hours. Therefore, it is overwhelmingly likely that this person evaded their block by taking advantage of their dynamic IP. So I strongly recommend shortening. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 02:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::BTW, the hostname of that IP is "amazonas-1502.adsl.datanet.hu". ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hungary? And fine, I'll shorten the block. ]]] (]) 02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, HU is Hungary. ] ] 04:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I had a nice person threaten to and pretty much laughed it off. Since I'm usually armed due to the nature of my employment, I guess I take things like a death threat in cyberspace with a grain of salt, but don't see anything wrong with perma-banning anyone who makes a death threat...if they come back with a new IP, block them again.--] 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:*ullo, that's not an aol ip, that's , proxy users have a way of labling their pages with <nowiki>{{AOL}} and {{sharedip}}</nowiki> templates just so they don't get blocked, and most people take them at face value for some reason, either way, block away, oh and MONGO, stop starting flame wars with random AOL anons on the basis that they might be *that* very special aol anon that bugged you.. on a side note, at least I know why you threatened to have me thrown in jail and sodomized when I disagreed with one of your eidts a long while ago, but yes, use arin BEFORE just assuming that someone is an AOL anon, we're a very special breed of editor, and it really isn't fair for us to be lumped in with open source proxy vandals--] 21:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:regarding you being armed I don't even want to know :), but on the fact that any actions from IP's especially for AOL and such are just treated like oh well they're trolls but we can't block them because a legit person who isn't threatening to kill one of ouredits might be affected by the block and it's so hard for him/her to request to be unblocked, it isn't. I for one add to my watchlist the userpage of every user that I block for over a week just in case something like that happens and even though I would hate for a person to be innocently affected and I hate banning unless necessary I think that we can't stop treating IP's with kid gloves just because their IP's even if that involves forcing the ISP's to cooperate and deal with the issue themselves or risk being cut off. <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==]==
The talk page on this article is home to a rancorous debate between some Hindu and Sikh Rajputs and some Muslim Rajputs. It continues to spill over into the article itself; in particular, a fellow named Shivraj without a wikipedia account keeps adding a hopelessly chauvinist and carelessly edited section to the article. I don't want to start a revert war, but his edits are awful and totally un-encyclopedic, and have made the article too long. Can anyone help? ] 01:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

==]==
Rather than respond to ]'s, ]'s ]'s and my requests that he cease to change other users' signed comments on his talkpage and that he observe Misplaced Pages's civility policy, Spawn Man has blanked his talkpage and he has told ] that he has ceased to be Spawn Man and created a new user instead. How are we to respond to this?--] 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:Now, he has left a message on his blanked talkpage that he intends to change his username. If no one objects, I will revert to its state pre-blanking.--] 07:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:Now I have reverted to its state pre-blanking. This way, there will be more transparency in the handling of his case.--] 08:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


::In spite of the fact he has lashed out at several of my friends and now at me (because he feels I've somehow rejected his friendship), Iam compelled to write something in Spawn Man's defense.
*Contributions, he has made many, including numerous WWI battles and campaigns (and is an active member of ] ). He has had 5 of the articles he started featured in DYK over a very short period of time. So this is not some mere vandal, troll or pest but a very prolific and enthusiastic contributor.
*Age, while it may not be an excuse is certainly a valid explanation and should be taken into consideration. It is not easy being 14 with all the hormones gushing into ones brain. The sense of self-esteem tottering on a pin-head. And it is sometimes very hard just to say "I'm sorry". I'm still apologizing for or embarassed by some of the things I said/did as a teenager.
*A poor example. He made some silly, childish and rude comments earlier on my talk page, similar to those he would make later to Wiglaf. I deleted them, simply out of impulse because I felt they had no place there and made both him and my talkpage look bad. He noticed and took it as a sign that it was ok and would later do the same on his. I feel responsible for this, especially since it seems to be the major charge against him. Had I known, rest assured, I would have spared my delete key. Mea Culpa...sorry.
*Other circumstances. His user page has been vandalized no less than 3 times in as many days. This would put any of us in a combative mood and perhaps a wee bit paranoid too. Plus he has had some deletions/edit wars with some of his articles.

While I certainly do not condone his recent behavior, I think banning and/or blocking is an extreame measure. He has vowed to "Turn over a new leaf". I think he deserves a fair chance to do this. Please consider. Thanks, --] 18:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:If he keeps in line from now on, I don't see any reason to ban him. However, I think it is worth considering that all the vandalism on his user page come from New Zealand (where he lives).--] 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::Interesting, so he might be self-vandalizing in order to gain sympathy/support? The possibility cannot be ruled out yet. I only hope he keeps his vow henceforth. --] 02:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I hope it for your sake Ghost, since you appear to appreciate him. His possible auto-vandalism would be consistent with his unsavoury use of the "wheel chair joke" to gain sympathy. A method he admits to use consciously on your talkpage, in spite of the fact the he claims it to be a "joke" on his talkpage. However, what concerns me most is that he still fails to grasp ], like , something for which he has recently been by ] who refers to . He barely saved himself from a huge block by me by turning an insult into a . I would rather see an admin babysitting Spawn Man, an admin who would deal out time-limited blocks whenever he fails to be polite. However, rather than shouldering that responsibility myself, I would recommend ] next time.--] 08:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


:I appreciate his contributions, enthusiasm and his friendship, such that it is. I do not appreciate his behaviour at times, as in the examples you provide. But I'd like to think, overall, his good qualities outweigh his bad (I also noticed his Oriental retelling of "The Parable Of The Spoons", but had no idea it saved him from a block). So far he has kept his vow. I take this as a positive sign and that there is no need for him to be "babysat" by anyone yet. But should it come to that, might I recommend ] for this task? Should he be confirmed as admin and if he is willing? He has SM's trust and respect. He also hasnt crossed him yet, as we have, and seems a lot more patient with him than we are. --] 18:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::It sounds like a good idea.--] 19:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==]/]/]/et al.==
Consolidated list, principal accounts in '''bold'''.

*{{user|12.72.78.30}}
*'''{{user|155.84.57.253}}'''
*{{user|201.240.119.26}}
*{{user|203.61.246.14}}
*{{user|211.30.26.251}}
*'''{{user|24.0.91.81}}'''
*{{user|38.114.48.102}}
*{{user|38.114.52.98}}
*{{user|68.115.183.34}}
*{{user|70.252.26.105}}
*{{user|AnimalFarm1}}
*'''{{user|Can'tStandYa}}'''
*{{user|CantStandYa}} (still in use)
*{{user|CaptainJackWill}}
*{{user|DadoCut}}
*{{user|DonnaReed}}
*{{user|EinBerliner}}
*{{user|Katrina&TheWaves}}
*{{user|KnightsOfMalta}}
*{{user|LesbianLatke}}
*{{user|LittleDeadBuddy}}
*{{user|LordCornwall}}
*{{user|N1Arch1}}
*{{user|OberstKlink}}
*{{user|ObsoleteMedia}}
*{{user|Prohibit0nions}} (Note: '''not''' ], but an impostor)
*{{user|Quadralobal}}
*{{user|Seka'sBreathMints}}
*'''{{user|Shran}}'''
*{{user|Smegmann}}
*{{user|Stalingrad}}
*{{user|TonyTheTerrier}}
*{{user|WehrWolf}}
*{{user|YvaBraun}}

An editor who clearly exhibits a consistent editing pattern and other tell-tales has been using a variety of usernames and IP addresses. His use of multiple accounts in order to edit the same articles, or vote for deletions turned to sock puppetry. I bring this to other admins' attention in order to invite additional input to this this editor, whom I hope can learn to work in more collegial manner. He undoubtedly makes many useful contributions, but his prediliction to sock puppetry ought to be curbed. His past incarnations have included:
*''see above''
The editor is particularly given to editing lists, and articles on guns, Iceland, "Ich Bin Ein Berliner"/donuts, Battlestar Galactica/Star Trek (and other sci-fi), vampires/werewolves, the Cold War, the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as a variety of other articles. This is not a vandal, but perhaps an editor who can become more helpful to the project. -] 07:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Credit goes to Willmcw for finding the pattern in this confusing mess. I've been posting notes on any number of his or her user talk pages and article talk pages trying to get in touch with him regarding his "dispute" on ]. But instead the article gets reverted by one new sockpuppet after another almost daily... This is quite odd. Every editor who has shown such dedication to any goal on Misplaced Pages uses the talk pages, often to the point of soap-boxing. I can't figure out any way to explain this behavior. ] | ] 07:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add some more user names to the above list. If Willmcw wants to combine these with his list, that's fine by me:

*''see above''

I'm certain there's more, but that's all I've got for now. See also ]. --] | ] 09:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:There are at least a dozen additional usernames that are suspicious but they take more time to pursue than I want to invest. The same user was recently reported at ], where several more usernames are listed. Now that we've identified the problem, what's the solution? -] 07:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Both ] and myself have attempted to establish a dialogue with the user to no effect. I suggest we try again, documenting our attempts on the active user talk page, which at this time appears to be {{user|CantStandYa}}; I see you've already left a message. --] | ] 09:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:I've added the usernames from the ] entry and consolidated the lists above. I'm sure it's not complete, but it's indicative. -] 08:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks, Willmcw, for sorting that out. There were a couple of names in the preliminary list I came up with that were probably innocent bystanders, and it looks like you've figured out which were which and found many more. I would tend to agree with you that this person could possibly still be turned into a useful Wikipedian; he or she seems to have both free time and a certain amount of energy.

::However, one sockpuppet that wasn't listed is ], which this person has used it to impersonate me. (I've added it to the above list.) I'd be glad to see that username blocked. ] 10:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==Admin ]==
* 03:17 ] Redwolf24's candidate statement, running for the Arbitration Committee in December 2005 includes the phrasing ''my proudest contribution is getting the medcom on wheels''
* 19:45 ] Guettarda notices
* 03:44 ] Redwolf24 replies
* 03:43, 6 October 2005 ] ] moved to ] ''(Revealing my true identity)'' (revert)

I'm not familiar with "getting X on wheels" as an English idiom. Unless this is regional slang (a google reference would help here), it seems Redwolf24 is just teasing us with an intentional choice of words and a small prank. He's joking about carrying a bomb in his luggage at airport security, and I'm just the humorless drone writing it down in the incidents log.

I realized though that I had no idea, offhand, what to do if we ever had an enemy-within emergency. Good bookmarks include ] and ], however the latter points out that if an urgent de-adminship is ever required, the best thing to do is to contact a developer on the #wikimedia-tech IRC channel. By the way, it turns out that admins can delete pages even when blocked (though they can't move them). I can picture at least one reason why that's not a good thing. -- ] 08:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:They can also unblock themselves, so it's really a moot point. I'd personally like to see blocks disable all modifications to wikipedia, including rollback/protection/blocking and even self unblocking. That way we could respond more quickly to admins gone bad or hijacked accounts, and should things ever become so bad that admins start blocking eachother for dishonourable reasons without there being anyone not reasonable enough to unblock them again we've lost already anyway. I see no problem with technically enforcing the no-self-unblocks rule. --]] 08:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::I for one, have questioned the admin self-unblock feature, though I was ignored :) I still feel strongly about it being disabled. If I get blocked for something, reguardless of reason, I would expect to be unblocked for a good one, not just because I was able. The ability doesn't give the right. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 09:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'd tend to agree. The ability to unblock yourself seems particularly silly, but a blocked admin should really find themselves in the same position as any other blocked user; just able to edit their own talk page. One rule for everyone is a decent enough motto. ] | ] 09:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::It's not an entirely moot point. In an emergency, you could simply do continuous blocking (one per second if necessary, or multiple admins tag-teaming) until a steward could be contacted. If the block itself has no effect, however, there's no point. -- ] 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::The ability to unblock oneself is probably needed as a failsafe sanity measure. With a block bot I suspect I could block all admins on the English wikipedia within 60 seconds or less. -- ] 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Well then I know what you will be doing on April's Fools day :) Chances of a rouge admin or compromised admin account running a block bot are fairly slim I think. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 09:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Just to add that the unblocking yourself feature is useful when one finds oneself blocked as a result of an block on a dynamic or proxy IP that causes collateral damage, which I have suffered on a number of occasions just this last couple of weeks alone. --] (] • ]) 09:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::::That's not an unblock of yourself though, that's an unblock of an IP; you could still disallow unblocking yourself as a user. I'd be fine with both being prevented though. Regular editors manage to get unblocked when they get collateralled just fine, admins should be quite able to cope. --]] 14:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Failsafe's are easy, just allow self-unblocking when more than 50% of the admins are blocked or something. --]] 14:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:Actually, "getting X on wheels" is a pretty common American expression. I've said it: "Hey, let's get this thing on wheels." It means "let's move," or, in the context Redwolf used it in "got it moving." --] | ] 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Not that I want to reopen this after it's died down, but "get this thing on wheels" gets only 9 distinct hits on Google (for comparison "get this thing on track" and "get this thing rolling" get hundreds). I hadn't heard of it. -- ] 22:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I wasn't saying it's the most commonly used expression around, just that, at least in the States, it's common enough that if I said it I'd be understood and I wouldn't be given any funny looks. --] | ] 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

*If you want to actually say something about self-unblocking to devs, ] is the place to do so. ] 14:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh - the "X on wheels" is a willy on wheels reference, y'know :). ] <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 09:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:Yes of course. The point is, he intentionally made the reference... while applying for arbitration committee membership. Just file it under ] and ]. -- ] 09:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

'''This is absofuckingloutely ridiculous'''. RedWolf24 is a great admin, one of the best. Calling him into question on a totally innocent question is nothing but pure and utter bullshit. ] 14:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:What's truly fascinating is that, because the comment was made ''after'' he moved my talk page, I never got the orange bar. If I hadn't seen this I would probably still not know. I find it terribly funny. ] 14:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:Well, to me it seems quite immature, and will probably constitute a shot in the foot as regards his ArbCom candidacy, but I don't think it necessitates any further action. &mdash; ] | ] 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::Look, it was a response to a joke that I made, it was among friends, it did not disrupt Misplaced Pages, it was restricted to the user space, it was a clever response to my jest...does no-one around here have a sense of humour? The only "injured party" here was Essjay, and I very much doubt he was terribly upset by the extra work. Chalk it up to ] and leave it at that please. ] 15:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:I too realized it was a joke, but felt it was one best reverted (for the sake of anyone who might drop by Guettearda's page and not know what was going on). It wasn't that much work, and I blocked Red for 17 seconds (a la Jimbo re: Boothy443) to remind him to be careful of what he does, and received a playful 17 second block back (which I don't mind at all, so don't make a big deal out of it). I felt, and continue to feel, that "Medcom on wheels" was an innocent colloquialism, and that the inside joking between Guettarda and Red was innocent and frankly, funny. We have to have a sense of humor here: If we take every action seriously and catastrophize it into the most nefarious plot possible (i.e., one of our more prolific admins is really WOW) then we will very quickly start to lose valuable contributors over molehills made into mountains. '''This should not become another RickK.''' -- ] · ] 18:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::I concur with Essjay. It was silly, and RC patrol was probably alarmed for a bit about the possibility of a doppelganger, so perhaps it wasn't the best thought-out joke. Essjay reverted it, no further mayhem occurred, no harm done, certainly not worth anything more than a reminder not to make the RC patrollers drop their coffeemugs in worry when they don't know about the joke. ] ] 00:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

*This incident reminds me of ]'s ] in which he appeared to clinch an easy promotion, but vandalised the featured article of the day as a joke. In reaction, many people in droves changed their vote to oppose, forcing TBSDY to withdraw. Question is, should Redwolf24 be forced to withdraw too after this incident? ] ] 19:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*:Hell no. When TBSDY vandalized the article of the day, a large number of people were harmed. When RedWolf24 moved Guettarda's userpage, nobody was harmed. There's a big difference here. --] 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*::I remember the "incident" and the 17 second block, I also remember laughing very hard. As stated above, and especially by the invovled party, multiple ''readers'' were not effected by this, and it was in user namespace. It's not much different then the April Fools pranks admins pulled, except this was lowkey. This action would not influence any comments I may or may not make on his ArbCom. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

*This is truly unbelievable. An inside joke turning into being mentioned at AN/I. There was no harm to anyone, and if I was WoW, I'd move a lot bigger game than a friend's user page! Its ridiculous how a feeble attempt at humor can make someone do all this. I apologize for trying to make someone laugh, now let's get back to writing an encyclopedia <s>on wheels!</s>? ]]] (]) 22:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
** Gee, people... there was no harm done at all (well, there was a little bit of harm done to me last night, see :P), but let's think about this. Guettarda made a joke, Redwolf joked back, and both laughed it off. Redwolf is a respectable admin, but come on, does that mean that he is not allowed to have harmless fun with his friend, who didn't care a bit about the joke? ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 22:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

*I have withdrawn my arbcom support, as arbcom members should be humorless apparently. Though the particular people I'm voting for are rather humorous, as I believe color is always good. Sorry for all of you who I've offended and made feel unsafe (airport bomb? yeh, that makes people feel unsafe. WoW? If you think I really am WoW, then I apologize profusely for scaring you.) Cheers. ]]] (]) 22:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
**Does the ArbCom voting form have a spot for write-in votes? --] 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::oh feck.] 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:"I saw ] with the Goody Parker! I saw Redwolf24 dancin' with Willy on Wheels! ] save us all! Burn ], burn the witch!" People, '''please.''' -- ] · ] 23:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

'''CONGRATULATIONS: You got what ].''' I hope you're happy now. I have half a mind to go with him. -- ] · ] 23:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:Oh feckety feck &mdash; ] ] 23:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:: What is going on? Is there some sort of ] currently underway or what? Let's remember that in order to make an encyclopedia we need people, and people have a sense of humor that shouldn't be repressed, lest we want to bore contributors and drive them away. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 00:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::: Totally agreed. Sometimes I feel that wikipedia is going insane. This is one of those times. &mdash; ] ] 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::: <s>This entire thing is ridiculous and borders on abuse of AN/I</s> actually scratch that it is abuse of AN/I, it was a joke, granted it may not have been the best joke since Willy On Wheels is not known really outside the admin and recent changes patrol circles but it was still just a joke and didn't at the beginning and doesn't now merit posting on AN/I. I must say that I am very dissapointed with certain editors and the community in general on this one. <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 01:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am appalled that people would take such an obvious joke so seriously. If Guettarda really gave a damn, he would have said something about it. And Guettarda obviously found humor in this. I see nothing wrong with administrators (or rather, any users) messing around in the user space, so long as everyone involved agrees that it's in jest, and it doesn't affect other users. This did neither. A few contributors who are a little too tight-assed about things have led to one of the best admins I know on Misplaced Pages to take a Wikibreak. I know some people were pissed over April Fool's jokes, but none of them were threatened with de-adminship, and their pranks were a lot more visible than Redwolf24's. Let's remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, but let's also remember that things like this don't disrupt it at all, and are part of what makes Misplaced Pages fun. <font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <font color="blue">]</font> 02:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:I see RedWolf24 getting a lot of support in this thread, and so he should, as a conscientious, hardworking admin who played a joke '''in the userspace'''! Red, come baaack! And get your butt back on the ArbCom election page, I want to vote for ya! ] | ] 03:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just got up to speed on this whole thing, and frankly, I'm disgusted. Sure, WoW is an asshole, but it's in NO WAY comparable to joking about a bomb in an airport--no way in hell. I had noticed the comment on Red's talk page, and laughed, but it wasn't until I saw Essjay's page that my blood really started to boil. Why in the world would you think that Redwolf24, a great contributor, and even greater admin, would be Willy On Wheels. It's a fucking ], people, I mean Jesus H. Christ! It's not so much that people can't take a joke (which they obviously can't), but that this seems to definately be a time when the community has overreacted. Redwolf was vastly ahead in his Rf], and this simple fact has made him leave? I'm disgusted, and I hope you all are too. -<nowiki>]]]|]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> <sup><nowiki>] | ]<nowiki>]]</nowiki></sup><sub> 03:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)</sub>

Guys, let's not start finger-pointing here. One decent admin taking a break is bad-enough; we don't need to chase off any more, especially when all of this is a '''huge misunderstanding'''. OK, we've come to a consensus already. Do we need to continue to express our outrage that will do nothing but irritate some of the above admins? I urge everybody to take a deep breath, and calm down. On that same note, I urge that no one else posts on this thread; there is simply no need to increase the already too-high antagonism. Thanks! ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] </small>| ]<sub>] </sub> 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Um, my comment must have gotten lost in an edit conflict, but I pretty much was going to say what Flcelloguy just posted. Ok, it's a joke, we all understand, it's not a big deal, so let's go back to writing an encyclopedia. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 03:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Some of you please go back to the top of this section and ''carefully read what I actually wrote''. The first paragraph is about Redwolf24, the second is a what-if scenario that does not mention him, which led to some useful discussion. Before protesting about overreacting, please consider carefully if you yourself aren't doing so. -- ] 04:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a typo: for "even required", read "ever required". -- ] 04:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... it was a joke. A joke. Nothing wrong. If Redwolf still runs for Arbcom I fully intend to vote for him. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is stupid, but Redwolf didnt move the page, it was Essjay. ]]] ] 01:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

===Admin abilities while blocked===
this should help, a sub-topic heading. Acutually I did forget to comment on the ability to delete pages while blocked. I think this is much worse than being able to unblock oneself. Say we did have a rogue admin, this ability defeats the purpose of blocking someone, even if they could still unblock themselves, they could easily be blocked again. The damage that one could do while blocked and deleting pages far outweighs the need to keep this ability. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 04:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:It's happened once. They were shut down pretty fast. Rogue admins are not really enough of a problem to need to worry about.] 07:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::Think of it like you think of a smoke detector. Fires aren't really much of a problem, and I don't expect them become a problem in the future, but it's a safe feeling to have one around anyway. --]] 07:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Ok, that one confused me :) Safe to have the ability, or no? Maybe safe to be able to unblock yourself, but not much need to delete things while blocked. IMHO. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 07:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::::Ehm, I meant: I don't expect that an admin gone mad or compromised account will every become such a huge problem that the half-an-hours wait for a dev causes serious trouble, but I'd just as soon we were able to block admins right away. --]] 07:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::I agree, IF it ever happens, again, a block should be able to solve the problem, w/o waiting on a dev. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 07:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::Do we even need a dev to work on this? We can always ask a bureaucrat for emergency, temporary de-sysopping if it ever came to this. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 22:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Minor point, but we'd need to find a ] to do that. Bureaucrats are the only (?) class of user who cannot undo their own actions. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Wow, I didn't know that. You learn something new every day... but still, you don't need to bug the devs. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 00:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:I suggest that an admin should be able to unblock any other user while blocked, but not unblock themselves, or use any other admin powers. That should satisfy any problem with one admin gone mad and blocking all others.] 08:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::Sounds like a good idea, but I don't think we should be too bothered about it if it'd mean a lot of work for the devs. After all prevention of ever promoting a rogue admin is better than any cure. Another point - page deletions can be undone, but image deletions can't so I think that would be the biggest problem. ] ] 09:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Note that ther is also the possibility of an admin's account being hacked. I think it really makes sense that a block should actually '''block''' an admin from almost all use of admin poswers. If this is tricky to implemet, it may not be worth the trouble, but if it is fairly easy, it should IMO be done. ] ] 00:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

De minimis desipio ] 02:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

=== Back to Redwolf24 ===

I think its worth stating here at this AN/I a few things:

1) I hold no grudge against Curps for reporting this<br>
2) I'd like to thank those who defended me... <br>
3) I have reentered the arbcom race after the constant prodding of a few people. Who knows, maybe 'any publicity is good publicity' ;-)<br>
4) I'm back from my rather short break. I knew I wouldn't be able to make the break too long as I still have ] to watch over.<br>
5) Perhaps its worth noting that I planned on running for bureaucrat October 20th. Unlike the arbcom run, this whole ordeal can hurt me because some annoyed people can oppose me. As for the arbcom, opposition votes don't exist, but of course I may have lost a voter, though I doubt those opposing me were gonna vote for me in the first place.

Comments always appreciated. Cheers, ]]] (]) 05:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

==]==

Just blocked this anon for persistent vandalism of, amongst other pages, ]. I also noted that number 10 on his list was Pope Willie on Wheels. Just thought I'd mention it if anyone has the time/inclination to investigate further. ] | ] 14:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:This may or may not be related, but there's been some recent vandals creating new pages with "Pope <insert profanity/offensive name>" and redirecting the page to either ] or ]. Check (scroll down to the middle), and you'll see that I deleted a series of pages like that that {{vandal|131.111.8.103}} had created. (Unfortunately, 131.111.8.103 is a shared IP address) One of the created pages was ]. Also, it should be noted that all of the pages I deleted had been created before by {{vandal|80.47.40.144}} the day before. Just be on the lookout if someone creates a "Pope _______" page. Thanks! ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] </small>| ]<sub>] </sub> 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::Come to think of it, I just noticed that {{vandal|131.111.131.88}} and {{vandal|131.111.8.103}} are both probably the same person, given the similarity of IP addresses. It's a shared IP, though. ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] </small>| ]<sub>] </sub> 15:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Has now become ], whose user page consists of the statement "For every item of vandalism I find, I will create one item myself, thus ensuring vandalism homeostasis, while at the same time having good drunken fun.". One to watch. ] | ] 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::::I don't see why we have to wait for any further vandalism, I've blocked indef. --]] 07:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::OK, but my guess is that they'll be back. I'm going to add some more pope-related pages to my watchlist (the things vandals make us do!). ] | ] 07:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, that's always the problem with blocking usernames. I can't wait until someone implements the "edits by blocked users only get show to the blocked edit themselves (and the user isn't told they're blocked)" feature in mediawiki. --]] 07:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure I followed that. --] | ] 22:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

== String Theory Article missing / vandalized ==

The String Theory Article page is missing / vandalized.
I am a newbie and didn't want to risk doing the vandal reporting incorrectly.
Thank you.

:It appears that ] was hit by a pair of ]. The problem has been corrected by another Wikipedian. If you find a similiar problem in the future, ] provides the procedure to restore the information removed by simple vandals. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

==Odd warning about alleged sockpuppets==
I recieved a msg on my talk page from ], in . This user seemed to be alleging a mass invasion of sock puppets. The only name he gave that seems to be an actual wikipedia user account was that of ] whio I have never interacted with, but seems to be a well established and respected editor. Later ] blanked his own msg with the comment "''I removed it because I relised that the person and all there accounts had been removed a little later."''. I am not sure what is going on here, and I would welcome advice from one or more more experienced admins. Is this something I need to take action on? Did I miss something here? I responded to Adam1213 in . Thnak you. ] ] 16:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:There was a sock invasion a little while back by someone that didn't much care for Linuxbreak and created many accounts like "Linuxbreak sucks", etc. Unless there is something else recent, I believe that has all been entirely dealt with. ] 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

== Deleting The Sexy Sluts ==

Dear Administrators,

We feel it is unfair of PFHLai and Fawcett5

(http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Undelete/The_Sexy_Sluts)

to delete the profile description of our band. Although our name may sound perverse, I assure you we are an actual band. You can view our profile on myspace
(http://www.myspace.com/thesxysluts) and hear our music if you must verify that we actually exist. We make music to make people happy, please let us on Misplaced Pages.

Sincerely,

The Sexy Sluts

:Hi. The article was not deleted due to doubt that you are a band. It was deleted due to lack of any claim of notability. In order to be an encyclopedic article your band must have significant claim to fame. In addition, it is inappropriate to add your own band to Misplaced Pages. This is considered ] and ]. Please don't take this as any slight against your band. (They don't have an article on my band either...) - ]]] 18:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:Did this go through AfD or was it speedied? ] 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::] is a red link, so it looks like a speedy. ] ] 19:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:::(Edit conflict) The deletion log suggests it was speedied for having little content other then a link. Would userfying it satisfy everyone that no harm was done? ] ] 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::(after edit conflict) The deletion log shows:
**13:14, 6 October 2005 PFHLai deleted "The Sexy Sluts" (spam ad)
**12:36, 6 October 2005 Fawcett5 deleted "The Sexy Sluts" (No assertion of notability, mostly just a link)
::Looks like it was speedy deleted twice, and it looks like neither was a valid speedy. OTOH this looks highly unlikley to survive AfD, so I hesitate to taske it to VfU. ] ] 19:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
::Specifically it looks like a classic article about a band that does not meet ]. However, it does not look like the kind of spam that is vandalism IMO, and the band speedy proposal failed. ] ] 19:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Don't take it to VFU. The article does not provide sufficient context for undeletion. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 22:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*It was an obvious speedy. The "spam" speedy isn't there just for allnatrlv1agr@.com. It's for anything that is simply an external link. Those who believe in administrator discretion (such as Tony) should also believe in admin discretion on what constitutes "content" before the link. If the purpose of the article is advertising ''and'' there is simply a link, ''then'' it is a speedy spam. If it is advertising but there is a lot of text, then it is an AfD. I'm not sure where this sudden trend of calling speedies "bad" and "inappropriate" came from -- especially when people want to claim that they can undelete because admins have no need to consult (and the corollary argument is that they have the ability to delete without consultation), but "spam" is one of those speedy guidelines that has a lot of latitude in it to start with. I don't mind folks disagreeing with a speedy, but calling it "bad" is unnecessary and contentious. ] 15:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It was an obvious invalid speedy, but I don't feel moved to undelete it and I doubt whether any other admin will. --]] 05:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

*There is no "spam speedy". A1 didn't apply to this case as there was ample context to determine what the article is about. A3 didn't apply as there were several sentances of text in addition to a singel link. teh CSD says "''Any article whose contents consist '''only''' of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title.''" (my emphasis). As far as i can see, even a single sentance of text that is not one of the above means this criterion does not apply. A7 didn't apply because this was about a group, not asingle person. G1 clearly didn't apply, as this was quite coherent text. G3 is for "Pure vandalism". This looks like a reasoanbly good faith effort, albiet by a contributor who does not fully understand what content is welcome and what is not. I would have voted to delete this on AfD, but I think it is simply out of line to speey delete it, becaue no speedy criterion applies to it. I would like to take this to VfU for a ruling that this is not a valid use of speedy deletion, but the problem is that i don't really want it undelted, and i can't see any way this would ever survive AfD. This really is the kind of thing that a band-speedy criterion would be good for. ] ] 16:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
**There is a spam speedy. ] defines spam as vandalism, and vandalism is a G3 speedy. It relies on external links rather than other content, however. I presume A3 is intended to derive from that, but doesn't actually say so and also specifies ''"single"'' whereas WP:VAND is plural. I'm wikilawyering, but the point is that spam ''is'' speedyable. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*Note that I am calling these speedy deletion's "invalid" or "incorrect", not "bad". I presume that ] belives, and the deleting admins belevied, in good faith, that this speedy was proper. I ask if they can carefully reread ] and still think so, adn i ask them to accpt that unlike many procedural policies here, CSD has and should have very little wiggle room, because it bypasses consensus. IMO if a page is not clearly covered by the wording of the CSD, it should '''not''' be speedy deleted, no matter how obvious it is that it doesn't belong here, or that it will eventually be deleted by AfD. ] ] 16:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
**Yes, my beef is with Tony and others who feel that administrator priviledges should be used to undelete just about anything, without using VfU, because there is such technical latitude, but that administrators who used the same latitude to delete something are "obviously bad." That's the invocation of a petty squabble on another front and yet another attempt to expand the supposed "deletionist/inclusionist" bull flop. I never mind disagreement, nor disagreement that goes through the procedures, but the attempts to create political parties and posture as the heroes of factions is destructive. (And, incidentally, I ''wouldn't'' have pulled the trigger on this article, although it is one of those that can only fail on <s>V</s>AfD. ] 12:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

==Weird edits for ]==
Can anyone figure out what this user is up to? --] 03:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*What user? {{user|Jamie Wales}} doesn't seem to exist. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be <span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; )</span>. He redirected ]'s user page, hardly the usual first edit of an actual newbie, not to mention the vague impostorship. -- ] 03:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Ahh. Yea, I would think impostor, or maybe an actual real name? Seeings they didn't do anything else, yet. <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 03:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Err, I meant "yet" in the sense of, before they were blocked, of course :) <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 03:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

*That's funny. I was under the impression that all possible variations of Jimbo's name are unavailable as accounts—seem to remember reading that either here or on WP:AN. ]] 06:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
**Yeah, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis though, generally speaking. You should probably be able to have either "Jimmy" or "Wales" as part of the name, but anything that looks much like a combination of the two probably shouldn't be allowed. ] 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
***I'd agree with that view, especially in regards "Jimmy". ]] 07:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
***How about ]? ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 19:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==Watch this dude==
] has just been unblocked. He was blocked for spamming, but he promises he will not do it again. Keep an eye on him, and if he breaks his promise, slam him. --] ] 05:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

== User:Rhyddfrydol ==
This user has uploaded hundreds of images from Flags of the World and Flags.net/World Flag Database. However, both websites have come out and said that their images are non-commercial, which has been illegal since May of 2005. and . I have been going through and tagged these images for speedy deletion, but I call on all users who are familiar with either site to help me in the tagging. If there is any other problems like this related to this user, a block for trying to get our website in legal issues should be in order. ] ] 06:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:"trying to get our website in legal trouble"? Whatever happened to ]? (Or even ]?) The user has only been around since the end of August, was only notified of the ban on non-commercial images five minutes before the above was posted, and hasn't logged in for two weeks. Why even ''suggest'' blocking now? &#8212;]] 07:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Jimbo said we could block for presistant copyvio infractions, so that was why I posted the warning. If I guess he not going to be here now, I will just speedy all of his images. ] ] 07:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::If the copyright violations were indeed '']''&mdash;if the user kept on uploading copyvio images after being warned and asked nicely to stop&mdash;then blocking would be fine. Threatening it before the user has (in all probability) even seen the warning is simply heavy-handed. The same goes for speedying ''all'' of the user's images; checking to make sure that they actually do violate copyright, or conflict with image use policies, is certainly in order. &#8212;]] 07:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I belong to both websites, and they have made it clear that their images are for non-commercial and, in FOTW's case, for non-political use. that non-commercial images are not allowed on Misplaced Pages after May of 2005, so I am not only following Jimbo's order, but also the wishes of the websites that I work for. ] ] 07:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::That's nice. It doesn't actually address any of the main issues he raised, but it shows that you're ''very'' good at following orders unquestioningly. --] | ] 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*Just speedy anything that infringes copyright and wait with blocking unless they ignore the warning. - ]|] 10:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
**Ok MGM. ] ] 16:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

* I am on wikibreak, and somehow just foolish enough to come by and read AN/I. Zach and everyone who supported him have just commited a massive (if well-intentioned) error. The statements of FOTW and WFD not withstanding, they and their users have absolutely no sustainable claim to copyright over the image of a flag produced in the standard colors, with the standard symbols and in the standard dimensions. Such a recreation lacks any semblance of the requisite creativity to substain a copyright claim in the US. The only possible entity with a copyright claim is the nation or organization that created the flag, <s>and unless they have been defending that claim they have almost certainly defaulted on any protection long ago.</s> That is to say nothing of the multitude of fair use claims that could be made for a flag. They all should have been tagged {{tl|PD-flag}} and welcomed into Misplaced Pages. Zach, since you belong to both websites, feel free to inform them that their claims over such images are absurd on their face and entirely unsustainable in US courts. ] 03:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
**The above is probably correct except for one minor point -- unlike trademark adn patent claims, copyright owners do '''not''' lose protection by failure to assert claims. A copyright owner can slumber on infringments for decades, adn then asert his or her rights, and be upheld -- the inaction is irrelevant. Whether there is a copyright claim will depend on the laws and practices of the various countries involved. Whether ther is a fiar use claim depends on US law (and I am pretty sure that there is a good one). ] is 100% correct that FOTW and WFD have no claim to the flag images, as oppsoed to any supporting text or other '''original''' work. Therefore, their terms of use have no force or importance. ] ] 03:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
***As for the fair use stuff, that was one of the reasons why I moved PD-flag to {{tl|Flagimage}}, because of all of these various copyright issues. Plus, even if we claim images under fair use, they still '''cannot''' be allowed due to the '''non-commercial''' licenses both websites have put on ther images. That is the heart of the issue, and frankly, if Misplaced Pages said that we cannot have non-commercial only images, then they have to go. Also, in order for an image to be fair use, the image has to credit the source. Many of the images were not crediting either website, which makes it not eligable for fair use. Plus, I also received complaints from FOTW members about their images being used on here, which means that they want their images gone. If I was not tagging these images myself, others would have. I will still continue to tag images using both templates until I make sure I got everyone of them tagged. ] ] 03:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
****That's nice and all, but they have no legal claim for their images to be protected, and hence the non-commercial clause and their wishes are entirely unenforcable. Oh and by the way, you knew the source, so you could have credited it. ] 04:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
******Thanks to some outside help, there was an edit by the host of the Flags.net website on {{tl|Flags.net}} that gave us permission to use his images. Though this is good for now, I personally think we should get more graphic artists in so we could try to replace all images with free versions (ones we created ourself) as fast as humanly possible. ] ] 21:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

== Seduction selfpromo ==
After having his article removed and not being able to get it undeleted {{user|DutchSeduction}} is now havign a go at inserting his stuff in ]. Could someone else have a go at removing it please? Thanks. --]] 07:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==Semi-good spam==
Could another admin take a look at the from ]. Technically this looks like ] and I would ordinarily revert the lot of them. However, the publication seems to be a subsiduary of ] and its more or less a good cause, perhaps some links should stay. -- ] 11:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

== Reversion of spelling corrections ==

(See ])<br>
While I await a clarification from fvw, could someone shine their light on the edit in the HD question and explain what's going on? - ]|] 11:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Someone already replied on the HD. But the anon is (thought to be) Skyring, a currently banned user who is to be reverted on sight. We don't make exceptions because, when we do, there are fights over what can and can't be reverted when it is done by a banee. My understanding is that, if another editor wants the reverted edit to stand, they should make it themselves. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::***Could someone go over the rest of his edits in all his many guises and change them back please? He made a lot of spelling corrections , for example. It's probably worth someone keeping an eye on him to stop him making good edits. He probably thinks it's funny to see admins intentionally reverting back to mistakes to prove a point.
*Okay, I've made the edits myself, although I think my intial revert to the correctly spelled version shouldn't have been reverted. Skyring's edits might be reverted on sight, I hope mine aren't. - ]|] 14:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*More adventures in crazy-land. Misplaced Pages, the wiki where you aren't allowed to fix typos. What if I just say I take responsibility for all Skyring's typo corrections and that way when you see him make one, you will know that I'm vouching for it and thus not revert it? ] 04:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:Hey, maybe it's another administrator conspiracy!
:In any case, here's a story: New York City used to have a problem with graffiti on subway cars: they dealt with it by a zero-tolerance policy, immediately pulling out of service trains with any graffitti to scrub away the vandals's work. This caused a lot of short-term aggravation, but eventually the vandals, their pathetic bids for ego-boosting attention frustrated, went away. Just an observation, but if Everyking wants to enable some troll's crusade, he should knock himself out. --] | ] 05:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
::Skyring is not a vandal by any stretch of the imagination, but actually a very good editor. This is actually all about a personality feud, and I think it's completely insane to let a personality feud get in the way of making quality edits to improve the product we're here to create. ] 06:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:::''...actually a very good editor.'' That's a strange new meaning of "good" I wasn't previously aware of. Let's see:
::::*sanctioned by ArbCom
::::*overweening sense of entitlement and of immunity from rules
::::*makes proactive attempts to provoke other editors
::::*makes strained logical arguments, in the face of overwhelming opposition, in support of minority opinions
:::So what is it about this guy that makes you sympathetic to him, anyways? If this guy fell in to a black hole tomorrow, Misplaced Pages would chug along just fine without his help. --] | ] 08:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

== ] ==

Whilst I'm not taken in by the statement on the user page, it does claim to be used by 5 users. After consulting on IRC (not something I normally allow to take precedence over on-Wiki), I have indef blocked the account. Two principal reasons:
#It is impossible to reliably attribute the edits to the people making them, as the GFDL demands;
#Such an account can be used for simultaenous vandalism attacks (not present from this account).

Also, their edits to date (about 30 minutes of them) are more than a little trollish (insisting heavy handedly that an allegedly POV page must be deleted unless blah blah). That alone isn't grounds to block of course.

I think this block is appropriate, but I'd like someone on-Wiki to check for me. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:If I understand correctly you're saying the user(s) have admitted to allowing multiple individuals to use the account? By all means block until they agree to individual accounts. ] disallows "public accounts". ]] 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Either this is a role account, or an anti-Microsoft satirical troll. Either way, the block is appropriate, even if the justification in official policy is slim. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 19:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::It gives the impression that we let Microsoft regulate us. We don't. I very much doubt it is Microsoft, though. ]</nowiki>]] 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::: The block is appropriate, Splash. If they really want to contribute, there shouldn't be any problem getting an individual account, is there? ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 04:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

== ] ==
This guy's impersonating Tim. Vandalized ] (I reverted), ] (already rev), and WP:VIP (already rev). Block please. ]] 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Done: indef. block by ]. ] 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Yup, thanks guys. ]] 19:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

==Archive This Page==

Anyone patient wanna archive? 245KB now - ] 21:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'll do it. ]]<i> 22:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)</i>

==Admin spamming with complaint==
Admin spamming makes me raise an eyebrow. If someone thinks they can resolve this newbie's problem or error without biting unduly, feel free.

<pre>To: David Gerard dgerard#gmail.com
From: EKBK treegirl1#hotmail.com

Hi!
Help! I have been unfairly blocked and am seeking administrators to
assist me! If you care to check out the history you will see procedure
wasn't followed, and no proof given for blocking me. The person even
blocked my user page! It isn't fair, so I am emailing as many admin as
I can! There is strength in numbers, and this is now a matter of
principle. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
EKBK
206.176.211.72</pre>

- ] 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be {{Userblock|EKBK}} who was unhappy about being blocked by ] --] ] 23:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:This is a sock puppet, or at best, a meat puppet, of ], who has also edited as {{User|Go Cowboys}}, {{User|Professor Stevens}}, {{User|Felice L'Angleterre}}, as well as perhaps a dozen open proxies. He's been causing trouble at ] since July, leading to the page being protected twice, an RfC, and an RfAr. More details at ], ], and on Angela's talk page. I've blocked all but one of the sockpuppets indefinitely. {{User|Black Angus}} is almost certainly Zephram too, but is still operating.

:EKBK has e-mailed me to say s/he is not Zephram. We weren't able to sort the issue out by e-mail, so I've offered to discuss it by IM, but s/he hasn't yet replied to that suggestion. I'd say there's no reasonable doubt that EKBK is Zephram, or is a friend of his who's been asked to help with his trolling. But I'll continue to discuss it with him or her anyway. S/he's already admitted to me that s/he has another, older Misplaced Pages account, so s/he can presumably continue editing with that. The fuss s/he's making about the EKBK account is just an attempt to cause trouble. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::The IP listed in the email above (]) has made only one edit (19:09, 11 July 2005) . This edit reverted to Zephram's version of the ] article 15 minutes before he was blocked for violating the 3RR on that page. The anonymous edit was made over a month before the EKBK account made its first edit (22 August 2005). This is either an amazing coincidence or, much more likely, EKBK is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Zephram Stark. ] | ] 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I have never made any sockpuppets, nor do I have any meatpuppets. I don't think I need to say more than that. Anyone who cares to look at the IPs of the sixteen people SlimVirgin and Jayjg have blocked for expressing their opinion about about the "terrorism" article will know that addresses from all over the world could not possibly be mine. Likewise, anyone who knows how to test for ] can verify that SlimVirgin is just making this stuff up. EKBK obviously just doesn't want to be railroaded. I think that's pretty easy to understand. '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 01:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

::::Let's assume for a moment that 16 people ''were'' blocked. How would you have any information about their locations or whether they used an open proxy? Please note that I'm '''not''' talking about anon IPs, I'm referring to registered users. You'd have no way of knowing their IPs unless you had some external (outside of Misplaced Pages) knowledge about whom these users are. Only developers and David Gerard have access to IPs of registered users. Can you explain how you possess this information? ] | ] 01:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::Yes I can. I've explained this many times. The blocklist used to show IP numbers when the user tried to edit and the autoblock was enabled. It would say 141.76.1.121 has been autoblocked because it was recently used by soandso. Recently, that bug was fixed and you only see a number, but for a while Administrators used this bug to get IP numbers by blocking a person and waiting for them to try to edit.
:::::Anyone with moderate to advanced computer knowledge can test for open proxies. The article ] gives a good primer. '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

::::::Absolutely false. Autoblock has '''never''' shown an IP. A search of shows that no such bugs have ever existed. Please provide evidence to back up your claim. ] | ] 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

::::::That doesn't answer Carbonite's question. How did you know the IP addresses of the blocked user accounts? You did not get them, and could not have gotten them, from the block list. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::If that's the case, then how do you know '''''my''''' IP? '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 02:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

::::::::What makes you think I do? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::I assumed that you had at least based your accusations of knowing my IP number. My God, what did you base them on? '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 03:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

::::::::::Please answer the question that was asked: '''How do you have any knowledge of these blocked users' IP addresses?''' The most logical explanation is that you were in contact with these users outside of Misplaced Pages and asked them to show up here to support your positions. Thus far, you haven't answered the question. You've only provided false statements and attempted to change the subject. ] | ] 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::I would be happy to answer your question again, but I still have the same answer. I got the IP numbers from the block list. At one time, the IPs of many of the people that Jayjg and SlimVirgin banned (under the guise of being my sockpuppets) were on the block list. I don't know if this was a bug they fixed or what, but I don't see their IPs on the block list any more. '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

::::::::::::You are not being truthful. I've been here for nearly a year and have never seen the autoblock behavior you described. A search of shows no such bug has existed. A long time user, ] says that autoblock has not displayed the IP during the past few years (we're only concerned with the past few ''months''). Even the Chief Technical Officer of Wikimedia, ] is unaware of such a bug existing or being fixed . Zephram, I will be quite blunt here: '''you are lying'''. You know perfectly well that you didn't learn anyone's IP through autoblock. If you lie about this, why should your other claims be believed? You've now lost any credibility you had. ] | ] 16:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

::::::It would also be very helpful (for this incident and your ArbCom case) if you provided a list of the 16 people that you claim were blocked. Thanks. ] | ] 01:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::If I was told by an unbiased party that it would make any difference as to whether or not SlimVirgin was demoted, I would jump through all the hoops they want, but SlimVirgin has already ], so I don't think that's going to make any difference. Either they demote her or not. If the people she blocked aren't complaining by now, I doubt they'll come back to Misplaced Pages anyway. '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

::::::::Yes, it certainly does make a difference. You can't make claims of admin abuse and then refuse to provide a simple list of the abuses. ] | ] 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::As you can see in the ], I investigated three and she ] the rest. If anyone I trust (which would be everyone but you and your two buddies) were to tell me that it would get her demoted, I would spent the hours necessary to fully investigate every case, but is that really necessary? Everyone knows the score. The only issue is whether or not you guys are going to stick together '''''or''''' do what's right. '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 02:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

::::::::::You haven't "investigated" anything and I haven't "admitted" anything. This is more of the same crazy talk you've been spamming ] with. It's our own fault for not having a clear mechanism in place to get rid of trolls as soon as the nonsense starts. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I provided links to the evidence I found and your quote. If you want the heavens to open before you will accept that I don't have any sockpuppets, I won't be able to deliver that. '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 02:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

:If you make a claim and then fail to provide any evidence of that claim, it doesn't reflect well on you or your motives. You constantly speak of administrative abuse and oppression, but when asked to back these claims up, you're basically saying that's it's too much work. The issue now is whether you're actually willing to substantiate your accusations or you're simply looking to disrupt things. If you don't wish to fall into the latter group, then '''yes''', your investigation really is necessary. ] | ] 03:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

::I would say that the burden of proof falls on SlimVirgin. She is the one permablocking people and locking their User talk pages under the guise of being sockpuppets. Can anyone really be surprised that EKBK emailed us? What did we expect EKBK to do when SlimVirgin accused her of something that wasn't true on her User talk page and then locked it? '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 03:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

::Once again, ] is the evidence I have found so far. It is more than enough to warrant demoting her. I'll post more at the ArbCom as I find it. '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 03:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

:::That's not evidence by any stretch of the definition, it's simple reiteration of your claims. Perhaps "evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means? --] | ] 04:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

::::That's for the ] to decide. Determining an appropriate consequence for SlimVirgin in regard to her actions is not the purpose of this section. This discussion is only to determine if her actions should be undone. Should EKBK's talk page be unprotected? Should EKBK be unblocked? '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 13:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)'''''
:::::That's nice. That's not evidence by any stretch of the definition, it's simple reiteration of your claims. Perhaps "evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means? --] | ] 11:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
=====More Threats=====
::::::For the sake of clarity, the diff that Zeph keeps offering as evidence that I've blocked a dozen of his sockpuppets came in response to his comment that Go Cowboys was the 11th editor to be blocked so I replied that Felice Angleterre was going to be the 12th and Zephram himself the 13th. It was a joke. In fact, I've blocked four of his accounts: EKBK, Go Cowboys, Felice Angleterre, and Professor Stevens. Black Angus is next, and the only reason Zephram isn't blocked is that he's up before the arbcom, but I'm beginning to wonder whether that should necessarily stop me. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Is anyone listening to what SlimVirgin is saying? Is this what you want Misplaced Pages to be? SlimVirgin lost a content dispute. "]" now has a definition that conveys information ]. (I guess I will have to go look up all those blocks now that she is even denying that she did it, and denying that she ] doing it.) The dispute was over before she blocked EKBK, before she locked EKBK's user talk page, and before she threatened to block me in the post above. So why is she still at it? Why is she still permablocking people after the fact? Why is SlimVirgin still accusing people of being sockpuppets with absolutely no evidence after any conflict between her and those associated with the "terrorism" article is over? I think the answer to that question is as clear as the nose on your face. Please think about it and do the right thing. This little clique of administrators must end. '''''<font color=#00aa66>—</font> ] 19:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)'''''

== ] ==
{{vandal|Dvirgueza}} has gone on a major page-reverting spree and has been blocked. He has not bothered to reply on his talk page, and I am therefore making the block indefinite. -- ] 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this was a case of stalking and reverting all contributions by {{user|Mackeriv}} -- ] 06:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he also committed vandalism on October 6 and earlier, based on his contribution history and other users' posts on his talk page. -- ] 06:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

==Sophie/User:XAL==

This user has been sending weird-arse stuff to the AC as well. Fred Bauder looked over it and considered her so goddamn patently insane and disruptive that he blocked her username and IP indefinitely to save drawing out the agony. I find it hard to see any reason to reverse this. At least Plautus Satire could make sense for the first five minutes - ] 09:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:Apparently she's been making legal threats too, so out she goes - ] 09:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:Was this (the "weird-arse stuff") on the wiki or e-mail? If not on the wiki there's no way a block for that is justifiable (even on the wiki itself it probably wouldn't be, depending on whether it's more along the lines of abusive or just strange, but even less so off-site). Obviously the legal threat issue is more serious, but she might be convinced to retract those threats after seeing how seriously we take them. ] 09:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

::Everyking, there's a ton of it on the wiki, so never mind the other ton on e-mail. For the wiki specifically, please see . You'll see there that attempts to convince the user of, well, anything at all have been strikingly unsuccessful, note especially my reference to the mentoring attempts of ], ], ], and ]. ] | ] 10:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

::''"and disruptive"'' &mdash; check Bishonen's link above. Sophie/XAL operates in a reality completely disconnected from the rest of us, and is frustrated that no-one here will support her view of things and gets angry, abusive and disruptive. However, ] therapy - ] 11:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:::What Bishonen and David Gerard say is absolutely true. Check out the ]; not one of them is in the main namespace. All of her edits are lengthy rants, mostly made on her own talk page, and that of the ]. She simply does not listen to other users. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 18:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:I'd just like to note that I have locked ] since Xal has just been using it to rant about her agenda. <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 20:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:: I don't think that this rant will advance her agenda in any way, but in case the opinion of a French-speaking third party is need, I would like to inform you that XAL is not only making irrelevant statements completely at odds with reality (that ] never edited ], to cite a particularly blatant example among many), but also employing insults, out of place irony, and downright rude language; she notably insults David by calling his PhD a secondary school certificate.
:: I am startled by the violence of these attacks, and reporting these on the arbitration page right away. ] 21:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers to whatever overly helpful person of observably limited comprehension took it upon themselves to bowdlerise my edit. I didn't say "difficult to understand", I said "goddamn patently insane and disruptive". The lesser edit so understates the situation as to be a falsity. Don't do this. Thanks. - ] 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:Ahem. That helpful person was Fred Bauder, so I've changed it to his version again. ] | ] 00:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

::Ahem. It's got my signature on it, so I've put it back to what I actually wrote and meant. If someone feels I've misrepresented a situation, they are of course welcome to note so and sign it themselves, rather than e.g. change the words with an attribution to me still in place. Thanks again - ] 22:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Cough, cough. You and your signature explicitly attribute the description to Fred. ] | ] 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::But it's a personal attack, isn't it? ] 23:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

::::I would pay much more attention to your considered opinions if you had read dot one of the case in question - ] 22:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::So I'm ignorant, OK. You tell me how "goddamn patently insane and disruptive" isn't a personal attack. "Disruptive", you can have that one, but not the rest of it. ] 08:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:Ah, then it was Bauderized, not bowdlerised. That's different. ] 22:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

::It must have been after being rewarded with those twelve slim virgins and a box of delicious candy for the heresy of schism in starting Wikinfo - ] 23:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

==Foreign language articles==

{{User|213.176.78.6}} keeps creating foreign language stubs. (S)he has been warned continually not to do this, but does not/cannot understand. What do we do? Can we delete on sight? Would a block be appropriate? --] ] 10:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Has kept going - I've blocked him for 1 hour to get his attention, but advice requested. It's all Farsi to me. --] ] 11:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:Look on ] for an active Farsi-speaking user and ask them to leave a note? ] | ] | 13:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

==Busy beaver==

<span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; )</span> has been very very busy, but I'm unsure about his edits. Opinions? <br/> ]]] 13:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:His edits (the most recent twelve or so I looked at) seemed reasonable, perhaps a little overreaching on one or two, but not blatantly pov, etc. His user page indicates some very strong and one-sided views on some contentious topics, but so far he's stayed off those articles. Perhaps a more in-depth review than what I conducted is justified... ] 15:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

==Blog spammer==

{{User:66.126.151.134}} has been spamming a couple of blogs of his across a large number of articles, and the only edits on that account have either been that spamming action or to remove warnings from his talk page. Editors on a wide variety of articles remove his links on sight, but he come back multiple times a day to put them back. I suggest that stronger measures are in order. ] 01:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:Check, all his interest in the warnings seems to be to blank them. I've blocked him. ] | ] 05:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks muchly. ] 08:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

== Decius ==
] (aka ]) by ] with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry and adding insulting and bad edit summaries). ] <small>]</small> 08:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*Please see ] for further discussion. I don't know the details, but it appears he tried changing his username rather than sockpuppeting. Perhaps this block needs to be shortened. - ]|] 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
**I am looking at this myself and it is a name change (since I think it is currently disabled). Maybe the block should also be shortened/lifted and I also think we should at least have a board/page where name changes are announced. ] ] 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem ''appears'' to be that {{user|Decius}} would like to use the username 'Alexandru', but that the name was already taken. Since the original {{user|Alexandru}} only made a half-dozen edits to a single article back in January, Decius wants to take over the account...? Unfortunately, while Decius is signing his comments as 'Alexandru'&ndash;his signature links there&ndash;his edits are still under the name 'Decius'...which makes attribution and figuring out who's who a mess.

Decius has also decided to try and squat on the username 'Spider-Man'. Once again another user ({{user|Spider-Man}} had already claimed that name, making approximately twenty-five edits back in June.

Given Decius' habit of writing abusive edit summaries ('') and his inability to settle on a user name (or pick usernames that haven't already been taken) someone probably needs to take him aside and explain how things actually work around here. Until that happens, he should probably remain blocked. Nasty edit summaries and impersonation of other editors (deliberate or not) are not good things. ](]) 15:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:''sigh'' See also , where he attempts to claim ] has his own. (Alexandros is the old username of ].) He also has claimed the user pages of the currently non-existent
:*
:*
:*

: he has more than 2600 edits to User space, so I might have missed a few. He's got more than seven ''thousand'' edits to each of article and article talk space; does anybody know if he's a useful contributor who doesn't use preview, or what? ](]) 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


:'''I'm Anittas and I'm here to defend Decius'''. All accusations made towards Decius, except for the nasty comments one, are false. This is what ], the one who blocked Decius, accused him of:

* sockpuppeting;
* personal attacks;
* disruption;
* vandalism; and
* sockpuppeting, again

I argued against all accounts mentioned there, because:

* Decius did not sickpuppet anything. He did not use his two nicknames to vote against any case. He announced to the community that he changed his nickname, from Decius to Alexander, because he was tired of people thinking he had a relation to the ethnicity of Emperor Decius, ie., being Albanian; however, since most people knew him by his original pseudonym - that is, Decius - he kept the nickname;

* The only personal attacks that I know of, which Decius admitted of committing, was calling another moderator for a Wiki-Geek - and that was a long time ago; and insulting a bot in a sarcastic way. Since a bot is not a person, it cannot be taken as a personal attack;

* It depends how Wiki defines disruption, but yes, I agree that Decius was being annoying in his edits on his personal talk-page. He admitted that, too;

* I have not seen any proof of Decius vandalizing any page;

* Sockpuppeting: see the first argument.

I presented all of this to JTkiefer. He did not present any proof of his accusations towards Decius. Instead, he said this, on my talk-page:

''"check the edit summaries here Those alone are enough to warrant a perm ban"''

]

I disagreed with Jtkiefer that such edits deserve a permanent ban and I kindly asked him to unban Decius. So far, no reply. Decius has been a contributor to Wiki with his 5000 edits, and growing. He has been offered an adminship, which he turned down. JTkiefer, on the other hand, nominated himself to the 2005 Arbitration Committee elections. From what I know, JTkiefer didn't warn Decius, nor did he try to talk to him. I would like Decius to be unbanned; if this doesn't happen, I would like to know what steps I need to take in order to appeal against this decission.

Related links:

*
*
*

--] 16:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


guys, Decius/Alexandru is a valuable contributor. He can be disruptive/abusive and of course should be duly blocked when he is, ''after fair warning''. Jtkiefer has no call to play arbcom and issue permanent bans on contributors. He should warn, then block briefly, then block for periods ''up to one month'', at most. Anything else is up to the arbcom. Therefore I expect Jtkiefer or any other admin to reset Decius' block to something within the letter of policy. If Jtkiefer alleges that Decius is "sockpuppeteering" he hasn't even looked into the case, Decius has never tried to hide his identity when using the Alexandru account. regards, ] <small>]</small> 17:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:<small>Above remark posted by {{User|213.3.75.178}}. I've left a note on Dbachmann's talk page asking him to clarify if he's back from wikivacation now. --](]) 18:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)</small>
::alright, since I'm here I can also log in briefly; it doesn't matter who above comment is coming from though, mind you, it is just a call to adhere to policy. ] <small>]</small> 18:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I just didn't want to see someone impersonating you while you were on vacation. ](]) 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:The problem as I see it is not one of sockpuppeteering&mdash;I don't really see evidence to suggest that, though I haven't delved too deeply. The problem is that Decius has adopted the username of another&ndash;actually two other&ndash;Wikipedians. Though the confusion is probably not deliberate, Decius' is effectively impersonating another editor and assuming their identity. What if the real Alexandru comes back? If Decius wants to change his username to something that ''isn't'' already claimed by another editor, then there's no difficulty. ](]) 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::sure, talk to him, warn him, rfc his ass, block him for a day or two over his tasteless summaries, but I am objecting to Jtkeifer's ''permaban'' here. 19:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a few questions about nicknames on Wiki:

1. How can someone claim a nickname which is already in use? No one can claim the nickname "Anittas", so long I keep it. Correct? If I abandon my nickname, then anyone can claim it. So, if the user who first had the nickname of "Alexander" abandoned his nickname, anyone can claim it. Am I wrong?

2. If someone changes their nickname, say, from X to Y; will the nickname in their contribution list also change? For example, in the article about apples, user:(whatever) made three contributions; then that same user changes his nickname to 'Y'. Do his contributions in the article about 'apples' show his new nickname, instead? Thanks. --] 19:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:There's two aspects here. You can ''sign your name'' however you want - say <nowiki>]</nowiki> - whilst keeping your current username. Or you can change your ''username'', and sign as <nowiki>]</nowiki>. In the first case you'll show up in history logs as Anittas, in the second as Alexander. The problem here seems to be that Decius decided he wanted to change his username, but didn't do it properly - so he was signing himself as User:Alexandru on talkpages, and linking to Alexandru's page, but in the history he was still Decius.
:As for actually changing usernames, yes, you can do this - but for (legal) reasons, you can't change to a username that's already registered, so whatever happened he couldn't be User:Alexandru. Does that make sense? ] | ] | 22:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::] is where you request changes. The feature is currently disabled and it is not possible to be renamed to an account that already exists. ]] 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I know what he did. I think he went to that userpage and perhaps put a redirection to his own user-page. Well, maybe that's not allowed, but say, I create a user-page with a name user:ApplesAreCool and redirect it to my own userpage. Would that be allowed? --] 04:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:that's not the point. you cannot do that if the account you are interested in is already taken. Even if the owner is no longer active: he is still the owner of the edits, tied to his account name. You cannot claim accounts that are no longer in use (arguably, you could if the account in question doesn't have any edits, but not if there are serious contributions). But Decius was blocked for offensiveness, not for this Username business. What is going on? He still appears to be banned. Do all admins agree that a long-time contributor with thousands of edits may be banned permanently without intervention of the arbcom, over abusive edit summaries?? How is this defensible as within policy? 10:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:alright, since I have looked into this now, and feel slightly annoyed by the lack of justification or feedback, I have taken action now:
:*I agree with the block, Alexandru should have been warned, but even without warning, a block of a day or so would have been defensible regarding the nature of his edit summaries.
:*Jtkiefer blocked him on 9 October, 2:16. This means that he has served for more than two days now.
:*I do not allege Jtkiefer has acted in bad faith. But he has exhibited triggerhappiness coupled with a reluctance to defend his action that make me feel uncomfortable with regard to his arbcom bid
:*<s>I have unblocked ], but not ], which Alexandru/Decius stated he doesn't care to use anymore anyway</s> realizing that he doesn't even have the password for User:Alexandru, I have unblocked User:Decius now, too (doh, why was User:Alexandru blocked in the first place?)
:I am back to my wikivacation (I'll be back around Nov 12th), and thus will not be able to argue any more about this. Any admin is of course free to revert my action, but I would expect a clear justification, with reference to policy, in this case. As a final note, I do not consider this unblocking clique-ish: Yes, I have worked with Decius, and this may be the reason I cared enough to get involved; but I do think my action is fully in line with policy. regards & take care, ] <small>]</small> 13:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::First of all nobody can claim that he is still blocked due to ''09:48, October 11, 2005 Dbachmann unblocked User:Alexandru (see WP:AN/I)''. it appears somebody who didn't feel that I acted quickly enough has unblocked him even though I only informed of any discussion of this at 7:09 (utc) this morning (2:09 est, my local time) so I feel that reversing my block without giving me adequete time to discuss this and possibly unblock him myself is extremely hasty and in bad form. Regarding the block, I agree now that I should not have instantly perm blocked him like that, the more appropriate step I could have done would be to have given a 24 or 48 hour block and request that he could explain himself regarding the edit summaries and the apparent impersonation of other users, not to mention the fact that he had multiple accounts which in itself isn't a reason to block however in this case would be the case be due to suspicious behavior on Decius's part. Now that he is unblocked I think that he should choose an account, preferably Alexandru since that appears to be his existing account and only sign with that name and that name alone to prevent confusion. <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

==Romath again==

"Romath" (]) in is now posting legal threats to the help desk in an attempt to have us delete any pages that mention her name -- A name publiczied on her own blog, IIRC. ] ] 15:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:Also posted legal threats to ] after you linked it from the help desk. Kind of like iron. --] ] 15:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

==Wik's sockpuppets==
; Neolithic (wik)

] referred me to here ... just wanted to state that ] appears to be ] ... he's been reverting articles to a non-NPOV verions. Sincerely, ] 17:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:And you two don't have any history or anything... It's always ] as I'm sure you know. ]] 22:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

==Name created for disruption==

A spammer and vandal who used to just use the anon IP account {{User:131.247.118.130}} ] called me "NightmareGuy" and threatened "obnoxious vandalism" -- Now there's a new user, {{User:NightmareGuy}} ], whose sole edits have been vandalism and harassment directly aimed at me. And see here where he admits to being the same editor as earlier. . I would suggest the the accont be permanently banned as the name itself was created solely for disruptive purposes and the only edits this person have made have been vandalism. ] 19:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

*They were warned and it seems they have stopped. As a side note they invited another user to vandalize Dreamguy's page . <font color=#000000>]</font>]] 20:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:{{User|DreamBoy}} was then created, which also went around undoing DreamGuy's work, so I blocked the account indefinitely. My first thought was Gabrielsimon, but he's too literate for Gabe. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:{{vandal|DreamMan}} was created today, his first edit to taunt DreamGuy and assure him a steady stream of harassment. I fear this will continue until the IP(s) behind the sockpuppets are identified. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

==] II==
Copied from ]

How do we handle cases like {{user|Jguk}}? This person appears to me to be carefully timing his reverts to ] so as to repeatedly make his change against consensus while refusing to discuss on the talk page. I was ready to block him with a warning before I realized he technically had not violated the 3RR, so I wasn't sure I had the right to deal with him in that way.

I've reverted him, and I'm going to warn him that repeatedly reverting an article against such a clear consensus while refusing to discuss the edit on the article's talk page is vandalism and that if he continues he will find himself in dispute resolution and his ability to edit restricted. Any other comments? Should I just block him anyway, maybe a shorter block, as a warning? ] ] 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

And then he archived his talk page immediately after my warning. ] ] 20:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:wait as see if the patturn continues. If it does block him. Gameing the rule is unhelpful.] 20:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith and have placed my warning on his new, blank talk page. If he reverts again today I'll block using 3RR. If I see him revert again after 24 hours, I may give a warning block (assuming noone here hollers and tells me that's not appropriate), or I may try to bring it to attention through dispute resolution so we could have an ironclad case for action if he doesn't concede. ] ] 20:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if he finds some excuse to take the warning off of his talk page, I'll act on that, too. Probably revert him back until he's at risk of 3RR on that. ] ] 20:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:There is a small number of disruptive editors going round trying to change date styles from BC to BCE in contravention of WP policy - I have been reverting them. It appears here that I erred and that the page (unfortunately for most of our readers who find BCE alien to them!) apparently was not originally BC. That's a shame - we should always use common terms over unusual ones, but I shan't revert this page again. Incidentally, where I know I have made at least one revert of any page, I always check to see whether a further revert would make me in breach of the 3RR (which seems a sensible approach). I'm not into gaming - I'm into making WP as useful a resource to as many people as possible, it's just a shame that a small number of users aren't, ] 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

<del>Resolved, then, mostly. Thanks for your good faith, here</del>. I do think you (and all of us) need to realize that the present status quo on BC/BCE/AD/CE is pretty shaky. You can't go wrong if you treat it on an article by article basis and let the regular editors of that article come to consensus.

I don't think you're trying to game the 3RR system, but I do think you should think a little more about the spirit behind the policy. From experience, I get changes made more effectively when I'm discussing more and reverting less. I'll leave further comments about it on your talk page. ] ] 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:Okay, he's repeatedly removed my comments from his page. By my count he has done this four times: once through immediately archiving (now the timing is more suspicious), once for when I replaced my original comment on the new talk page, once for my next comment about the spirit behind the 3RR, and then once more after I replaced both removed comments. Is this a violation of 3RR? ] ] 21:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

::Meanwhile, check his edit history and note that he is still carrying the fight about era notation to other pages. Again I contend that this violates the spirit of 3RR when you are effectively carrying on the same revert on multiple pages. I rescind my above comment that this is resolved. ] ] 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

He has removed my comments again. I consider this to be the fifth revert and a violation of 3RR and am blocking 24 hours. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock or otherwise admonish me. I think I'm doing right here ... but as a newbie admin I would like some feedback.

My understanding is that regardless of whatever control and latitude may be granted to you to control your user talk pages (which does not, according to any policy I can see, appear to be much) you don't get a free pass there from 3RR. ] ] 21:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

{{vandal|Jguk}}

Of course, he's continuing to remove the comments from his talk page. I'll protect the page if it persists.

Question: I'm not in violation of 3RR for replacing my warnings more than three times, am I? ] ] 21:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, ] says I am in the wrong here. ] ] 21:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:I'm bewildered by Jguk's attitude to this. ''He'' is the editor who's being disruptive by going around changing pages that have been stable around this issue for months, so far as I know. There ''is'' no policy on this. The MoS says both are acceptable and anyway the MoS isn't policy, but Jguk is going around implying that using BCE/CE is somehow forbidden. For example, a recent edit summary of his read: "I'm told the MOS mandates this copyedit," which strikes me as less than honest, because the MoS, as Jguk knows very well, mandates nothing about anything. I really wish he would stop it because all it's doing is creating bad feeling. On top of that, he's archiving all the comments about it on his talk page, so people don't see that quite a few editors oppose him. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

::I'm copying this to ], which is where it should go, I believe. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Slim, the ] and ] pages have almost always used BC notation until ] chose to change it. It is this change, and is adamant refusal to accept that it is against the WP guidelines, coupled with some personal attacks he has levied, that has created the problems in this page. Apparently I erred on the ] page, but not on the other pages, where I have been supportive of the WP "no change" approach. I continue to invite all other editors, including yourself, to support that compromise, ] 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:You can't hammer someone into making your comment stay on their talk page. 3RR is not in fact generally held to apply in this situation. If you put it there and he removed it, he saw it. It's not like the diff has vanished. This has been well established in many cases where annoying trolls were bugging people on their talk pages then tried to nail them with 3RR when they removed them. If he doesn't want to keep your comment there, that's up to him, not you, and you don't get to edit-war otherwise - ] 22:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

::Hm? This looks like a clear case of 3RR gaming in the article namespace. Add to that deleting warnings off his talk page and breaking the 3RR doing so. Kelly Martin said that 3RR doesn't apply to userspace, but that is wrong, it is just not generally enforced there. Here we have enough disruption in the article and talk namespaces, and clear block evasion using an IP and personal attacks in the edit summary when removing comments that I'd say a longer block would have been better. I would reblock, but I don't think that should be done without further agreement. (Although apparently Kelly Martin seems to think it was OK to unblock without any discussion. Don't we make people admins because we ''trust'' them?) ]·] 22:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:::You gotta be joking. He had a 3RR warning put on his talk page, then he removed it. So he was warned and can't deny he was warned. Then what is the point of repeatedly replacing the warning except harassment? That's ''precisely'' why 3RR isn't generally applied to a user in their own userspace - people harassing others with repeatedly replacing removed additions, then trying to nail them on 3RR - ] 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure if you were responding to me (because I guess my comment wasn't really a response to you but in general). But my point is that, talk page shenanigans notwithstanding, 3RR gaming in the articles, block evasion, and personal attacks are enough for me to add up to a block, and so I am especially worried about the quick unblock without discussion. ]·] 02:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, yeah, I meant the talk page thing in particular. User space ''if being used for a project purpose'' (a nebulous concept) seems to be seen as "one's own" - ] 08:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

::::::Just one more thing: 3RR-blocking is not supposed to be a punishment, its aim is to stop edit wars. If someone is blocked, he can still edit his own talk page (IIRC), so a 3RR block would accomplish nothing here. (I'm only talking about the talk page thing as well.) ] 11:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

An from an IP address which claims to be jguk looks a bit inappropriate. ] ] 22:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

:I was angry, I apologise for that - though if you'd suffered the abuse I have from ] and ] and then a non-editing admin weighed in, ignorant of what he was getting into and misapplied WP guidelines, maybe you'd be angry too. Anyway, we all get hot under the collar sometimes, I know we shouldn't, and I accept that comment could have been better phrased, ] 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Apparently I have become the new ] against whose evil machinations the valiant ] defends wikipedia from.

And back on planet earth.... ] has made over '''300''' date style changes to articles since his arbcom case as detailed ]. This in addition to the over '''1000''' date style changes he made before his arbcom case, as detailed ]. He is currently on his '''12th''' revert on ], after changing date styles.

*'''14+''' reverts on ]
*'''14+''' reverts on ]
*'''12''' reverts on ]
*'''7''' reverts on ]

and the list goes on and on and on and on. ] 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

::You left an important incident off your list; while his Arbitration case was on-going, during a period when he claimed to have "left" Misplaced Pages, in about 3 hours jguk astoundingly made over . While, as usual, he claimed to be merely conforming to the MOS, he actually removed CE from some pages while leaving AD in, and in other cases simply replaced CE with AD, e.g. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 15:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes. And in case anybody is wondering about Jguk's ip.... he is using 195.40.200.xxx, as evidenced . Some other edits he's done as an "anon ip" include: , which should all prove that this range is used by Jguk. ] 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:Six reverts at ] between October 8 and 10 against six editors. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:: I can't explain Jguk's "apologies" when the same misconduct goes on and on. Often, his era-chaging edits are accompanied by misleading summaries, e.g. "as noted before, WP:MOS apparently mandates this change" . Since this has been repeatedly pointed out to him, I only conclude that he continues this intentionally. What needs to be done to take this matter further than just venting in a section ''Jguk N''? ]&larr;]] 10:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm firmly in the AD camp, but I'm finding ]'s actions to be borderline trolling. He appears on stable articles, which he's never edited, and makes provocative changes. --] ] 10:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

All the articles Sortan refers to were stable in using BC notation until one editor changed it. I have stated quite clearly that I am not changing date styles, just reverting those who are. Compare Sortan's own edit history, which shows that it is a role account, probably created by a prolific WPian, that has just been used to troll the issue throughout. I have acknowledged that I got the wrong end of the stick on Jerusalem, but that is an exception. Will all editors accept the "no change of style" position, as I have, or not? I'd be interested in there replies, ] 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:: From ]:
<blockquote style="background-color: #f0f0f0;">
::3.1.2 Style guide
::1) Misplaced Pages has established a ] for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see . The prescriptions of Misplaced Pages's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." . ''Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)''

::3.1.3 Optional styles
::2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. ''Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)''
</blockquote>
::In his urge to impose the BC/AD notation, Jguk deliberately misconstrues the ArbCom decision by picking only the parts he likes, ignoring the requirement to be "consistent within an article" and "unless there is some substantial reason for the change". I don't have anything against British spelling or BC/AD notation ''in general'', but just as '''"it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject"''', in some cases it is inappropriate to use Christian-centric notation having a viable neutral alternative. ]&larr;]] 22:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We have already had long discussions on this. Please see ] where a number of proposals were defeated. I'm 100% sure that the ArbCom did not intend to overrule community decisions. You are arguing that something is a "substantial reason for a change" despite the community explicitly ''rejecting'' the proposal. Your attention has been drawn to this before as well. "Substantial change" is not an invitation to a free-for-all where debates can recommence on any article a particular editor wants. It must refer to changes that have clearcut community-wide consensus. At present, the community has adopted no consensus on the matter, which means at present no "substantial reasons" have been established, ] 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

: Jguk, please reread ] & ] (also quoted above). Please don't imply that "substantial reasons" don't exist (an example was given by the ArbCom) and please don't try to hide behind "the community" whose policies you push aside so often. ]&larr;]] 03:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

==New Request for Comment -- Abuse of Administrator Powers==
I have written up a ''minor'' complaint about ] Please review it and sign on and express views if you like. Thank you, Obrigado.] 01:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

: For what it's worth, this isn't really the place to put it (unless I'm grossly mistaken). <font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <font color="blue">]</font> 05:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

==Crankshuick sockpuppets bot==
The Crankshuick collection of sockpuppets is evading 3RR at ] and ] and ]. Activity resumed ''one minute'' after Tony Sidaway removed protection . There seems little doubt that this is a bot lying in wait for the page to be unprotected. When blocked, a new sockpuppet is created.

I think we need the IP in question to be traced, or open proxies blocked. -- ] 02:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:Is there a list of Wikbots? The Wik MO of late has been open proxies. He makes a good open proxy canary ;-) The catch being that CheckUser is slooooooooooooow and frequently fails with a timeout (the software kills any database query that takes too long). But a list could be useful, because that might point us to the proxy list he's using - ] 08:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== Guy Montag ==

User on probation and banned from editing Israel related topics. Been editing ]. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zionist_terrorism&diff=25247905&oldid=25186664

Needs a further warning?

] 07:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages and autism ==

A thoughtful post to WikiEN-l by Tony Sidaway. For the attention of RC/newpages patrollers in particular, but the general issue is wider than that - ] 08:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== User:Most reverted admin award ==

{{user|Most reverted admin award}} - wtf is going on here? ]|] 12:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:Perhaps a poor choice of name by whoever created it. It appears to be working out the admin with the most vandalized user page. --] ] 12:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:: Do you think so? What about just MRAA, then let everyone free to choose what MRAA means? ] 15:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::I have trouble figuring out how the points are calculated. It is some number multiplied with the number of reverts, divided by the days of having been an admin, but where does the original number come from? ] | ] 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::: Each revert gives you 289 points. 289 number is not selected by chance, it is the days of the oldest administrator (]), according to the +sysop burocrat log . Then the result is divided by the number of days you are admin. ] 15:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Actually, if you count the old Bureaucrat log, the oldest admin seems to be ], who was sysopped on February 16, 2004. There have been admins even before that, but I don't know if their sysopping dates are logged anywhere. ] | ] 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::] was just sysopped as a test of the new bureaucrat functions. You could check the history of ] for admins back to June 2003, but the ones before that were only recorded on the mailing list (wikien-l since that existed, and wikipedia-l before that). ]] 18:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::: Thank you for the advices. The ] is ready, and we have now new MRAA results! Angela, I am afraid you lost your silver medal :P ] 06:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages is Communism sock ==
{{vandal|Википедия будет коммунизм}} vandalized ] earlier, and I tried to block, but the block log indicates I instead blocked {{vandal|Википедия будет комму}}. {{vandal|Википедия будет коммунизм}} has yet to do anything else, so the block may have worked, but since there appears to be a problem blocking this username (or displaying it in the block log), I thought I'd give everyone a heads-up here. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
*Weird. If I look at the block log I find an indefinite on the first guy - - but not on the second - . Has the latter been fixed? ] | ] | 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
**Hmm, I think this just may be a Unicode problem in either Wikimedia or my browser. The Cyrillic characters are screwing up the {{tl|vandal}} templates I used above, as well. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 16:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
***I've seen the templates thing before - I think it's actually the spaces not the fancy character screwing it up, ie {{vandal|foo bar}}. ] | ] | 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a known bug that has nothing to do with Cyrillic. Use underscores instead of spaces:
{{vandal|Википедия_будет_коммунизм}} -- ] 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
*That doesn't explain the weird behavior of the block log... or does it? <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 00:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Hmm. Curps is right about the underscore business, I just found this out myself recently with the {{tl|user}} series. Reproducing for clarity:
# {{vandal|Википедия_будет_коммунизм}}
# {{vandal|Википедия_будет_комму}}

The first account has been blocked indefinitely three times, according to the blocklog.
* 18:49, 2005 October 11 MarkSweep blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet)
* 15:12, 2005 October 11 Android79 blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (Misplaced Pages is Communism sockpuppet)
* 15:10, 2005 October 11 Android79 blocked "User:Википедия будет коммунизм" with an expiry time of indefinite (Misplaced Pages is Communism sockpuppet)
The second account has not been blocked. Don't know why the block log seems to show the opposite for you, Android. ]]<i> 07:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</i>

==Sock/bot attack==
] is being hit by multiple ligged in socks - can the IP be detected and blocked? Quickly? --] ] 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Now also hitting ] --] ] 16:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:Anybody? This is really getting ridiculous. It's clearly a bot. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

do not! block these bot-generated accounts! this will only slow down the database. instead ask a developer for the originating IP and block that. 16:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:Nobody on IRC seems in the least concerned, and Phroziac has unprotected VIP. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:: Maybe we need ] or a similar page, because it isn't easy to get in touch with them. ]<font color="#008000">]</font><sup>(])</sup> 17:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::He's moved on to ]. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 17:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::no, we need admins who can see IPs. I have been saying this for a long time, and I think it is stupid to expect us to fight vandals without that capability. If not all admins are trusted with seeing IPs we need '''at least''' a substantial fraction of 'uber-admins' who can. Since we already have the rank, why not bureaucrats. This is an urgent requirement in my book; at least bureaucrats should be allowed to see IPs, and the population of bureaucrats should then be increased so that it is likely at least one is online at all times. Otherwise we are just shooting our own foot with a misguided notion of 'privacy'. (so, is this the onslaught prophesized by ]?) ] <small>]</small> 18:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::::This is definitely necessary, as Misplaced Pages attracts more technically-savvy vandals. Could an "IP check log" be created so that usage of this ability is transparent? I'd feel comfortable trusting all bureaucrats (and possibly all admins) with this ability if anyone could see who was checking up on who. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 18:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I agree, I'd love to see more editors with ], and a version of ] that doesn't hurt the database server quite as badly. Who wants to write a proposal? --]] 20:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure. The point of hiding IPs is privacy, and the fact that we don't want people to (potentially) get in trouble for their actions on Misplaced Pages; and as admins are selected on the basis of on-Wiki trustworthiness, not real-world trustworthiness, they shouldn't be given powers with potential consequences off Misplaced Pages just by virtue of their adminship. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 20:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::If checkuser is made available to more admins (say, admins with a proven 2 year record of being responsible people, bureaucrats may decide), every lookup should be logged somewhere accessible for all the other admins (that a lookup of the username was made, not the result of it, of course). If a look-up log is open like this, it will help avoid suspicions of abuse and should keep everybody honest. ] 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::If this is implemented, there should also be limits on the number of people one admin can use it on over a period of time. However, you run again into the issue of how to determine responsibility - some real-world verification of identity and evidence of trustworthiness should be provided, not just a record of good Misplaced Pages behavior. We hide IPs for a reason. Logging can't reverse an abuse that's already occured. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 22:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

==Guy Montag==
{{User|Guy Montag}} has been banned from editing articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; however, he has continued editing. He may be briefly blocked and the three month ban may also be extended, see ] ] 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

==Decius again==
A little while ago, {{vandal|Decius}} moved the user page of {{user|Alexandru}} to ] and replaced the redirect page with a speedy delete tag. This was discussed above in the ] section of this page. I have blocked him for 3 hours while investigating. -- ] 00:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

:Well, you better have a look at ] now too, . If there's agreement that Alexander 007 is Decius (and I believe he is), then he should be blocked as well. ] 06:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

::Unlike the previous cases, Alexander 007 is his own newly created account and not someone else's. So there isn't a problem here. I suggested he contact a bureaucrat to rename his account, but he preferred to do it this way (or maybe the rename feature is temporarily not working). -- ] 11:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

*The account {{vandal|Alexander_007}} has that Decius's Talk page be speedily deleted. ]]<i> 07:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC) NB.</i> The {{tl|vandal}} template seems to have a carriage return that's messing up posts using it. I recall from the {{tl|user}} talk page that this was once a suspected problem with that template too. Can this be fixed? ]]<i> 07:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</i>
*:::Yes, I fixed the template just now. -- ] 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*:I suppose we frown on talk page deletions, but since Decius == Alexander 007 this is his own request and not vandalism by some other user. Should it be deleted? -- ] 11:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*::Thanks for fixing {{tl|vandal}}. As to the Talk page, I'd defer to your wide experience, Curps, but if Decius has had a problematic past—and the posts up above suggest multiple suspected impersonations, possible socking, and some seriously abusive editing—I'm not sure I'd want to remove part of that record. As I understand it, the CSD provision ''allows'' User Talk pg deletion on request, but does not ''compel'' us to do it. There is also the additional issue that we have had no real confirmation, as far as I'm aware, of their unity—Alexander 007 has claimed to be Decius, and asked us to delete Decius' page, but AFAIK ''Decius'' hasn't posted anything confirming it. In cases like this it's probably best that two-way confirmation is safely in hand before any move is made to delete pages, etc. Kind regards ]]<i> 11:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</i>
*::''NB.'' Just went through User talk:Decius. It's almost certainly him all right, although he should have done the re-direct while signed in as Decius, and written a clear note on Alexander 007's talk page saying he=Decius (while signed in as Alex007). So it's up to the admins, I guess. My preference is that ] remain as it is: a redirect, but with the history available for inspection should the need arise. ]]<i> 11:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</i>

sigh: ] is an unrelated user that made a few edits and left. ] would have liked the username, and used the account's talkpage, that's all. Now following the events described further up on this page, Decius decided to settle for the new account ] and wants the Decius account gone. This has nothing to do with sockpuppetry, it's a username change. Of course User_talk:Decius shouldn't be deleted, because its history contains edits by many people, but if the user so wishes, it could be blank-protected, I suppose. I think there can be no reasonable doubt that Alexander 007 is the same person as Decius, so I think it will be safe to go ahead and blank-protect Decius' userpages (you can still undo that should the 'real' Decius turn up, but I assure you they're the same). So, among the condemning summary "multiple suspected impersonations, possible socking, and some seriously abusive editing" the only thing that really applies is "abusive editing", but that also only in edit summaries, where it appears the user likes to vent when drunk. Bottom line, this is a very good user, but he can safely be blocked for a few hours when he is spotted doing empty edits with abusive summaries, because that probably means he is drunk, or just in a gloomy mood. That still makes him a much less problematic user than lots of edit-warriors I could mention, he's just sort of an anarchist that ostentatively doesn't care about wiki-procedure, so if you ask him to log in and sign as Decius, he is likely to not do it to make a point. 12:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

==]==
{{vandal|10.0.0.8}} committed vandalism yesterday. I've now blocked indefinitely, but surely this is a registered username spoofing an IP address and not an actual IP address???? Will the block apply to the username or to the IP address (the latter would seem ineffective). -- ] 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*10.0.0.8 is within "private" IP space and could not be a legitimate anonymous user's IP. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 02:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*See ]. Apparently it's a technical glitch. I'd suggest leaving the account blocked, as no one ''should'' be editing from that IP. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 02:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
**As I mentioned on ], Tim Starling said on IRC that this was caused by a technical issue (something about new load balancing servers). The edits were coming from multiple users, including people who apparently thought they were logged in. I would say unblock the IP or ask a developer. It wasn't caused by spoofing or any malicious activity. I am worried that the block could cause problems with the new load balancing thingy. ] 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the contribution history, there were only contributions from 15:55 to 16:32 on October 11. So hopefully whatever glitch it was is fixed.

There were also contributions from {{user|10.0.0.11}} yesterday in the same time frame, and back in July from {{user|10.0.0.3}}, and in January from {{user|10.0.0.13}}. I didn't check beyond 10.0.0.15. -- ] 03:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== ] ==

There was a really ugly edit war between anonips at ] (over 200 edits) today. I couldn't decided which version was the good one, so I reverted to the last version before today (from a week ago) and protected it. This may be related: where yesterday is written:
<blockquote>
Oh come on now...
http://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_Keith

I finally get a Misplaced Pages entry and it's from some doofus with a grudge who complains about errors and then gets pretty much everything about me wrong? I'd fix it myself but that might be considered a bad thing to do.
</blockquote>

==]==
The above user appears to be a WOW sockpuppet and is making duplicate article in the form "''article''_on_Wheels" and creating redirects from the real articles. See ]. Can some kindly admin please investigate. Thanks --] ] 11:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:I see ] has now blocked him, but there is a bit of cleaning up to do. --] ] 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:07, 12 October 2005

SUPER COOL.