Misplaced Pages

Patrick Kennedy

I've moved this from WP:AIV. --Sam Blanning 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Patrick J. Kennedy has made the news recently. New information is being added to this article at a fast and furious rate, however, there is also a lot of vandalism from numerous editors. I do not feel the page needs to be protected, but I do feel that it needs a close eye on it. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Tahitian Noni

Tikiwikiriki turned the Tahitian Noni article, as well as the Noni, Mangosteen, and XanGo articles, into ads for what seems to be a MLM scam. When I stumbled on his scheme, I removed the advertising in all those articles. He is aggressively restoring it at the Tahitian Noni page, marking his reverts as minor edits. I left a message at his talk page, which is being ignored. Help please. I dont' think anyone here wants WP to become a resource for multi-level marketing. Zora 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the User:Tikiwikiriki for constant revert wars on this series of articles as being disruptive and blatantly promotional spamdumping. JDoorjam Talk 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

for how long time ? Redecke 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Linkspamming and possible malware

This anonIP 201.51.176.238 is adding links to a great many geographical articles. The link goes to a page saying that you must download and install a program to see a 3-D globe. This is probably legit, but it could be malware. It also seems like spamvertising, and unnecessary, given that Google Earth exists. Could we have all this user's edits rolled back? He/she/it has contributed nothing aside from this linkspam. Zora 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the anon's on a dynamic IP, it seems that they're attempting to spam all the country articles. I've reverted their edits, but doesn't really have a major effect on this person. I've listed them on WP:AIV anyhow. —Khoikhoi 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Previously blocked as user:201.51.188.28. can we add the site to the spam blacklist? -Will Beback 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. —Khoikhoi 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block

I've given Centaursports (talk · contribs) an indefinite block per this edit to the user page of an account indef-blocked by Curps for "WoW-style vandalism". Please feel free to review. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User requested unblock; claimed the two accounts were being used for "harmless fun" with each other. Denied. Again, feel free to review. RadioKirk talk to me 17:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it really make sense for you, the admin who blocked, to also be the admin to review his unblock request? Why don't you let someone else do that. -lethe 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail was sent to me; but, you're right. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Persistent nonsense vandalism by IP address

User:209.105.197.49 contributions is persistently vandalizing the Sudbury Wolves article (Playoff Section), and recently the Rivière Veuve, Ontario stub, and the Greater Sudbury, Ontario article. Could someone please explain how to prevent this? Thanks. Flibirigit 21:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's a clear-cut case of obvious vandalism, you should report the user on WP:AIV. Isopropyl 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Since a repeat vandal, I've given three warnings (to t4) at once. If user does it again, take to WP:AIV, please. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

They did it again. I've blocked for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

User:24.144.84.178.

This seems to be a registered user account, not an anon IP. Does this on its own justify a username block? Failing that, do the contributions justify an indefinite block?

For reference: 24.144.84.178. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We should also be careful of the same person or others using this trick to try and appear as an IP (i.e. trying to avoid indef blocks). Petros471 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked an an imposter. 24.144.84.178 (talk · contribs) is probably Jimbo's IP (see its contribs). Prodego 22:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Incorrect

This user's name pretty much sums up their attitude- that Misplaced Pages is incorrect and must be corrected to fit this persons non neutral POV. Just about every one of their contributions is uncivil, consists of personal attacks or violations of WP:NPOV Special:Contributions/Incorrect. One example of their contributions on List of British Jews: (referring to an Australian) "So the offspring of felons and his chief groupy have ganged up on valid editors to destroy their work; this felon and his co-conspirator have decided that they know more than the Jewish Year Book; in the real world the two of them would be in jail for offenses against humanity.". Arniep 23:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be showing slight signs of learning civility: , maybe give the user another day or two? JoshuaZ 23:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that was because they realised that I was "on their side" in relation to a certain article, I highly doubt that their behaviour towards people who they perceive are on the opposing side to them will change, another of their recent efforts:

""To call Castro a dictator and Che Guevera a serial killer is not vandalism, but a mere statement of fact. By reversing those edits you are showing your self to be a supporter of murderers and communists who is unconfortable with the truth. I will begin to review your other edits to see what else you have incorrectly edited to bring back objectivity and truthfullness to those pages."

Arniep 23:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, more Thought Police out to "get dirt" on people. It all sounds so... so... familiar! (I'm not in favor of wikilove going to wikigullible in cases like that.) Geogre 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked by SlimVirgin for 48 hours for disruption and abuse. Very reasonable. Bishonen | talk 02:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

Personal attacks continue from ThNik following block

It seems that the personal attacks and edit warring behavior of ThNik have continued following the expiration of his/her block, instituted May 4. The latest occurrence of this behavior was on my talk page (see this revision, which I have since reverted), where ThNik not only made a string of personal attacks, but also left what could be construed as a threat, with his message of "TOUCH MY SHIT AGAIN AND YOULL LEARN WAHT IT MEANS TO TOSS A SALAD FAT NERD FUCKING TROLL PIECE OF SHIT ASSWIPE".

In response to this most recent incident, I have placed {{Npa3}} on User talk:ThNik. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely for this. It has made few if any useful contributions. SlimVirgin 05:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse - William M. Connolley

Is it standard proceedure to permanently block a user for a single copyvio, when the user is not well versed in the copyvio polciy? The user did not add the copyvio to the article in the first place either, he only unknowingly brought it back when he posted an old version of the article, and he did this only once. Since when do you admins accept any permanent ban handed out to inexperienced, non-disruptive users? This is admin abuse. Please correct it.

To add a little context/perspective to this User:William M. Connolley deleted the copyvio and add the following message in it's own subsection on the article talk page : "I've deleted this thing, again, as a copyvio. Don't paste in copyright text unless you want to get banned". User:Fungible then restores the copyvio and adds the following message to the talk page "If not why are so many of Chartock's supporters trying to delete his history? Also, how can you delete on a copyright vio when it was Chartock himself who first created the entry and put that link in? Nice try, fellas, but everything's been restored. Deal with it!". --pgk 10:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your quote of Fungible just shows that he is new and did not know the copyvio policy. He was in the middle of an edit war and may have thought Connolley was warring against him on the other side. A permanent block would not be given for a 3rr or non-civility on this article. The length of the block is unreasonable. On his talk page, Fungible has asked for a deletion review of the article. Please help. He needs a mentor and advice, not a permanent block. The media is watching this article in New York state, please don't abuse blocking policy.

As you say the quote shows he was quite happy to edit war and ignore warnings. Rather than jumping up and down shouting admin abuse he should email the blocking admin as described in the block message and resolve the issue. --pgk 13:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Original poster: please sign your comments by typing four tildes, ~~~~, or typing some indication of who you are. I was going to add the {{unsigned}} template to your posts, but I can't face sifting through the history of this super-busy page to figure out who's talking. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

FWIW, I've unblocked Fungible just now, on the off chance of good behaviour William M. Connolley 13:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I apollogise for not assuming good faith, Mr. Connolley.. I am concerned that your statement "on the off chance of good behaviour" may also show a lack of AGF too. Once this article is re-created, the edit warriers on both sides will come out fighting, and the New York media will be watching how we handle it. We should be carefully to make sure the article is balanced with both pro and con information included. Please put it on your watchlist and treat both sides fairly. Thank you. (PS, I am not one of the editors involved on either side of the edit war) 205.188.116.65 15:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If they come out fighting, they will get blocked for it William M. Connolley 16:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the involved partys are going to see your warning here. I ask any admin to help mediate Alan Chartock once re-created, and also WAMC - see the talk page. Why can't we mediate up front if we know the war will start again? Thanks.

Admin abuse - William M. Connolley part 2

User:William M. Connolley has used the administrators' priviledge of rolling back to remove my remarks on his user talk page . — Instantnood 09:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So? --Calton | Talk 10:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Others' comment on user talk page should not be removed, and even if he wants to remove them, he shouldn't have used the priviledge of adminsitrators (see also Misplaced Pages:Rollback). — Instantnood 10:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Others' comment on user talk page should not be removed...' Really? Which guideline states that?

...and even if he wants to remove them, he shouldn't have used the priviledge of adminsitrators (see also Misplaced Pages:Rollback. Hmm, and he shouldn't have used rollback why exactly? Hint: "Because I said so"? Not adequate. --Calton | Talk 12:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure they can be removed. I remove rude or insistent comments on my talkpage now and then, and so do most people. It's not like removing vandalism warnings, you know. Not using rollback would have been better, since you weren't posting over and over (where people do that against my express wish, I do use rollback, and have no apologies for it) but taken together, this has to be one of the pettiest "abuse" complaints I've seen on this page. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

Still, different people have different opinions on what constitutes "rudeness". It's happened to me many times that people removed my comments from their talk page where I was mainly pointing out that they had made an error somewhere. It annoys me when people call other people "vandals" even though there is no vandalism going on, just an edit conflict. I usually leave a message on the user's talk page asking them not to do this, and then my comment is usually removed, probably because people don't want to have anything critical on their talk page. Personally, I remove profanities, but anything else anyone posts on my talk page stays there until I archive. jaco♫plane 13:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley is doing it again . It's fine if he doesn't like my message, but he shouldn't have abuse his power as an administrator to roll back. The rollback button can't be used for purposes unrelated to the responsibilities of an administrator. Even worst was that he blocked me for three hours for " trolling on talk page " (13:39, May 7, 2006 William M. Connolley blocked "Instantnood (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (trolling on my talk page) ). — Instantnood 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Gosh, me again. In has been trolling on my talk page (even editing my archives, gasp!) and is trolling here. I've just blocked him for 3h for it William M. Connolley 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. He does the same on my talk page, re-factoring my own comments. SchmuckyTheCat 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding {{unsigned}} is not "re-factoring comments"... Ashibaka tock 05:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But user:SchmuckyTheCat is not abusing the rollback button. User:William M. Connolley is. — Instantnood 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, constantly using the verb "abuse" doesn't actually make it so. Hint: the phrase "can't be used for purposes unrelated" or any variation I can think of doesn't appear on the page you wave vaguely as your justification. Are you planning to explain exactly why you're using the term, or will you continue to pretend you haven't been asked? Oh, and to help you, --Calton | Talk 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not constantly using the verb abuse, and I'm not justifying with that page. Why can the rollback button be used beyond administrative duties? — Instantnood 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not constantly using the verb abuse. You used it twice in the last two comments, Perry Mason, so you can't even dodge the subject well.

Why can the rollback button be used beyond administrative duties? Bzzt, wrong question. You claim it can't: the burden is on you to provide a shred of evidence this is true. Try again. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Twice = constantly? Why can the rollback button be used beyond administrative duties? That's a priviledge granted only to administrators for them to fulfill their duties. — Instantnood 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Twice = constantly? Those were only the first two immediately at hand, not the sum total, Hell, let's throw in the section header, to boot, and your lawyeresque nitpicking looks more and more pathetic.
• Why can the rollback button be used beyond administrative duties? That's a priviledge granted only to administrators for them to fulfill their duties. Bzzt, wrong question. You claim it can't: the burden is on you to provide a shred of evidence -- other than the question-begging claim -- that this is true. Try again. An actual quote from an actual guideline or an actual quote from an actual ArbCom decision, say, as opposed to vigorous handwaving. --Calton | Talk 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked the comment Instant left on William's page. I don't think William should have reverted. I think it wrong that William, a disputant by then, blocked Instant. Mccready 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he have reverted? And why shouldn't he have blocked Instantnood? --Calton | Talk 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should somebody be blocked just because she/he has say/done something an administrator personally doesn't like? — Instantnood 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Nothing to do with what's going on, but a good question anyways. As long as we're asking irrelevant questions, let me ask, why in America do people drive on a parkway but park on a driveway?

In any case, for your situation the word "disruption" comes to mind. Also "repeatedly", "vexatious", "pestering", "wikilawyering", "ArbCom", and "probation". Lord knows why. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's one way to put it. :-P --Lord Deskana 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way is my messages left at his talk page disruption? Why is it related to ArbCom and probation, etc.? — Instantnood 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean the constant whining? The constant lawyersque nitpicking of details? The refusal to answer direct questions? The sanctions from ArbCom that you have consistently ignored? The attempts to get your own way, regardless of consensus or majority opinion? Man, it all seems familiar, somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

Instantnood, if someone does not wish to entertain your thoughts on their talk page, best not to impose. Best also to not charge admin abuse without clear evidence grounded in policy & common sense. El_C 03:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Immediate indef block and deletion of edit necessary.

See . Is user's only edit. JoshuaZ 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Three of us banninated at around the same time. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, and Curps reverted. I would still suggest a quick deletion/restoration of the article to remove the edit from the history (especially since its presence is very blatant, the personal info is included in the edit summary itself). JoshuaZ 06:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the editor did the same thing here under a different screen name. There may be more copies. JoshuaZ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, same thing at Global Warming as User:NOD (edit now deleted). Guettarda 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that seems to be all of them, but someone still needs to delete the Clinton edit. JoshuaZ 06:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Will tackle the Clinton one. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Hong Kong (PRC)

(procedural note) Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, probationary page bans are issued at Template:Hong Kong (PRC) for edit warring over a trivial matter: Instantnood is banned for two weeks, SchmuckyTheCat is banned for one week.--Jiang 06:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See also the arguments presented at the discussion at user talk:Jiang and WP:AN/3RR. — Instantnood 09:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Scottfisher sock

User:ScottFisher has popped up. Patently same as User:Scottfisher. But I am prepared to believe his claim that he took all the images he has (so far) uploaded. -- RHaworth 07:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute at common.css

Hi everybody. I'd like to point you towards the common.css talk page in which a dispute is going on at the "Please revert "resizing of footnotes by CSS"" paragraph (the debate is also going on, less actively, at the Village Pump (Technical)).

To summarize what happened: a request was made to make an addition to the common.css file that brings the font size of all references down to 90%. When the change was made, only two people were in favor of it, and they were the only ones who had commented. The admin made the change very early before waiting for dissenters to show up in order to find out if there were any at all (to quote the admin who made the change, R._Koot: "The best way to see wath the opinion of the community is would be to change it and see what the reactions are." - quoted from the common.css talk page).

Right after the change was made, a lot of people indeed did show up to dispute the change. There are now two large discussions going on about it. A lot of people disagree with the change and feel that the consensus-seeking community has been avoided in the making of this decision. While it's true that it's not uncommon for admins to be bold in making changes, I feel that since now it's been established that there is no consensus on this change, it should be reverted. A previous discussion on the matter also ended in no consensus.

I feel as though this dispute has gone on for long enough now, and that it's been established that this is not what the community wants (regardless of the actual reasons provided by either party). I hope that an admin will have time to look into this matter soon. —Michiel Sikma, 10:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the dispute originally started at the talk page of Footnotes. —Michiel Sikma, 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be reverted. I wondered why some page's references were suddenly very small. Now I know why. The css change is combining with the habit of some editors to use div tags to reduce the font sizes on a per-article basis and the lovely "synergy" results in unreadable references. --Cyde Weys 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the issue was taken care of. Thanks for your attention! —Michiel Sikma, 05:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism User:Fitzy101

Pure vandalism in the Osama Bin Laden thread. Needs immediate block. User edits.--Jersey Devil 10:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Uploaded a series of copyvio images too, now deleted.--MONGO 10:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rex/merecat/spam/cellphone

216.239.38.136 (talk · contribs) --64.12.116.65 12:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism User:goldenblue

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/Discus_fish

goldenblue is on a crusade to remove several sites that have been listed on Misplaced Pages for several years for no other reason than to promote his own website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.48.49 (talk • contribs)

Holy 9RR violation Batman! Might I suggest discussing the link on the article's talk page before engaging in a massive revert war over one single link. As it is, about 8 reverts have occured from both sides in the last HOUR. Metros232 14:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked both for 3h for WP:3RR. For future ref, WP:AN/3 is the place to report this stuff William M. Connolley 14:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

unblocking Lou franklin

Lou seems to be permanently autoblocked. i've lifted the autoblock on his ip- 66.30.208.149- three times, inshanee has done it once, and i also tried blocking the ip for one minute to see if that would clear it. but none of it seems to have taken; whenever he tries to edit, the autoblock pops back up. Anyone have any idea how to clear this up? --heah 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just cleared another autoblock. --bainer (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And i cleared another one . . . I blocked lou franklin (username, not ip) for one minute, and that seems to have cleared up the autoblock; he is able to edit now. (for better or for worse . . . ) --heah 16:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Duncharris editing protected template inapropriately

Duncharris (talk · contribs) has editing the protected {{British TOCs}} template while it is protected. It was protected because of his actions and unwillingness to discuss things civily on the talk page (in contrast to everyone else with an opinion).

Although disucssion on the talk page has somewhat fizzled out, the last position was that neither side felt there was consensus (as Duncharris has claimed), but that the compromise version should remain until there was. Everyone else is also agreed that a general discussion 2 years previously is not relevant to the dispute about this template - although Duncharris either doesn't understand or refuses to accept this. He has also edit warred over which articles should have the template to try and impose his POV.

I request that an uninvolved administrator revert Duncharris' edits to the template back to the last version for which there was consensus. More input into the disucssion would also be welcome. Thryduulf 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Forthcoming vandalism?

Could I ask people to keep an eye on Office of International Treasury Control for a bit? I've just created an NPOV version of the article following a review of the deletion of the extremely biased OITC fraud article (see #Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article above). Given the extremely peculiar goings-on concerning that article and related articles, I fully expect the new article to be vandalised, so it would be useful if people could drop it in their watchlists for a while. -- ChrisO 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created OITC as a redirect to the new article - eyes on this would also be beneficial. Thryduulf 16:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-evolution related vandalism in Horse

Some anon, or anons, have been vandalizing Horse, by removing phrases like "54 million years ago" from sections on how horses evolved, leaving incomplete sentences. All such edits have no comments and are from anons. Suggest watching for similar activity in other popular animal articles. --John Nagle 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bondstars

New user Special:Contributions/Bondstars has created a lot of movie people stubs. They are all copyvios from http://www.bondstars.com/ but presumably their creator has granted themselves permission to copy and since they are inoffensive bio stubs, it seems a waste of time deleting them. -- RHaworth 18:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot assume that permission has been granted. It must be explicitly stated somewhere - ideally on all the talk pages of the articles concerned. If there is a lot of them it might be worth creating a template saying something like "This article incorporates material from bondstars.com. Content on that site is copyright , however the inlcuded material has been released under the GFDL by its creator . Any other material copied from that site without further explicit permission of release under the GFDL is a copyright violation and will be removed from Misplaced Pages without warning". Thryduulf 18:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's some advertising concerns to look at here, too. The user's userpage is a straight-up advertisement for his website, and I'd question the notability of a lot of the actors in those stubs. --InShaneee 18:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. The website actually states its purpose: to take advantage of Bond films' popularity and act as a repository for those involved who wish to market "genuine handsigned merchandise". This violates WP:EL#Links to normally avoid #s 2 and 3. To use your own copy from your website in a Misplaced Pages article I would think would be to circumvent the appearance of a spam link by using prose instead; this would violate #9. As for notability, Alan Hume might not qualify even as a "Bond star", let alone for a Wiki article. RadioKirk talk to me 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass blog link-spamming from User:69.160.112.131

Hi. It looks like User:69.160.112.131 has spammed personal blog links to a large number of articles. He has been warned three times for spam now. Does this warrant a block? --Takeel 19:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of a ton of linkspam, but he hasn't done any past his last warning, so I wouldn't do anything just yet. --InShaneee 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind keeping an eye on the contributions of User:69.160.112.131? --Takeel 19:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wittydw- persistant copyvio

This editor insists on adding material to Celebrity Fit Club that has been taken directly from itv.com. The page has been reverted many times, and the editor has been asked to stop. 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Stopped for now, and I've removed an incivility. If it continues, user needs to be duly warned with {{test}} templates. RadioKirk talk to me 19:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Animal hoarding

I am, admittedly, having a content dispute with User:Brianbeck on this article. As it stands, it makes a gross generalization which tries to claim that all people who hoard animals have the same motivations, the same methods, and the same results. I've added the pov tag to it, and asked on the Talk page that it be rewritten to make it less an attack and more of a descriptive. But Brianbeck keeps removing the pov tag and refuses to make any changes. I don't really know how to change the article without completely deleting a lot of what's there, but repeated removal of the pov tag without any consideraton is, in my opinion, vandalism, but since I'm involved in the dispute, I won't be blocking Brianbeck. How should I proceed? User:Zoe| 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Netpari

Despite its name, this is not a User page. No edits have been made from this page. It's redirected to by User:Salmaakbar, who is the actual User. Should this page be removed, if Salmaakbar doesn't want to change his/her User name? The use of this page as if it were a real User page is misleading, at best. User:Zoe| 22:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It definatly doesn't belong in the main space. I'd recommend deleting it. --InShaneee 00:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't 'user pages for users that don't exist' a speedy criterion? Is there any reason why such a userpage would need to exist? --Sam Blanning 00:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone just took her username and started editing with it ( Netpari (talk · contribs) ). Here's a situation I've never seen before. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's Salmaakbar's fault for not actually registering the Netpari account. Whoever has registered it now is undoubtedly the real owner of that username. Looks like Salmaakbar is forced back to using his own userpage and talk page. --Cyde Weys 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Abuse from trolls of the Rajput Arbcom case

I am facing harassment from trolls connected to the Rajput page, which was recently in Arbcom. User:Partha rathore is another throwaway account which reverted me on Rathore and called me stupid on this edit summary on 04/May, in response to which I gave him a "test2" message. Now he has left abuse on my user-page, abusing my father in Hindi and calling me some other crude names. He then reverted my past several edits, and did the usual revertion of Rajput. He is almost certainly User:Shivraj Singh, some (but not all) of whose socks are included here. I request that he be permabanned. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song)

This was the most difficult close I've had to handle so far. I won't repeat my reasoning for closing as 'delete' rather than 'no consensus' - WP:DRV will decide if I made the right decision. However, the article has already been recreated once at El Condor pada (see AfD which I closed early under CSD G4), and I have received what may be a veiled threat to recreate it again:

• Myself: "If you want the article undeleted WP:DRV is the only forum where that will happen."
• BabaRuga: "Dont be so sure."

Please watch out for further recreations. Dzoni (talk · contribs) has also posted copy-and-paste messages on many user talk pages about the last recreation and the new AfD that was initiated - see and others. --Sam Blanning 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a notice about this - The admin has clearly blatantly violated the policies, as there was no concensus at all (in fact majority of vote was keep). Since he mentions the comment "dont be so sure" as refering to possible recreation of the article, that is clearly not what that comment meant. It meant that the complaint will go about his ABUSE of adminship, rather than about the article itself - I am much more concerned about the blatant and shameless violation of AfD process than about the article itself. So, Samuel Blanning's abuse will be reported on the apropriate place, and the relevant community, that have interest in this, will have opportunity to comment. Why there is AfD process at all if people, who possibly have grudge against editors of certain nationality and/or POV, can abuse it in such blatant ways. User Dzoni might care about the article (as do many other users, to a lesser extent), but the people who care about abuse are much more numerous. It will not pass just like that. Article is not the main issue, but the abusive, arogant behavior agains all wikipedia policies of the (self-proclaimed) rogue admin S. Blanning is not to be tolerated. His hasty decision will certainly have to be justified against the weight of those who he has been abusing. BabaRera 01:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

BabaRear has created Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not simply a vote count. It is a discussion of the pros and cons of the article. If an article doesn't assert the notability of in this case a song, and no proof of notability is provided during the AfD, it is within the admin's discretion to delete the article, even if the votes don't add up to a delete. In this particular AfD, I note two things: 1. No proof of notability of the song is provided during the AfD. The article contains one dead link and two geocities-level (i.e. not very reliable) websites. The only proof given during the AfD is proof by blatant assertion, and wikipedia needs more proof than just that. 2. Several users engaged in voter canvassing to skew the consensus, by targetting selected users hoping that they would vote a certain way. In view of this, closing the AfD as delete is well within the discretion of Samuel Blanning. Threatening to recreate to the article without going through Deletion Review also does not speak in favour of the users making the threat. Aecis 08:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And now it's recreated at El kondor pada. User:Zoe| 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef-block of Avillia

I have indef-blocked Avillia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after a string of very serious incidents. I'm bringing it here for review:

• 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• Reposting of private IRC logs onto Misplaced Pages.
• Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage. This was subsequently used by vandals to make fast-paced vandalism.
• A similar thing was done with VandalProof, another piece of software that has a check feature.
• A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DCC exploits that affect me and others on the #wikipedia channel.

This is clearly not the kind of user we need to put up with having around. Please review. --Cyde Weys 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Support completely. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

support blocking under the "exhausted community patience" section of the blocking policy Benon 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Cyde. This user has hacked AWB in bad faith, bragged about it on IRC constantly, and invited people to vandalize wikipedia with it. He has been given quite a few chances and has not reformed. In fact, the next time someone does this, I suggest we don't wait a month to block. pschemp | talk 01:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde, note I was the one who was reverting Avilla on Criticism of Misplaced Pages and he was removing parts that he wanted from the article, even though I agree with Avilla on a few things though and removed them myself. That's not enough for a indef block but the other things are serious and I endorse the block. Thanks Jaranda 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, enough is enough. Avillia has made a few useful edits but the majority of his braggings "hacking AWB to bypass authentication" then complaining when an IP using the hacked version was blocked claiming we have no policy for it, to the freenode hacking, Avillia just raises major problems here and elsewhere. -- Tawker 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Another support here. Ral315 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. I just accidentally stumbled upon Avillia's request for unblock, and I hate to go against so many respectable admins, but I have to disagree with this block. I've been fed up with Avillia since day one when he started harassing me about WP:VandalProof and posed serious threats to the project's survival; then I came across the FreeAWB incident and suggested that the user be blocked or taken to an WP:RfC; then I came across the IRC logs incident; then I saw the WP:RfC his opened for Tawker and Essjay; then I saw the personal attacks on his userpage, and I was utterly convinced that the user should be banned. However, since then the user has calmed down quite significantly, has removed FreeAWB links from his page and apologized for the incident, has apologized to me, and he has now actually begun helping me out with WP:VandalProof, providing a lot of very useful input about how to improve the tool. Maybe I'm just assuming way, way, way too much good faith here, but I feel the user may actually be making an honest attempt to improve. I feel he may be able eventually to contribute quite a lot to the encyclopedia, and I certainly don't think he is a lost cause. I understand that he has exausted your patience, and I don't blame you one bit, but perhaps a shorter block (maybe 3 months?) with continued probation thereafter might be more appropriate, rather than an indefinite ban. In any case, it's likely quite inconsequential--I have no doubt that after the user is banned, he will return again anonymously as a sockpuppet, and perhaps he'll continue down the same road or maybe he will actually help to build an encyclopedia. In any case, I certainly don't want this to appear as support for Avillia's actions; rather, I would just like to ask you all to maybe consider a less permanent "punishment." AmiDaniel (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is just wrong.

• 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
  • Support a 24-hour block for this.
• Reposting of private IRC logs onto Misplaced Pages.
  • Support a ban from #wikipedia. But he was trying to justify himself, not troll. Good faith.
• Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage. This was subsequently used by vandals to make fast-paced vandalism.
  • I don't think this second claim is accurate. Also, anyone can do this. It's an open source tool that edits pages for you. This possibly is a stress on the community's goodwill but it is only tinkering. At most, this deserves up to a week-long block.
• A similar thing was done with VandalProof, another piece of software that has a check feature.
  • I don't believe he actually accomplished this.
• A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DCC exploits that affect me and others on the #wikipedia channel.
  • I would support a ban from #wikipedia.

Avilla is clearly an excellent hacker who could make good contributions if he were to be banned from messing around with semi-bots, or something like that. Ashibaka tock 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, what? We can trust him as long as the rest of Misplaced Pages stays on his good side?! With all respect, not even WP:JIMBO should have that kind of power... RadioKirk talk to me 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ashibaka (glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this is harsh!). He did threaten to remove authentication from VP, but as source code was never provided, he never accomplished this. I was also not sure about the anon who vandalized with FreeAWB (I was just returning to ask about that when I saw this comment), as I think that may have just been a rumor. I would entirely support a ban from #wikipedia, but his actions off-wiki should not result in his being banned here. I might also note that, when Avillia first began posting IRC logs, it had not been "officially" made policy that doing so was prohibited--the majority of his actions following that result from confusion regarding the, in his opinion, unprovoked deletion of the logs and threats of being blocked, for something he did not know was prohibited. Naturally, he didn't deal with the situation well, and he is kind of a hot-head, but I'm not sure that's a reason to be banned. Oh, and I didn't see this until the edit conflict--I totally agree that any future attempts to remove authentication from semibots, deface tools, or encourage others to do the same should result in an immediate block (call it a semibot probation). AmiDaniel (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Avilla has caused nothing but grief for essjay, tawker, shanel, pathoschild, firefox, freenonde and countless others, unfortunatley despite sometimes appearing to be working constructivley. I'm a great beliver that a user can change but a long forced wikibreak is defintly required here Benon 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also with regards to logs, it has *always* been policy that #vandalism-en-wp should only be privately logged although i understand there was some confuison. What I and others objected was to avilla then continuing to game the system by restoring them after deletion Benon 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Has it? I wasn't entirely sure about that, but I was under the impression that the policies were changed during Swatjester's RfA. In any case, I'll admit that I wasn't particularly involved in the conflict between him and Essjay, Tawker, etc. From the involvement I've had with them, I entirely trust their judgment (especially Tawker); thus, if they feel the dispute they had with him alone warrants an indef block, I will beyond a doubt support it. I just wanted to state that I no longer hold anything against Avillia for his disputes with me, and I don't feel the points about VP, FreeAWB, 3RR, and IRC made above warrant an indef block. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It has. The policy was clarified because rules lawyers like Avillia tried to scream they weren't given due notice, but I personally talked with Avillia before he was given access to #vandalism-en-wp, and outlined our rules specifically. He was told, in no uncertain terms, that he was being given an extraordinarily rare second chance (he'd already been refused access by at least two others), and that it was his responsibility to make himself aware of and abide by all channel policies. #vandalism-en-wp does not operate under the same policies as the #wikipedia channels, and has always had a policy against logging, as evidenced by the dozens of people who came out immediately to tell him he was violating it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A ban from #wikipedia?! Hah! He's getting K-lined from all of FreeNode! Do we really want to allow someone to edit Misplaced Pages who has been banned from an entire IRC network for using malicious exploits to disconnect other users? --Cyde Weys 05:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know for a fact that getting banned from some network or another doesn't preclude the privilege of editing... he has been a bit annoying sometimes, and his recent activity might be grounds for a block of some length, but I don't think he has actually harassed anyone. Ashibaka tock 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to actually undo the block or anything, it is all too likely that you're more knowledgeable about this than me. Ashibaka tock 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning from non-Misplaced Pages networks is not by itself a blockable offense. Presumably if a convicted murderer was making good edits we would let the murderer edit. On the other hand, disruption of #wikipedia is in its own special category because it is almost an appendage of the Wiki. The best argument for an indefinite ban is that Avillia has simply exhausted the community's patience by his actions. As to that claim, I am not convinced of that (having only actually seen the Misplaced Pages half of this problem and not the #wikipedia part). I would like to give Avillia one more chance and if any out of the line behavior occurs, an indefinite block will result. JoshuaZ 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAA, but I certainly agree with Joshua and was about to make a very similar case myself. Joe 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ as well. I feel that off-wiki actions should not be grounds for a block here, though his actions on #wikipedia do suggest a threat to Misplaced Pages itself. In any case, if Avillia is as good a hacker as he has made himself out to be, whether we block him or not will not disable him from disrupting Misplaced Pages. I also feel that his on-wiki disruptions seem to have been primarily provoked by the fact that no one, myself included, ever even tried assuming good faith. Nonetheless, I am very bothered by his earlier attacks on Misplaced Pages, claiming it is built upon a "cabal" mentality, and that coupled with his skill at hacking suggests that he may well seek to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Yet I feel we may just be poking a sleeping beast by blocking him, and his actions on-wiki, though frustrating and annoying, have not been sufficiently hazardous enough to warrant an indefinite block. As I said before, a ban really does nothing--he'll create a sockpuppet and return, perhaps quietly, perhaps not. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a block for a few months, and then let's give him a chance to make constructive edits--if he continues in this fashion, then we invoke an indef ban. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, those creators and users of peripheral software are, I would guess, already working on plugging whatever holes can be plugged. RadioKirk talk to me 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the connection until reading it here, but over the last 6-10 weeks I have been getting disconnected from Freenode (with a generic mirc error message), and I think Avillia is responsible. I asked in #wikipedia, and got a message shortly thereafter purporting to be from avillia in which he admitted responsiblity. Raul654 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the #wikipedia channel operator who has banned Avillia on that IRC channel. It was in response to an assertion by a Freenode staffer that Avillia was the user who had been maliciously disconnecting users from IRC using a couple of exploits. I will reiterate that banning from #wikipedia should not be seen as being at all related to a user's editing privileges. They are two entirely different spheres. There is not even 100% proof that Avillia was the offending user. So please do not even consider off-wiki behaviour in this instance. - Mark 05:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A freenode staffer has confirmed on the #vandalism-en-wp channel that it was avilla so im now getting confused :S Benon 05:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This has not yet been confirmed, as far as I've been able to find out. Avillia claims that someone faked his identity and hostname, and apparently Lilo will be able to confirm/disprove this tomorrow by checking logs. If it is found that he was not actually responsible for the IRC exploits, then the list of reasons for this indef block has been whittled down to: 3RR, IRC logging, and the removal of authentication from WP:AWB, which I personally don't feel warrants an indefinite ban. If he is found to have been responsible for the IRC trolling, then I could support a somewhat longer block, but again not an indefinite one. I might also note that Avillia is a self-admitted member of GNAA, though he has not participated in the trolling of Misplaced Pages, and he claims to have not been involved in the freenode trolling either. That may or may not influence this decision. I feel that most of the support for this ban has arisen from speculative and circumstantial evidence, and I certainly don't think any decision should be finalized until some of these points can be proven. I might note that two of these speculative points have already been disproven: no anon vandalized using FreeAWB, and the authentication was never removed from VP, and the final point has also been disproven insofar as no one has yet confirmed that Avillia was indeed involved in the DCC exploits. Morning may reveal more. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

lilo = Rob Levin = head of freenode Kotepho 14:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an easy way to settle the matter; someone who feels strongly enough that the block was out of process should file an appeal on his behalf to the Arbitration Committee. I'll be more than happy to make the case that he and any reincarnation should be banned indefinately. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Woa, I think invoking the ArbCom at this point is quite unnecessary--I thought we were just having a discussion about the matter. There's no need to get defensive, though I totally understand why you feel so strongly about this. I'm just asking that we look at this a little more closely and try to see if Avillia's claims are valid or not--then we can take it from there. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least; the Banning Policy specifically states: "Community-derived bans may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee". Avillia has been blocked, we assert it is a ban by the community; the appropriate resolution is for someone who believes the community is wrong to ban him to step up and appeal his case for him. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is either excessive, unnecessary, or disruptive. Given Avillia's actions it makes perfect sense to bring this to ArbCom if, for whatever reason, this block doesn't "stick". --Cyde Weys 08:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom recently rejected a request to review a "community ban" citing that it is up for the community to decide. It doesn't really matter what the banning policy says if they aren't going to do it. Kotepho 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that I don't want to appeal the ban, but rather I want to wait for more hard evidence to come in, see what I feel after that, and see if the admins here still feel that a ban was necessary. The only reason for taking this to the ArbCom, in my opinion, would be if the admins could not reach a consensus after that point, and if it showed signs of becoming a wheel war (which the preemptive removal of Avillia's block already indicates might be the case). If the admins seem generally to agree that this ban is necessary (which they don't at this point, but may after more evidence comes in), I will certainly drop it. If, after the rest of the facts are made available, the admins generally agree that the ban should be lifted, then I'd assume others would also have the same decency to let it go. I certainly don't want it to appear that I'm debating, I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter. As I've said before, I totally understand why you so passionately oppose Avillia, as I've felt this same disdain for him as well; however, I still feel it necessary and decent to investigate the possibility that he may have been unfairly treated. AmiDaniel (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're conducting a character analysis of Avillia this Slashdot post may be relevant. Magnetism 07:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

the unblock and reblock of Avillia

I didn't read through the whole conversation, but it seems like some of the justifications for the block are for off-site incidents. IRC, sourceforge, hacking of other software. None of those activities took place here on en.wp, therefore indefinite ban based on them is wrong (no matter how harmful those activities may be). On the other hand, 3RR here on WP is a clear violation. Deserves a block, but not a permban. -lethe 13:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading more comments here, and on the user's talk page, I see that there are some signs of reform, and perhaps even some evidence that some of the "crimes" were not interpreted fairly. The only on-site wp violation that I've seen alleged against this user is a 3RR violation, which is not enough for a permban. I have unblocked this user. -lethe 13:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking without consensus is a good way to start a wheel war. User:Zoe| 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But I have a very conservative view about permanent blocks; they should only be undertaken when we're absolutely positive. The comments above do not reflect that, so I had to unblock. For what it's worth, the wheel war is underway; User:Kelly Martin has reverted my unblock. -lethe 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert lethe's unblock; rather, I blocked Avillia for her edits after lethe's unblock. Let's be clear about this. Also, I remind people that blocked users may participate in an Arbitration case by email to any Arbitrator or clerk; it is not necessary to unblock an editor to allow an arbitration to proceed against them. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin has blocked Avillia for one week; let's leave it that way for now, please. I personally feel that removing the block entirely went against the discussion here, as I feel there are definitely grounds for blocking at this point and that most everyone here has agreed upon that. The only question is how long the block should extend, primarily whether it should be indefinite or not. Though there do seem to be a lot of people opposed to an indef block at this point (and people, like me, waiting to hear all of the evidence before making up my mind), it would seem few object to at least a week's block (though some have suggested a 24hr block instead). I'd just hope the admins here would refrain from wheel-warring, both from removing the block and lengthening the block, as that just complicates matters further. In a week's time, there may be consensus to unblock, to permablock (though that's looking less likely), or this may go to the ArbCom; in any case, it doesn't seem to make a difference whether she is currently blocked for a week or blocked indefinitely. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I support a one week block. Note that I think all parties involved should have discussed this before carrying out the blocks and unblocks, but on balance I think the one week block is the fairest. Petros471 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is serious objection to the block, then we can't consider it a community decision, can we? Since lethe objects, send it to ArbCom to reinstate the indef block (however long that process will take). ArbCom gets it right typically and why should we invite wheel warring when we have ArbCom? (For example, I am happy with how ArbCom stepped up with the new ruling in the StrangerInParadise case, instead of their leaving it to any random admin to decide whether to impose an indef block.) Until ArbCom decides something on Avillia, he can be blocked as any other user can be for infractions, just not indefinitely. In due time, ArbCom will make the right ruling. A one week block seems good for now. NoSeptember 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd hoped bringing in the ArbCom wouldn't be necessary, but as it's now turned to wheel-warring, this seems to be the only solution. As NoSeptember said, if the block is this controversial, it can't be a community decision. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I'd like to add that I personally believe that a one week block suffices, unless I see any evidence of misconduct to change my mind (including if Avillia is found to be responsible for the IRC abuse). AmiDaniel (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A week long block sounds fair. Indef seems excessive (blocking established users permanently should only be done after careful thought). BrokenSegue 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say fair opposition, I'd say its still 70/30 in favour of keeping the block up. If this GNAA posting on Slashdot is still the same user, it does bring very big questions about the users actions, I think its best for ArbCom to take a look here -- Tawker 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not clear on what Avillia's infraction was beyond 3RR, so 1 week sounds longish to me, but I'm not going to wheel war over it. And I'm not going to take it to court either. I can live with a week. Of course, just a comment to you, September: if we do send it to ArbComm, then we cannot reinstate the permban, as Avillia will have to be expected to be able to edit his ArbComm case. Isn't that so? -lethe 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom has in the past temporarily unblocked users so that they can add their comments. But that is up to ArbCom. Further, I doubt ArbCom wants to jump into a decision whether to indef block here. The case has to proceed through the normal dispute resolution steps as any other case does before they will even accept the case. NoSeptember 21:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The other steps in the dispute resolution process also require that the user be unblocked. -lethe 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A seven-day block is not appropriate for this level of disruption. He must be blocked indefinitely; it's the only way to treat a troll of that type once he has shown his true colors. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a hater. Ashibaka tock 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate the silly troll. I just advocate indefinitely denying him access to our wiki. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I've been waiting for some time for Lilo to get back online so I can ask him to confirm this (and I will post again once he has); however, as I have come to understand it, freenode officials after reviewing the case today have concluded that there is no definitive evidence that Avillia was involved in the IRC DCC exploits and the malicious and intentional disconnecting of several users from freenode. As there is no evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that his story, that someone impersonated him by faking hostnames and identities, is still a possibility; as such, I feel the claim that "A FreeNode official has investigated and confirmed that Avillia has been using IRC DDC exploits that affect and others on the #wikipedia channel" can be disregarded as invalid. I might also note that, again to my understanding, Avillia is not currently k-lined, though he is banned from #wikipedia. In any case, I still feel that, even if Avillia were found to be guilty of this accusation, his actions off-wiki should not result in banishment on-wiki.

With the IRC issue disregarded, the VandalProof claim disproven, and the claim that FreeAWB was used for fast-paced vandalism left unreferenced, unconfirmed, and unproven (not even the IP address has yet to provided), we are now left with the following three reasons for an indefinite ban: (quoted from Cyde above)

1. 3RR and edit-warring on Criticism of Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. Reposting of private IRC logs onto Misplaced Pages.
3. Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage.

The links to FreeAWB were taken down by Avillia after being threatened with a RfAR, and Martin has expressed no interest in pursuing the issue further. Similarly, this user has made ammends with me over his threats to the WP:VandalProof project, and I no longer wish to pursue that matter further. (As I said above, the user has actually now approached me with helpful ideas for improving the tool and seems to have recognized that his earlier actions were misguided.)

I might also add that Avillia is a self-admitted member of GNAA and has participated in trolling on other sites, though he now claims to be inactive in the organization. At the same time, there are several members of GNAA on Misplaced Pages, even some who troll Misplaced Pages, who have not been blocked and have had no administrative action taken against them. Anyway, you all know my stance on the issue, so I won't bother repeating it--I just wanted to get the facts straight. Sorry for my long soliloquy, and this will likely be my last post (other than noting when the opening statement has been personally confirmed) on the issue unless it goes to ArbCom. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One more note. Avillia just contacted me and confirmed that he was the Avillia responsible for this Slashdot post. In response he said, "Yeah. It was a really stupid slashdot post...One first post on Slashdot with the GNAA signatory, watching a idiotic but hilarious movie filled with racial and ethnic slurs, and answering 20 questions about aforementioned movie, given by means of IRC bot" (republished with his permission). It certainly doesn't do much to boost his character sketch, but I still don't feel it's a reason for an indefinite ban. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal with IRC logs is. I note that wikipedia talk pages, wiki-en mail list discussions and USENET discussions are available to the entire internet in perpetuam. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that emails are publishable by either side taking part in the discussion. Given that the IRC cabal sometimes has an effect on WP policy, I don't see any reason why they should expect to have their conversations guarded in perfect secrecy. Just because people don't like having their IRC logs posted doesn't explain why it's a blockable offense. -lethe 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on it either, but apparently it has to do with privacy policy violations and laws prohibiting the unconsensual logging and publication of online, two-party chats. This is, perhaps, related. It would be nice if someone could point to where this is outlined in more depth than it is in the IRC channel list on meta. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the prohibition on public logging of #wikipedia, it isn't outlined in depth anywhere. It has just been that way for a very long time. The policy is not made by the note on meta; the note is nothing more than a note. Since the channels are services of Freenode, rather than Wikimedia, they first and foremost follow the Peer Directed Projects Centre policies and guidelines. Notable in the guidelines is the following: "If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant." Misplaced Pages Policy is not made on IRC (or on the mailing list, for that matter), it's made on Misplaced Pages proper. Taking it a bit further, if admins knew each other in real life and happened to discuss Misplaced Pages policy on a conference call on the phone, would we not block if someone uploaded recordings of their conversations? I fail to see why one is wrong and one is okay. - Mark 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The DRV dicussion notes that that was a recent change to include that rule, even if it was an unwritten one beforehand. Even then, I fail to see how PDPC rules apply to Misplaced Pages actions. The channel in question is also #vandalism-en-wp, not #wikipedia (AFAIK, going from Pathoschild's DRV comments again). I don't think we should block someone for uploading a recorded conference call either, if they capitulate and do not persist in reposting it (AGF and all that) and I do not know of Avilia reposting the logs on Misplaced Pages after being told not to. Kotepho 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much to weigh in on here except the unblock while discussion of the block was specifically ongoing and most people agreeing at least some block was needed is absolutely the wrong thing to do. No one should ever revert another admin's call (much less many admins agreeing with the call) unless there is consensus to do so. Following that would prevent all wheel wars. There are few admin actions so urgent they can't wait for consensus to develop, especially after the least risk option has been chosen. - Taxman 05:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. I apologize for the o'erhasty action, and will be more careful in the future. -lethe 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a complete unblock should not have been done, but the way community bans are normally described is that someone indef blocks them and no one is willing to unblock them, since lethe is/was willing to unblock it really isn't a ban then. It would make more sense to block for a week, post here, and if there is support for an indef block/ban go through with it. There is no rush to indef block someone. Even if consensus cannot be reached or there is some bizarre delay you can always reblock for another week them while discussion continues. Kotepho 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He's a self-admitted troll, he glories in it. He must be blocked indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For those not watching closely, he's currently blocked for a week by Kelly Martin. I think that's appropriate for now, and we should revisit this discussion if he continues to be disruptive once that block expires. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal telephone number of an Admin

Hello Admins,

I thought i would report that User:Elasticgasket has mentioned an Administrator's telephone number in an edit summary . I have told the Admin involved, but i guess it should be dealt with ASAP. Rockpocket (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems someone dealt with it already. Johnleemk | Talk 07:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I have removed that edit from the history of the page. Can I strongly recommend that all admins go here to find a quick way of checking all boxes when doing a partial restoration of a page. In this case, there were only eighty-something versions, but in a page which has several hundred, it's fantastic to have a way of checking all boxes immediately, so that you can just uncheck the box for the two or three edits that you want to remove. AnnH ♫ 07:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to another admin, all you have to do is select the first checkbox, then press shift and select the last one. I have no idea if it works, though. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It works for me in IE6 and the most recent versions of Firefox and Opera. I don't know how other browsers respond. —David Levy 13:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to use 'Ctrl-Shift' rather than just 'Shift' in Firefox 1.0.7. --CBDunkerson 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also one of these in (deleted for privacy), but if I tried to deal with it I'd break something. Henry 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and emailed Brion about it. --InShaneee 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to delete the page for ten minutes, but couldn't do it. Snoutwood (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried as well, but kept getting an error message. AnnH ♫ 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I emailed Brion. :) --InShaneee 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's gone now. —Encephalon 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 07:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels messing about in the wikipedia namespace. Appropriate block. Aecis 07:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User page protected

Someone has protected my user talk page, leaving a warning message that is patently false visible. Unfortunately, I can't seem to leave a message on the blocking admin's talk page. Can someone either unprotect it or edit out the statement about vandalism, since I have not committed any. Thanks. 81.104.165.184 09:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be protected. As for the vandalism, it may have been done by someone with the same IP address as you. I suggest getting an account. You don't have to give any personal information, not even an email address (you can give one if you want to receive mail from other editors, though). -- Kjkolb 10:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the history, it appears that User:81.104.165.184 was in a content dispute with User:Captain scarlet, with Captain scarlet eventually growing frustrated and accusing 81.104.165.184 of vandalism. The discussion that seems to have lead to this accusition is here; the specific edit that Captain scarlet seems to be claiming was vandalism is this one... unless I'm missing something here, it simply isn't, although given that that is the case both users appear to have violated the 3RR on that page in the ensuing dispute (several days ago, of course, past the statue of limitations.) Another user also seems to have objected when 81.104.165.184 removed the warning from their talk page--that can't be right, can it? I can understand keeping warnings when there's a legitimate dispute, but if every flatly spurious warning like this one had to be retained forever then the template would become useless. It strikes me as not only correct but necessary to swiftly revert bad-faith or misguided warnings, since they threaten the entire warning system. --Aquillion 14:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

Minutes after I add Category:Kurdish inhabited region to a half dozen articles , User:Cool Cat nominates the category for deletion.

This is confusing, because Cool Cat contacted me via IRC to get me to create just such a category. Unless I'm misrembering (I _am_ getting old, you know ;-) this. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? It seems that his objection is not in the category's existence but in its use. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region

User:Cool Cat has a history of #POV editing, and has been enjoined from disruptively editing articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds.

He has vociferously sought the deletion of all categories related to Kurds:

Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 17#Category:Kurdistan
Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 3#Category:Kurdistan

plus the current votes:

Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces
Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6#Category:Kurdish cities

During the second CFD for Category:Kurdistan he stated: I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me.

Category:Kurdish inhabited region was created by User:Ed Poor as part of discussion on Category talk:Kurdistan where User:Cool Cat has been adamantly opposed to all efforts to establish consensus on usage of this category. User:Francs2000, whom User:Cool Cat asked to comment, ended up telling him that you need to change your attitude.

I agree, he needs to change his attitude. --Moby 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree entirely with Moby's summary. Cool Cat's disruptions do it hard to write articles about anythings related to Kurds. And it is indeed not an extenuating circumstance that user themselve stated, as quoted above, that they intended to sabotage the Category:Kurdistan, as it during the debate for its deletion was clear that it would stay. I hope some action will be taken, since the alternative seems to be continuing of disruptive edit wars. Bertilvidet 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom verdict which you've posted above says that he should be blocked for up to 3 days if he engages edits disruptively in Kurdish related areas. We've got several people saying he has done so, therefore I block 2 days. -lethe 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position here, Cool Cat invited me into the discussion claiming that he was having POV issues with Kurdistan related articles, implying that he had received death threats from other users as a result of the discussion getting heated (see here). I got involved and made some progress with the other users in getting some agreement over the inclusion of Category:Kurdistan in articles, and this I believe has led to some of the sub-categories such as those listed above being created. I have since stepped back a bit due largely to real life events. I will say that although Cool Cat had some valid points in his arguements against the inclusion of material in articles about the disputed region, the way he went about making his point was unnecessarily aggressive, in my opinion. I also stand by telling him that he needs to change his opinion, after he stated (and I paraphrase) that he would be unable to negotiate a consensus on certain subject areas. -- Francs2000 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the comments you're referring to as death threats were targeting you (for reasons I have no clue about) and had nothing to do with User:Cool Cat or anyone else involved in the Kurdish categorization discussions; I certainly made no such threats. And thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. As Cool Cat's mentor I'm banning him from editing articles, templates and categories related to the kurds. He may still edit related discussion pages. This ban is initially to run for one week, to be made permanent subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ban includes creation or nomination for deletion. See the announcement on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, too! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• If this is to be kept it should be called Kurdish inhabited regions as per the naming policy to use plurals in categories. How long was this ban on Kurdish related articles for Coolcat? (Mgm - not logged in) - 131.211.210.16 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of plural makes sense to me, I'll suggest it on the CFD. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a copy of a message I posted to Tony Sidaway:

While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (which is in my opinion even more disruptive -- bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?

I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. - Mgm| 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The nomination of Category:Kurdish inhabited region was the action that prompted me to start this discussion here, but the disruption has been on-going on pages such as Category talk:Kurdistan and Talk:Batman, Turkey for some time. He has removed Category:Kurdistan from many article (awhile ago...) and has been rather clear about his intent to oppose all efforts at categorizing Kurdish articles. Given his history, I would think a ban on Kurdish-related editing an apt remedy. An hour ago I left a note on his talk page and he screamed at me. I don't see him as willing to work with others on this subject. --Moby 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentors I see it as our main jobs to keep Cool_Cat (talk · contribs) editing effectively and to avoid another rendezvous with the arbitration committee. As always, it is not Cool Cat's judgement on content that is in question but the way in which he interacts with others on some subjects. Yesterday he was blocked for forty-eight hours by Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a result of the complaint by Moby_Dick (talk · contribs). In Lethe's view, Cool Cat has edited disruptively on the subject of the Kurds so arbitration remedy 5 is invoked.

This isn't the first time since the arbitration that we've had trouble with Cool Cat over Kurds. From early March he has made some unconstructive AfDs:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan

and some unconstructive comments on others:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Stub_types_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=44203127

There is an ongoing concern, and I think a valid one, that Cool Cat permits his edits on such issues to be influenced too strongly by his sympathies with Turkish nationalism. He repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia.

Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so.

It is for this reason that I announced the one-week ban.

However, User:MacGyverMagic is also one of Cool Cat's mentors, and although in this case I have acted alone I do not intend to take actions with which any of my fellow mentors disagree.

In view of MacGyverMagic's opposition, I rescind the ban pending further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's response to all of this

It is quite pathetic when one has to defend himself to his mentor... I'll list the articles, categories, and templates I have placed for deletion below. I am going to include ones Tony Sidaway did not include as well.

I'd like to point out the reason why we do not do polls for deletion. All deletion processes are a concensus gathering process. However on occasions disruptive behaviour such as Vote Stacking do happen.

Hence I will explain all of the deletion votes I started or participated. I will try to be brief for all of them.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
  • Article was originaly talking about two countries that have supposively existed. One only lasted 2 years while another lasted less than 6 months. The article(s) barely occupy a paragraph and had two sections I believe.
  • Article at a point was comparing the british goverment with saddam as "the british goverment gassed the kurds".
  • I was in contact with Tony on IRC about this deletion, I do not recall the details but he did not say or imply such a deletion would be disruptive.
  • During the vfd the articles quality was improved sligtly
  • Perhaps article is much suitable to be a section on an article with the title "Modern History of the Kurds" as article cant grow much even when inflated with lists of cabinate members.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
  • When I placed this article up for deleteion it was talking about an insignificant restourant which two kurds supposively had been shot. At the time the article barely could be considered a stub. After the deletion article was slightly inproved and renamed. It became a historicaly significant incident and hence became article worthy as an incident rather than info about the restourant.
  • I discussed the possible afd of this article with Tony Sidaway on IRC and he said it was pretty useless and that he said it wouldnt probably survive a deletion.
  • The result of my Afd is a better article with a better title.
  • This article should be a section at "Modern history of the Kurds" as article is too short and cant grow as the incident was quite minor and all details have been presented.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan
  • Other editors, one being Gruntness feels this article exists soely as a pov fork. Syrian Kurdistan was deleted for that reason
  • There was a case of vote stacking over 14 people were notified of this afd of which all but one voted favorably to the advertisier (user:Bertilvidet) with keep. My complaint about a vote stacking generated milimal response and no action.
  • Article currently gives a short intoduction to kurdish history which is a copy of History of the Kurds and a number of articles. Kurdistan is not oversized and we do have a Kurds in Turkey if we are to talk about the kurds. We can talk about Kurdish nationalism in its own article.
  • If we had a sensable deletion process this article would have been deleted. If you think otherwise please provide a rationale at what purpose does this article with pov titile, Turkish Kurdistan, serve that cant be achieved through Kurds in Turkey and Kurdish nationalism.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
  • It is a strange article. I believe this article is nothing but pusedo science and promotes racisim. When I nominated this article for deleteion there was a VERY LARGE dna picture and it was less than neutral. it might be a nice addition to a section under Kurdish people. BUT etnicity is a cultural concept not genetic. Genetic would be race and last time I checked Kurds were just an ethnic minority.
• Category:Kurdish terrorists
  • I got this category speedy deleted.
  • I personaly believe Abdullah Ocalan is a Kurdish terrorist. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
• Category:PKK victims
  • I got this category speedy deleted.
  • I personaly believe PKK is a Terrorist organisation and anybody they killed is a victim. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
• Template:Kurd-politician-stub
  • I participated in this vote expressing why the stub category is pov. Stub types have very explicit guidelines.
  • I'd like to point out comments of some of the people voting keep... They are by far intruguing
  • I have not initiated this deletion
  • The "unless we consider kurdish a nationality and kurdistan a country which would be pov not shared by international treaties" comment tony highlighted is in parallel with stub guidelines.
    • While a Category:Kurdish politicians may be approporate. I would however prefer a categorisation similar to the format politicians in United States is covered such as Category:African American politicians. Tagging a Kurd in Iraq and Turkey under the same category would be problematic and confusing. However I do not intend to do anything about it as my block is proof wikipedia is not worth my devotion anymore.
• Template:Kurdistan-politician-stub
  • Speedy deleted as per vote mentioned above.
  • User:Retau created this
• Template:Kurdistan-bio-stub
  • Probably will be deleted as a back log as per stub sorting practice.
  • User:Retau created this
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces and #Category:Kurdish cities
  • We do not categorise provinces, cities, or other landmarks based on ethnicity. I do not see why kurds are treated diferently from rest of wikipedia.
  • If demographic information about an ethnicity is avalible it can be presented in an article.
  • Who determines which article fits in these category or not? Kurdistan does not have defined borders nor are there any reliable data on Kurdish population.
  • Categories are navigation aids. The basis of such categories for provinces and cities is based on "who owns the place". Categories are not tools for territory grab. We do not tag every province and city in mainland china under Category:Taiwan just because the goverment claims it. Kurds do not even have a country to claim territory from.
  • User:Retau created both of the categories
  • See User:El_C's comment about User:Retau on the next section.
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region
  • Originaly intended to be a comprimise to Category:Kurdistan. I requested its creation from user:Ed poor via email and/or irc.
  • I later changed my mind as categorising based on ethnicity still is a poor practice. No example of ethnic tagging exists in articles like New York or California.
  • It is more problematic as we do not have any reliable statistics regarding the Kurds. We do not know how many kurds there are let alone know what fraction of the population they occupy as no census about ethnicity was EVER held in the past 7 decades at least to my knowlege.
• Categories I haven't touched nor intend to touch Category:Kurdish people, Category:History of the Kurds, Category:Kurdish musicians, Category:Kurdish politicians, Category:Kurdish writers,... List goes on I am well aware of many other categories, articles, and templates related to the kurds. So I am definaltly not trying to delete everything related to kurds at random.
• My actions are infact reactions to mass creation of many contraversial categories all only exist soley to grab territory. I also raise concerns about tiny articles that have no way of growing. None of my actions have "distupted" the articles in question unless you consider improvement as disruption.

--Cat out 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On at least one matter of fact I must correct Cool Cat. He and I discussed the article Mykonos (restaurant) and I edited to add a reference from a Time article. I told him at 2007 UTC on March 1, 2006, that, as with all deletion candidates I edit, "I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted." I had told him at 2000, "the case is obviously notable. It led to an international incident" -Tony Sidaway 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, User:Cool Cat has responded here while blocked . His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him. --Moby 09:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There were a lot of hate around here

Like written, it seems no one have the right to write anything about Kurds, If you write anything about Kurds even with references it´s propaganda or bullshit by somepeople, this is not the Misplaced Pages I want it become a member of. If some people get as they wished I can say here and now that everything relaeted to Kurds is gonna be deleted.

OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm far from considered anti-Kurdish, but I looked at one of your edits and I found it problematic. El_C 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest reinstating WP:NLT block on Executor-usa (talk · contribs)

In another AfD involving a bank scam, Executor-usa posted this, including the words "Labelling an institution a fake bank and a scam is very defamatory and is unsupported by fact or truth." I suggest he be reblocked for the word "defamatory" and the key thrown away. Normally it would be too vague for a block, but considering his previous block I think it would be justified. He is quite plainly not a positive contributor. I'd rather a different (not necessarily uninvolved) admin did the blocking for the sake of a second opinion. --Sam Blanning 14:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a admin, but who here is? Saying that labelling a bank as a scam isn't supported by fact isn't a legal threat, and to the bank it -is- vert defamatory. I'm not familiar with the case, but it doesn't sound worth the trouble. --Avillia 14:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The threat is baseless and the statements are not defamatory because these were comments in an AfD debate rather than main article content. I have no opinion on whether he should be blocked/banned for making these comments in Afd. Certainly if Executor makes similar comments about well-cited material in main article space he should be banned per NLT policy. Thatcher131 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

He's vandalizing pages such as James Blunt. Ardenn 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JayJG and DakotaKahn

JayJG removed sourced material from Arabs and anti-semitism and Israeli-Palestinian history denial, which I had added. One of these was a sourced material on current events involving documents from the British National Archive which prove the Nazis shipped weaponry to Muslim groups in Palestine during World War 2.

I left him a message asking him NOT to vandalize wikipedia.

In response, DakotaKahn (whose own talk page cannot be left messages on) wrote me a message accusing me of "vandalizing" Jayjg's talk page and started chain reverting me.

Please do something about this abusive user DakotaKahn. ForgetNever 17:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

DakotaKahn continues, including chain-reverting MY OWN TALK PAGE and stalking me, removing my edits from other pages and talk pages too. SOMEONE PLEASE DO SOMETHING.ForgetNever 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This has now been resolved and I thank the admins who did follow up after being informed in IRC chat. ForgetNever 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ForgetNever is a rather transparent sockpuppet of Enviroknot, KaintheScion, ElKabong, etc. In addition to the page interest and edititg habits, many peculiarities of IRC discourse match. Demi /_C 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, this reminds me of my own sockpuppet, User:Never Forget. El_C 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Superman12345

This user, Superman12345 ("contributions"), have vandalized a number of articles here on Misplaced Pages since he/she registered here. Since his/her only goal here on Misplaced Pages seem to be vandalism, I suggest blocking this user. /Magore 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. 48 hours. -lethe 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aloha1212 (talk · contribs)

He keeps removing the POV tag from University of Ottawa. Ardenn 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems more like there is an attempt to keep the article hostage with the POV tag. Much of the discussion seems to be about statements which while somewhat laudatory in tone are really quite uncontroversial. Martinp 03:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC), uninvolved but marginally knowledgeable about the U of O.

Hoax organization leaving threats on talk pages

Please delete version of this talk page. It contains trolling allegations that are not useful to the page. Dominick 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments keep getting restored. Dominick 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not what admins do. We'll delete old versions if they contain damaging personal information, but that edit does not. Personal attacks should be removed from the current version (current version, not history. But you don't have to be an admin to do that), but it's not even clear to me that the edit is a personal attack. Perhaps you should either rebut the user, or simply ignore. -lethe 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I did, the organization was shown to be a hoax. The targeted person has offered proof the vandal formed a hoax organization. No worries. Was trying not to have a newbie bite another newbie. Dominick 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedist

Long time user Encyclopedist has decided to finally burn his bridges with the project. (See here for info on what lead up to this.) He is now asking for his contributions to be wiped from the project. Obviously this cannot be done for him, but he's also asking for the pages in his user space to be wiped, including User, Talk, etc. He says he wants to see a "red link" where his talk used to be. This step I'm less certain of. What generally is the policy on user-requested deletion of User space stuff? Delete none? Delete all? Delete all except the main User and Talk? - TexasAndroid 18:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

All pages in a user's userspace should be deleted at the user's request. -lethe 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that as a general rule, pages can be deleted upon the author's request. However, there are exceptions. In this case, I believe the former user pages are a useful record of past events and should not be deleted. Friday (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Admins can always undelete, or at least view deleted material if it ever becomes neccisary. For the time being, if he wants his pages gone, they ought to be deleted. --InShaneee 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is done. Sigh. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have some idea that deleted revisions may become permanently and inaccessibly deleted after long periods of time with some kind of Flushing of the Server™. Is that true, do deleted pages eventually get flushed? or am I just dreaming that? Anyway, I note that this high-schooler has been User:Dbraceyrules and User:V. Molotov before he was User:Encyclopedist. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw another incarnation of this phoenix rising before too long. -lethe 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Errata: apparently this chap is actually a college sophomore. We regret any inconvenience this error may have caused you. -lethe 03:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, he is welcome back. He should serve a block, definitely, but the total exodus is his choice at this point. Yeah, he did go out in a blaze of vandalism, but it was all directed at one user, who has pretty much ignored the whole thing. But he was definitely a productive editor before this recent meltdown. So while he should definitely take some time off, I have no real problem with him returning under this or another user name at some point in the future after he has cooled off over all this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TexasAndroid (talk • contribs) .

Why should we welcome someone who has admitted to using over 40 sock puppets to terrorize and bring ill repute upon another user? User:Zoe| 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Because he's done decent work and people reform. Snoutwood (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a really poor example, consdering how frequently Mike Garcia is blocked for 3RR violations. User:Zoe| 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that he's now making constructive edits despite once being one of the worst vandals in Misplaced Pages history. Snoutwood (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If Encyclopedist's the same fellow as User:Dbraceyrules, because Dbr & I have crossed paths I'll vouch for his basic good nature; in a way, he reminds me of myself 30 years younger. Some days I wonder were I his age if I would get in as much trouble. -- llywrch 05:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it as a question of, what would have happened to him if he had done all the vandalism he did, but not asked to be blocked and basically left the project as he did? What would have been done to him in that case? Would he still have been indefinitely blocked? For me, personally, especially considering his long history as a valued editor, I would likely have given him a nice block, somewhere from a week to a month, and let that be it. I would not have given an indefinite block for a meltdown like this had he not asked to be blocked. But he did ask, so I did block. But given that I would have given a finite block if he had not asked to be blocked, I cannot see the "indefinite" part as being up to him. Should he return in a few months to a year much calmer, and hopefully repentant of his actions during this meltdown, I would have no problem giving him a second chance. Just my personal view of the situation. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but such information should be available to non-admins as well. There's no reason to hide this stuff from public view. Snoutwood (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages should not be deleted. Other user pages, including subpages, may in general be deleted at the user's request. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Talk pages should always be left unless there is nothing useful there (insignificant contributor - all silliness) or their are personal/privacy considerations. I was of the opinion that leaving talk pages intacy was the established norm. I am minded to undelete the talk pages, unless someone can give me a reason why not. --Doc 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, it appears they are not currently deleted. --Doc 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments seem to be in keeping with WP:UP. And it makes sense, right? A user talk page is a record of interactions, and has been edited by many contributors, so deletion probably shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the user. But every other page in the user's userspace (presuming it's solely the user's work) can be speedied, I think. -lethe 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, there is currently a page there, but it's not his talk page. The talk page was deleted, and replaced with a template, and then protected. There are 3 visible edits versus 500 deleted edits. If you feel that user talk pages should not be deleted, then there is still a job for you to do there. -lethe 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The history was undeleted, but because he used page move archiving, the history of the talk page only goes back a few months. The talk page archives would have to be undeleted to have the whole history. NoSeptember 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted his talk page and talk archives, since they were created by moving parts of the history. They remain blanked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with the extraordinary exception in cases like Gator1. Snoutwood (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me a clueless question: Blocking reason was "After being identified as abuse sock-puppeter, admits this...." That makes it sound as if he was identified before he started talking about sockpuppets. Was he? His sockpuppet rant seemed incoherent to me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out the link I gave in my first comment at the top. It's to the spot where I let User:John Reid know that his personal vandal had been identified. He was identified by CheckUser. This was several days ago. The IP responsible was blocked for a day or two over it all. Today Encyclopedist returned, as himself, blanked all the pages in his user space, and hit John Reid's pages for one last wave of vandalism, this time as Encyclopedist himself, no sock puppetry. For the earlier vandalism, look back through the history on User:John Reid and User Talk:John Reid for a series of sock puppets, all reverted, in the last couple of weeks, starting with a chain of them that twisted John's user name in various ways. - TexasAndroid 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, sorry, I skipped over that link because I saw Encyclopedists' latest edits on it through diffs. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Shocking. I'm sure there's more to it than meets the eye. DJ had exhibited difficulties with conflict resolution and temperment before. Hopefuly, these are areas that will see improvement in his life. El_C 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Prin

• Naan_Kadavul (talk · contribs)
• Benzee (talk · contribs)
• 81.157.165.7
• 81.129.220.151

The repeat offender Prin (talk · contribs) has returned with a new set of sock puppets. He was already banned for using the following sock puppets: Cumbi (talk · contribs), R.Madhavan (talk · contribs), The Man's Plans (talk · contribs) and Yellow (talk · contribs). He has begun reverting Ajith article again in the same style as before using his templates. He is uploading images violating copyrights. He edits the user page of his puppets signing interchangeably. He has sent me hate mail from the above IP addresses - a copy of which I can forward to any email address if need be. He has blanked the 40-odd copyright notices from his talk page and added his name to admin request.

He has tried atleast once to tamper with this request itself for user check like this on the Req for User Chk page. Please take action. Anwar saadat 11:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User: Anwar saadat

Hello, I am User: Benzee. I think I have been wrongly requested for sockpuppetry usage. I am not sure but he has been vandalising my page with Image copyright messages Like This after deleting the copyrights himself Proof. He has also vandalized pages such as Vijay's article. Since his only plan is to do vandalism, I suggest you block him for atleat 1 week or 1 month so he can let other wikipedians get on in their wiki careers as well as persoanl. He is targeting me for no apparent reason and no, I am not a sockpuppet of User: Naan Kadavul, my contributions are worthy and I am personally concentrating on reaching a separate wikipedia landmark. Keep up your good work adminstrators! Thanking You Benzee 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) May the force be with you!

There does seem to be problematic edits of a recent nature. Also, somehow I originally mistook this to be about the article Anwar Sadat. El_C 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

El C, please have a look at Talk:Ajith and Ajith. He is running a one-man blockade against User:Zora, User:Ganeshk, User:David crawshaw, and User:Blnguyen (myself) for removing blatant POV such as the constant use of "!", "mega-star" and "mega-hit" the usage of a magazine review term "Numero Uno" as a fact rather than endorsement, a whole list of random vague assertions, and threatened to report us for vandalism and trolling (it's a POV dispute). User:Pa7, User:Plumcouch, User:Srikeit and User:Nobleeagle have all agreed on the page or at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Indian cinema that Anwar is trying to run a hagiography. He then reverted Pakistan (User:Dwaipayanc) and Hindutva (Nobleeagle) citing "vandalism" in the edit summary, when it is about the POV of the content. In one edit summary at Ajith, he wrote an edit summary in Tamil, meaning "shut up" - see translation at Misplaced Pages talk:Notice board for India-related topics. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I left the user a note about civility and hagiographical concerns. El_C 08:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had problems with that Anwar saadat user as well. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Challenge of deletion of Conservative Underground entry

I would like to challenge the decision to delete Conservative Underground from wikipedia.

The members of CU were unaware that this discussion was taking place.

Our listing was nominated by BenBurch, who ironically used criteria that his own site (White Rose Society) does not even meet, yet his site was not deleted when nominated for deletion. His nomination was bolstered by an organized band of his malcontent buddies from Democratic Underground, because they are upset that we monitor and comment on their activities.

A number of notable events have occurred at Conservative underground, such as an exclusive interview with Jeff Gannon, former member of the White House press corps.

My own recent work on CU was picked up and linked on a tremendous number of conservative sites, which was my outing of supposed "Ashamed Republican" Jeb Eddy, who gets his picture on the AP wire at every northern California anti-war protest by holding up a sign stating "I'm Republican and Ashamed". I discovered that he has been a Democratic donor for many years, and heads a progressive foundation. The disemination of this information throughout the conservative blogosphere resulted in the SF Chronicle pulling a photo of Eddy from their online edition.

CU has recently also been falsely accused of issuing threats by DUer Ava on the Alan Colmes radio show.

I think these things are quite notable, and considering that we at CU were unaware of the attempts to get us deleted, Conservative Underground deserves to be undeleted.

Misplaced Pages was manipulated in this case.

crockspot

Please take deletion requests to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Ral315 (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights at Preying from the Pulpit

The afd for Preying from the Pulpit resulted in no consensus. Now three users who wanted the material deleted are claiming that LINKS to partial audio clips of the broadcast violate copyright violations. These three user just happen to had called me names and broke WP:CIVIL over past disagreements related to the subject. Some more opinions are welcome. Arbusto 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The AfD resulted in one person besides Arbusto voting "keep" and eight others voting to get rid of the article about a non-notable topic. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're just links they can't be considered copyright violations, despite the fact that people like SCO may think otherwise so my suggestion is just to ignore them and revert if they try to take it into their own hands and remove the links themselves without a discussion or a good (and valid) reason to do so. Pegasus1138 ---- 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're just links they can't be considered copyright violations. Misplaced Pages policy specifically states that we should not link to things that are suspected to be copyright violations. And also, there are court cases where "contributory infringement" has been found to be actionable. Providing links to download sites where copyrighted materials are believed to exist is considered contributory infringement. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be nice also if someone would confirm whether or not the tapes by themselves are fair use. If they are then it renders the matter moot. JoshuaZ 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

39 total minutes, amounting to 5/7th of the program called "Preying from the Pulpit" is not "fair use". The wordings most courts use for educational fair-use are "limited amounts", "brief quotes", "short passages", etc... and even then they must be used for comment and criticism. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true. There is a policy about not linking to sites that violate copyright. User:Zoe| 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if it is "fair-use", then it doesn't violated copyright. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Have I got the essentials right, here?

• Preying from the Pulpit was a six-part series of reports, aired as part of the regular 10:00 news by WJBK in Detroit. PftP was one segment of the half-hour news program.
• Linked are audio recordings of five of the six PftP segments, taken from the news hour without permission.

It looks, in that case, like we've linked to audio of the majority of the content discussed in the article, without the copyright owner's permission. On the article's talk page, a couple of putative 'fair use' arguments have been presented.

First is the notion that since the PftP segments linked represent only a small fraction of the week's entire newscast, this constitutes fair use under some sort of de minimus criterion. We've linked nearly all of PftP; it's the subject of the article, and the entire creative work being discussed. It's obviously a complete work in its own right; claiming that it's just a small part of the entire newscast seems irrelevant.

The second argument is that since we've only linked the audio, it should be fair use. I suspect that if we 'only' linked to the audio of (for example) two thirds of Star Wars: A New Hope, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. The audio is an essential part of the work, valuable in its own right. As far as the information content of PftP goes, the audio is probably more useful than the video.

I really don't think we can link to this stuff with a clear conscience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we can link to this stuff with a clear conscience. Me either. Not unless the copyright holder decides to give permission. Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some private web site is hosting copyrighted material without permission. Posting a link here does not create any wrongdoing on wikipedia's part. The question per RS is do the audio files accurately represent the content of the original broadcast or have they been altered in some way. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that would should judge external links by our consciences. N, V and RS should be enough. Thatcher131 03:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that would should judge external links by our consciences. N, V and RS should be enough. There is another policy you need to judge links by, Thatcher131. It is at WP:COPY. It says, "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. " Vivaldi (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fear not—I'm not really suggesting that individuals should listen to their consciences. It was just shorthand for our external links policy:

...Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us...

We try to respect the copyrights of others, just as we expect others to respect the copyrights of Misplaced Pages and its contributors. The online recording obviously represents a fine source from a verifiability and reliability standpoint, but it isn't kosher for us to encourage our readers to (perhaps even unwittingly) infringe someone else's copyright. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the fight over this article and these links is due to their use as a reference for allegations about Jack Hyles. -Will Beback 06:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The show referenced was in 1993 and the person it was about is dead. Why is this an issue now? --John Nagle 06:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

en.wikipedia mentioned on FOX NEWS

described us as a 'joke' and 'left wing propaganda tool' that 'anyone with a modem' can use to 'rewrite history'! yay, expect more hit and run vandalism in the near future, how nice of them--152.163.100.65 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned, especially considering Fox News's demographic. Before you know it, we're illegal! D': —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fox News knows a thing or two about rewriting history. Remember - Media-matters did a poll and found Fox viewers were less informed about current events than people who don't watch/read the news at all. Raul654 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows that The Daily Show viewers are the most informed! On topic though, during which show/who said it? Kotepho 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's hysterical... do you have a link for that? Snoutwood (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong about the survey source - it was U. Maryland's PIPA, not media-matters. Here are the links: Raul654 01:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone would upload a clip of this to Youtube or Google, it would prolly be interesting. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Was it really necessary for them to give us such negative publicity?Ready to RRR 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fox doesn't know about NPOV. They seem to think something is either good or evil, not much gray area. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is a new idea that is non-standard and as far as they are concerned that is a bad thing. JoshuaZ 01:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And of course, there's a grain of truth in their criticism. We do have a slight leftist systemic bias, in my opinion. And anyone with a modem can use us to rewrite history, and people do, leftwingers and rightwingers, though thankfully in most cases it doesn't stay around. I don't think it's reasonable to expect never to receive any bad press, and to ask FOX to refrain from giving it to us amounts to censorship. Let's just get used to and admit to our limitations. Then the bad press will be water off a ducks back, and we can get back to doing the best we can to overcome those limitations and writing our encyclopedia. -lethe 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please... Fox News criticizing us for being biased (or for that matter, for Fox News to critize *anyone* for being biased) is hypocritical in the extreme. This is the same network FAIR labeled "The Most Biased Name in News" Raul654 02:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Does someone else want to start chanting, "THE NO SPIN ZONE", or should I? --InShaneee 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

slight systemic bias? In any case, was this in a news program or one of the talking head opinion shows like O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes? If the latter, then stop hyperventilating and go about your business. No one expects Lou Dobbs or Nancy Grace or Chris Matthews to be NPOV so why do people act all shocked when a Fox host expresses an opinion on his or her opinion show? Thatcher131 03:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone over at Fox News happen to notice that Jimbo's own political views happen to coincide with their own? He's often described himself in the past as a libertarian (& has been very explicit that it is spelled with a small "L") -- which only makes their own bias all the more comical. Or maybe some of our left-of-center members dragged him off to a re-education camp when the rest of us weren't looking & made him see the errors of his ways. ;-) -- llywrch 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is competition to the media outlets. When a breaking story hits, some people that used to go to a media website or TV for details may now go to us for details. I suspect media outlets on all points of the political spectrum see us as competion, and therefore as a good target to be attacked. I doubt their political POV has much to do with their basic attitude about Misplaced Pages. NoSeptember

• Their political pov may not be the root cause of their criticism of wikipedia, but I don't think the Common Dreams NewsCenter would accuse us of being too liberal just as easily. Aecis 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal information posted

Can someone delete some changes at homosexuality, about 3 or 4 on total with persoanl inforamtion. It has been reverted, warnings are on the way. Kim van der Linde 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also at AIDSKim van der Linde 01:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also done. Vandals blocked. Snoutwood (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Snoutwood (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Kim van der Linde 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My great pleasure. Snoutwood (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We admire you...for what you've done.Mikey1204 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rival website"? That came outta nowhere! Ashibaka tock 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no rivals.  :) User:Zoe| 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, thank God for you guys.CheerleaderFight! 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, Ashibaka, meet socks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Socks, meet Zoe and Ashibaka. JDoorjam Talk 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a tip to User:CheerleaderFight!. Your username could possibly get you blocked.

....See, I told you that I was friendly.FriendlyFreddy 02:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone's having fun. Ashibaka tock 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The AN:I troll yet again...seriously, I have yet to see a stranger MO. --InShaneee 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Phish reversions on May 9

At Phish, User:68.112.25.197 continues to wholesale revert the entire page back 5, 10, 15, 20 edits to a version he seemed to like better. I left a message asking him or her to list his troubles with the article on the talk page rather than simply revert so many good faith edits. I am hoping for an intervention of some kind, because myself, User:Moeron and User:MusicMaker5376 are putting quite an effort into paring down the article and makingit reader-friendly. Thanks. BabuBhatt 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that the page has been disrupt by 68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs). They continually tried to remove {{fact}} templates that were placed in the article without providing a citation, even resorting to attacks. Examples include and --Moeron 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If the short block I've given doesn't get his/her attention, we'll try a longer one. -GTBacchus 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you GT for your swift help. Cheers! --Moeron 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —  MusicMaker 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

CIAB -- personal attack

New article CIAB is a personal attack against someone named "Chad Irwin", and speedy delete tags added by several editors have been immediately removed by the original poster, Mikeystohlman (talk · contribs). The usual warnings were placed on the user's talk page and were removed by that user. Request appropriate corrective action. --John Nagle 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde again

I trust that this, from WP:UBD was intended as a joke; nevertheless, an admin who declares

• "our" intention to ignore a part of the voices on one side of an issue
• and "our" lack of appreciation for other arguments on that issue

should really not be closing or kibitzing such debates. Someone might take him seriously.

Doc suggested two interpretations of the "we" here. There is another one; Cyde is an editor; although he doesn't seem to have done much with article text lately. There was a time when he thought there were more imprtant things he could contribute to the encyclopedia than fighting the UserBox Wars. which also demonstrates his one-time conviction that Process is Important for admins. Perhaps he will recollect himself. Septentrionalis

I decided not to post this; the offending message is gone now, and the discussion in question closed. But then I ran across Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Automobile and Motor Manufacturer CFD, which suggests Cyde may not have been joking.

• There was a Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_24#Automobile_manufacturers_categories CfD about renaming categories of automobile manufacturers by country.
  • Fairly early on, a amendment was suggested, making the categories for the UK and the Dominions Motor manufacturers instead. It got a sound majority; I would count it 7-2-2.
• Cyde did the renaming, making all the cats Automobile manufacturers instead.
• When asked about it, he cited a slogan of his own, that Consistency is God as though it were policy; all this just to start an Anglo-American usage dispute.

This is no way for an admin to behave. Septentrionalis 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this more appropriate for RFC? This doesn't seem appropriate for ANI. I have a current RFC you can piggyback on if you wish; others certainly have! --Cyde Weys 07:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there is an ongoing RfC, best to place any evidence there – in a stable framework. This board is for incidents of an immediate nature. El_C 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that a stable location? Bishonen declared the original complaint to be unvalidated, on the grounds that it was one user and anons, who had not attempted dispute resolution; it is therefore subject to deletion. (I would strongly deprecate any such deletion.) Septentrionalis 20:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

there are also various users complaining about off topic complaints.Geni 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Thewolfstar and the community's patience

Has Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) exhausted the community's patience yet? She's currently blocked for the fifth time in two weeks for this sally. I might add that if she'd been blocked for every foul personal attack and other disruptive post in that time, it would be more like fifty than five. She's been a subject on ANI several times already, compare the thread "Wolfstar legal threats" above. SlimVirgin, the latest blocker, has made some interesting observations on her lack of edits to the mainspace. Besides the personal attacks, thewolfstar daily expresses her politically motivated hatred of the project and the community as a whole. What are we, masochists? Indefinite block, anybody? Bishonen | talk 05:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

What is kizzle? What is firzzle? p.s. Marry me! El_C 07:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle! firzzle! swizzle! and wheeeeee!! are what happens when we do, hun! Bishonen | talk 08:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Bye...Bye. I tried to talk to her to get her motivated into some avenue of productivity here, but I guess my advice is worthless to her. Can anyone point out even one major contribution that has been positive? I'm not going to block her, but endorse at least a month long banning. Indef is fine with me too.--MONGO 07:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All my questions remain unanswered. :( El_C 08:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no qualms whatsoever with disinviting disruptive and unproductive people from the project. I have not personally investigated this case but I trust my fellow admins to make judgements on whether a users is going more harm than good with their presence. --Cyde Weys 07:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Interiot's tool shows just 53 edits to articles, but 434 to user and article talk (338 to user talk), many of which are personal attacks or in some other way very aggressive. The attacks are unlikely to stop, given that her response to my pointing out the ill-advisedness of telling a user to "wipe the snot off his nose and the front of his shirt" was that it wasn't a personal attack and "He WAS acting like a SNOT." Time for the parting of the ways, in my view. SlimVirgin 08:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pull the plug. A random sampling of early edits shows only dubious punctuation-fixing and edits to insert her personal point of view, and things just seem to have become worse and worse. --ajn (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll give it a few hours more, to give the many American editors a chance to wake up, including some that unlike the above have normal, decent sleep patterns. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, for asking for community consensus first, instead of the all too common practice of indef blocking first and only then asking for ratification of the block. A short block can be used in these cases while we discuss things. It is the preemptive indef block that can create the conditions for wheel wars. I just wanted to thank you for doing it right. (Sorry I have nothing to add about wolfstar) NoSeptember 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been more than three strikes (as an American with decent sleep patterns, I can use an Americanism). I have all sorts of dark suspicions, and they're all irrelevant, because what's overt is simply beyond the pale (oops, and now a Gaelicism). We needn't forgive more than the offender is willing to repent, as the quality of mercy is not strained (and now an Anglicism). Geogre 11:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do it. —Encephalon 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support completely, this is not only appropriate but past due. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Good morning from the west coast. I've been a close follower of most of Thewolfstar's contributions for several weeks now. I've even grown to share some of Geogre's irrevelant dark suspicions. Thewolfstar is hurting a good bit and hasn't helped at all. Ever. Block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Time to act. This is exactly the kind of conduct that damages the community as a whole and skyrockets the levels of Wikistress of those truly interested in improving this place. There are no excuses for such incivility - I'll never understand why people who clearly hate Misplaced Pages choose to spend their time making life miserable for the rest, instead of investing it into something more positive. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, it is done. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC).