Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 19 June 2006

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Five week block for spelling change?

I've just come across what looks like a case of severe injustice. User:Pnatt has been blocked for five weeks for changing the spelling of television program from programme in Australian articles. "Program" is the correct modern Australian spelling, and "programme" is regarded as archaic. The blocking admin is not Australian and has promised to keep adding one week to Pnatt's block every time he returns and corrects the spelling. Understandably Pnatt is upset over this. Could someone please calm down what should be a simple discussion about consensus? --Jumbo 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's some context missing from that post, mainly this. 5 weeks seems a fairly minor escalation from the last block, which was one month and ran its full course, at which point the user again began doing exactly what got him blocked last time - uncivil edit warring over local dialect spellings. This seems to be practically all the user does, and I have no objection to this block. --Sam Blanning 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be upset as well? Looking at Pnatt's contributions, any incivility seems to be on a minor level. I've asked him to try to keep calm. The response of the blocking admin seems disproportionate and likely to further inflame the user. Pnatt's preferred spelling has been endorsed by other Australian users, and this really should not be this big an issue. --Jumbo 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually was not five weeks for a spelling change. User:Pnatt has only been on Misplaced Pages since April. In that time he had received continuous last warnings and 5 previous blocks, climbing from 24 hours right up to 1 month for continuous edit wars, misleading edit summaries, personal attacks, etc etc etc. Every time a block was imposed he was warned when he came back to stop behaving as in the past or he would be blocked again. Every time he would only be back on WP when he would take up where he left off and start the same behaviour all over again. On his second (yes, second) edit after the expiry of his last one month block he began the exact same edit warring on the exact same issues, abusing the exact same users, and carried on as if nothing happened. He had already been warned many times that such was his behaviour that the length of blocks would climb every time he was blocked until he stopped the edit warring and attacks. Given that it was a repeat performance of his previous behaviour, and the last block was for one month, this time, as warned, the block was upped again, this time to 5 weeks. BTW this user, when blocked, has also a habit of posting constant {{help me}} messages on his talk page, to the annoyance of many users who keep telling him to stop doing it. For his last block, his posting of false templates and attacks necessitated that his talk page also be protected for the duration of the block. Already since this block another user have had to threaten to protect the page again to stop him posting the disruptive templates. At this stage this user has been blocked for more often than he has been allowed to edit Misplaced Pages. He had contributed little but edit wars and attacks. It is getting to the stage where quite possibly he should be blocked indefinitely. In less than two months he has contributed nothing but aggro and edit wars. FearÉIREANN\ 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Thanks for chiming in. --Cyde↔Weys 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On investigation of Pnatt's edits, I must respectfully differ. His second edit on returning was this one, where he changed the archaic "programmes" to "programs". He was absolutely correct in this, and he has cited several widely used sources, such as current Australian dictionaries and the Australian Government Style Manual. He has not been abusive, nor has he made misleading edit summaries. He referred to correction of vandalism, which from his perspective (and mine) it certainly is. Articles on Australian subjects should use current Australian spelling, and when such a conservative network as the Australian Broadcasting Commission uses "program", we may safely say that this spelling is current. He does not deserve a five week block for making beneficial edits. New editors should be guided rather than chastised, and whatever his past sins may have been, he does not seem to have resumed them. --Jumbo 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to others' good faith edits as vandalism is provocative and incorrect. I'm not surprised it upsets people. "Vandalism" is when someone is trying to make the encyclopedia worse, not better. There's no compelling reason to think that someone using the spelling "programme" is trying to compromise the quality or integrity of Misplaced Pages - they probably think that's an acceptable spelling. I suggest that this user (and everyone) refrain from characterizing the other side of a style dispute as "vandals". -GTBacchus 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments:

• Six different admins have blocked this user. This isn't just one admin getting over-zealous.
• Some of his edits have been very blatant vandalism (e.g. , )
• The user is occasionally very incivil in his edit summaries (e.g. )
• This user spends a lot of time in revert wars, often with really strong POV statements such as this one
• This user has almost no productive edits
• The user does not seem to listen to warnings. See the user's talk page

Although I personally saw this latest edit war and was not planning on blocking him myself, I do support the block. -- JamesTeterenko 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some of those early edits are disturbing. However, I note that since returning he has made no similar edits. Maybe he HAS listened to advice this time? He has hardly been given a chance and if we can make a productive editor out of him than turning him into an embittered critic of Misplaced Pages, then so much the better. --Jumbo 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the very brief period before he was reblocked, his edit summaries included the misleading "revert vandalism" twice and he tells an editor " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" . That does not suggest to me that this editor is close to being 'reformed'. Note that "being right" is never an excuse for continuous edit warring (since everyone's right in at least one person's opinion). We have a dispute resolution process for people who think they're right when the other editors don't, and "edit warring" does not feature in any stage. --Sam Blanning 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not alone in stating that he is right. Other Australian editors prefer "program" over "programme". The naming of articles and categories such as List of programs broadcast by Seven Network indicate that this has been the preferred spelling for some time. Government and university style guides state "program not programme". The Macquarie Dictionary - the acknowledged standard for Australian English - has a headword for "program" and not for "programme". (See here for a page scan.) I had not given this matter much thought until this morning, but all my research indicates that he is entirely correct, and quite entitled to think of reversion to an archaic form as "vandalism". I note that it is common practice amongst established editors to label such small details as vandalism: here is one from the blocking editor, who could be described as Misplaced Pages's revert warrior par excellence, judging by his extraordinary edit history.

However, some of Pnatt's early edits and attitude (as pointed out earlier, for which many thanks, JamesTeterenko) trouble me deeply, and if he had returned to this style of editing, then I would not feel inclined to defend him at all. But there seems to be a gradual improvement in his attitude, and I feel that imposing a five week block and threatening longer for such a small impoliteness in a new editor is going too far. Such long blocks are more properly the preserve of the ArbCom, imposed for more serious and protracted matters. I feel that this matter should have been handled so as reduce confrontation and encourage co-operation. --Jumbo 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have protected User talk:Pnatt after he added the {{unblock}} template after I had already removed it. This is the fifth time the page has been protected to stop him abusing the template. I will not be lifting the protection until his block expires, as every time protection is lifted he goes right back to getting in the way of users who have a legitimate reason to be unblocked (see the log). --Sam Blanning 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this comment from him was extremely encouraging: "After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Misplaced Pages, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits." Now one more avenue of communication has been blocked off, and heaven knows what his opinion of Misplaced Pages management is now. Perhaps he's altering the template text because he feels that he's been, oh I dunno, harshly and unfairly treated? --Jumbo 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't altering template text, he was adding a template that he knew damn well he wasn't allowed to add again. That's not in the least bit encouraging, he seems absolutely incapable of learning from mistakes. If he feels he's been harshly and unfairly treated then he can wait for consensus to build up here that the block is unwarranted. --Sam Blanning 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, this behaviour came after he received a block of five weeks! I suggest that with sufficient provocation even the most angelic editor is going to get hot under the collar. On being unblocked - after a four week block - his Wikistress was at three. It quickly jumped to five: "Run for cover!". In such circumstances it seems reasonable to suggest that he's not going to be the perfect editor, and he should be calmed down instead of being provoked further. --Jumbo 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - his page has been protected five times now for abuse of the {{unblock}} template. The first time can be put down to ignorance, the second to frustation (or 'provocation'), but the third is downright refusal to listen, and the fourth and fifth are just taking the piss. It looks like no-one is willing to lift or shorten the five-week block, so I simply don't buy that throughout his block he should be allowed to continue adding {{unblock}} templates and get in the way of legitimate requests because he was 'provoked'. The block is, after all, already under review - the {{unblock}} template is for getting a second opinion and there are plenty of those here. --Sam Blanning 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on your reading of his motivation: "just taking the piss". It seems to me that this new editor feels he has been unfairly blocked and nobody gives a damn, except to kick him in the face longer and harder. I ask again, wouldn't YOU be stressed and upset under such circumstances? If your Wikistress level was set to "ready to pop', then how much would you care about niceties of policy? This editor started off on the wrong foot with some attitude problems, but all I see is steady improvement despite severe provocation. I'd like to see understanding and co-operation next time around. If he feels interested enough to return. In the meantime I can only imagine what he is saying about Misplaced Pages. --Jumbo 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He can have all the understanding he likes when he stops doing the same things that get him blocked and his talk page protected, over, and over, and over again. I don't know what he's saying about Misplaced Pages, but the truth would be along the lines of "Misplaced Pages has better things to do than act as the battleground for people who obsess over dialect spellings". --Sam Blanning 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you shouldn't lump the two misbehaviours together. It takes two to make a battle, and his changing of "programme" to "program" was quite correct, in Good Faith and he provided sources. See the discussion here. This should have been discussed at the time by the other parties, but apparently they chose to revert without discussion. His edit summary when he was reverted was perhaps a little incivil, but certainly not worth a five week block, which is what he got, with the promise of a much longer one. On that note, the blocking admin appears to be a big booster of monarchies and nobility around the world and User:Pnatt is apparently not. There may be some issues there. However, as has been pointed out, there are far worse examples of incivility in edit summaries which go unpunished.

After he was given a five week block for doing what he regarded as improving the encyclopaedia, then he sought outside assistance. I imagine that, as his Wikistress level indicates, he was quite upset. It is quite unfair to justify this very long block by what he did after getting it.

I am also quite concerned that the increasing improvement in his behaviour has been met with increasing harshness of treatment. He has also stated that he wants to be a good editor and this has been ignored. Surely he should be assisted in his stated aim rather than beaten and abused until he gives up in disgust? --Jumbo 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just asking for information, but how is the edit summary " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" a problem, while "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" reflects that the editor "sometimes could be more decorous" (Joe), and has "a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem" (Snoutwood) in #Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin? above? JackyR | Talk 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If Alikvar had been blocked six times for a total of about 40 days for that behaviour, that would be more of a valid comparison. --Sam Blanning 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a specific question. I'm not asking are Alkivar and Pnatt overall "good" or "bad". I'm asking, when assessing evidence, how is the first edit summary evidence an act <JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)> of wrongdoing, and the second not? JackyR | Talk 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC ) <rephrased to make less ambiguous JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)>

The first is part of a continuous pattern of disruption that has led six different admins to block the user and four to protect his talk page afterwards. The second is not. --Sam Blanning 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Still missing the point. You make a specific complaint about this edit summary, over and above the edit to which it refers. And you appear to be agreeing that a pattern of uncivil edit summaries by Alkivar is not a problem (did you mean to?).

Look, what I'm highlighting is how easy it is to make an overall judgement of a person, and then interpret all their actions accordingly (person X is bad, so action Z by them is bad: person Y is OK, so action Z by them is OK). This is the very heart of many accusations of admin abuse, and so unnecessary. Folk on this page routinely have to make evidence-based judgements – it's an important and often thankless job, and I'm grateful someone does it – but often end up putting the cart before the horse. Please, stop and think about this for a minute. I'm not getting at you: I'm just alarmed by what I see every time I'm stupid enough to come here. I care rather a lot about WP, and this needs to be dealt with – by everyone. JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said! I'm starting to regret that I ever stumbled across this, but I had to speak up. Admins do a wonderful (and largely thankless) job, but I am sure that mistakes are made, and it would have been remiss of me to walk past while another editor was calling out for help. --Jumbo 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked by how poorly this editor has been treated, especially when certain admins routinely leave uncivil edit messages yet are not blocked for even a minute. Al 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this conversation leading to consensus to fit the block on User:Pnatt soon, and give him a chance to demonstrate good faith editing? For what it's worth, I'm one of the previous blockers and reached for the Macquarie Dictionary before hitting the block button this time, and decided he is right (I would have kept "programme"). I think Pnatt has the potential to be a good contributor, although he shows poor judgement in selecting the changes to make at times, and certainly needs to learn to step back and take a deep breath instead of stepping forward with fists up. --Scott Davis 10:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say having followed his edits that I see no evidence of good faith whatsoever. All I see is a user who has consistently sought to pick fights, waged edit wars, attacked other users and contributed little of value on WP. The fact that his second action after coming back from a month's block was to pick a fight and start an edit war suggests no evidence whatsoever of good faith. His behaviour has not changed one iota no matter how many warnings and blocks he has had. Do you really believe that removing a block will produce a change? I very much doubt it. If the block is removed the odds are, going by past behaviour, that he will be edit warring within minutes and will end up blocked again almost straight away. Even when blocked he then uses his own talk page to cause so much trouble that that ends up having to be locked repeatedly and users who have had no experience with him before end up leaving messages on his talk page in sheer frustration telling him to stop. Users who cause the amount of trouble, who cause so much edit wars, who get so many warnings and so many blocks in such a small space of time (he has only been on since April) at this stage usually find themselves blocked indefinitely. If he is unblocked, the odds are that we will be back here almost straight away dealing with yet more edit warring by him, with those who have had to deal with him in the past saying "I told you so." If he is let back, it needs to be made clear to him that any more abuse of his position will lead to a long block. But then if a month's block isn't enough to cure him of his edit warring, what length will? FearÉIREANN\ 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

His second action after coming back from a long block was to correct an error. That wasn't picking a fight or starting an edit war. He quoted sources and was quite justified in his edit. You seem to want to punish him all over again for his actions of five weeks ago, which seems wrong to me, especially as he has stated that he wants to be a good editor from now on. We should aim to talk things over and find a satisfactory solution instead of inflaming a situation.

And with all due respect, your comment that All I see is a user who has consistently sought to pick fights, waged edit wars, attacked other users.. could be seen as the height of hypocrisy. The only difference is that you have contributed a great deal of value and this editor hasn't. But he hasn't had much of a chance, has he? May I suggest that when this user returns, you stick your hands in your pockets? If he is as awful as you say he is, then it will soon become apparent, and you may say "I told you so" with full justification. Personally, I intend to ride at his shoulder and keep him on the right path, if he is at all capable of following it. --Jumbo 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jumbo, you are missing the point. That user didn't simply correct an error. His past behaviour involved edit warring over use of language, spelling and Australian English usage. He had been involved in very bitter exchanges with Xtra. There are over one million articles on Misplaced Pages, yet he chose the same issue, with the same users, to start off his post-block edits. Going straight back to the very topic that had got him repeatedly warned for his behaviour, picked up where he went off and started yet another row on the issue is tactless to put it mildly. Posting an edit summary revert vandalism by Xtra sums up his approach. It is hard to believe that someone who deliberately targets the same topic after repeated blocks for his behaviour on the issue before, and who seems to target someone he had been rowing with before, is anything other than a troll. He could have edited anywhere on Misplaced Pages. He chose to go straight back to his old fighting on the same topic with the same users. That pretty much sums up his attitude and explains why he has been repeatedly banned, and going by past behaviour, why he will no doubt be banned again. FearÉIREANN\ 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. Am I allowed to ask this editor how old he is? I know, I know, it shouldn't matter but after reading his/her talk page I sense alot of immaturity, sorry dude,dudette...If Jumbo would like to mentor/monitor this editor, that seems like a nice solution, imo. I know there is a definate learning curve to this project, but after repeated attempts at correcting behavoir, the wood has to be layed down it seems. This user says on his talk page "I can't help myself" and that concerns me a little...anyways, I'll butt back out now, thanks! --Tom 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help him become a better editor. I've received friendly assistance in the past and if I can pass some of it on, that's good. We're all volunteers here, and I'm all in favour of co-operation instead of confrontation. --Jumbo 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt has expressed intent to be a good citizen. As we agree, it was an unwise choice of edit for soon after his block, but it turns out that this spelling change has been accepted in those articles once they were considered. Both spellings appear to be acceptable in Australian English, and "program" is listed as the primary one in two different Australian dictionaries, as well as having been the original spelling in at least one of those articles. I feel confident that he knows he is very closely watched, and in fear of being blocked again. A previous version of his user page said he had some sort of compulsive disorder, which perhaps explains the "can't help myself" comment (but does not excuse bad behaviour, only explain it). The debate on this page should be about whether 5 weeks was an appropriate response to this action. Would I have been blocked for making that edit? I have been known to change "kilometer" to "kilometre" in Australian articles without getting myself blocked. --Scott Davis 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The only way you would have been blocked for that length is if you had received repeated final warnings, had gotten yourself repeatedly blocked five times in almost as many weeks, had ignored each block and when back continued the exact same edit warring against the same people despite appeals to stop, had been told unambiguously that the length of block would climb each time until the provocative edit warring stopped, and after a months block had finished had gone straight back to the exact same edit warring on exactly the same edit war you had been warned about, coupled with posting provocative edit summaries to someone you have been warring with accusing them of vandalism. The issue is not the spelling. It is the behaviour continually since April. Maybe the five week block will finally get it through to him that when users all over the place tell him to stop picking fights and waging edit wars he'd better stop. Or else, as has happened with the various users who have blocked him in the past, the length of block will continue to climb until the fighting and provoking of edit wars stops. All he has to do to stop being blocked is contribute to Misplaced Pages and work with users. All he has done practically every time is, as soon as a block ends, come in fists first to start off the next round. That was the game behind the spelling change. He starts his fight off that way, and users who was had to deal with him knew immediately that this was no "oh lets correct a spelling". It was round six of his warring, his opening move in the next edit war he wanted to ignite. And that is why, as he had clearly been warned, he was blocked and the length of blocked upped from the last time. FearÉIREANN\ 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In the face of improving behaviour, handing out ever-longer blocks is hard to justify, as has been demonstrated above. This user made a spelling correction, he was 100% correct in this, and his anger and frustration at being reverted and then blocked are understandable. He's a new editor and I am happy to help him continue to improve. --Jumbo 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"improving behaviour"!!! lol He has consistently been getting worse, making less credible edits and trying to provoke more edit wars. Jumping straight back in to restart an edit war on his second edit is anything not improving behaviour. Deliberately posting an edit summary calling the edits someone he rowed regularly in the past made "vandalism" is not evidence of improving behaviour. I'm afraid your efforts to santify someone who has contribution little to Misplaced Pages but rows, edit wars and who got more warnings and blocks in two months (from a host of users) than most users would get in a decade, is wearing a little thin. He wasn't making a spelling correction. He was, as in the past, trying to provoke an edit war on the topic of language usage. Anyone who had dealt with him in the past knew exactly what his game plan was. They'd seen it over and over again. You, who didn't deal with him, still niavely don't get it and think him some niave little newbie. He behaviour since April shows him to be anything but some niave little newbie but someone constantly edit warring in a provocative way on the same topic and trying every time he gets the chance to restart his battles and attack his critics. Credible users don't spend two months doing that despite constant warnings from everyone to stop. FearÉIREANN\ 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I should not have to ask an admin to calm down, but please do so. Looking at Pnatt's edits, there is no doubt that he began his wikicareer with some very disturbing edits, but he recently said, "After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Misplaced Pages, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits." His first act was to correct "programme" to "program". In Australian usage, "program" is the far more widely accepted spelling. That is not provoking an edit war, that is improving our encyclopaedia. The fact that he got reverted and given a very long block was understandably unjust to him, and expressing his indignation a natural thing to do. On examining the example he has been set, who can blame him?

I would like to see how he performs when he returns to editing. If he returns to the behaviour he exhibited at first, then I shall have no hesitation in dropping any support. I have the same repugnance for vandalism and personal attacks as any other editor. But I must ask that he not be antagonised and goaded into misbehaving, especially when he has expressed a desire to follow the righteous path. Let's see if we can turn him into a worthwhile contributor. Please. --Jumbo 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jumbo. In the short time between the current and previous blocks, Pnatt demonstrated improved behaviour. He edited three articles, and all of his changes remain in those articles almost two weeks later. Theses are not "less credible edits" as User:jtdirl AKA FearÉIREANN claims. The first two edits had correct and useful edit summaries (3rd and 4th had no summary). User:Xtra (who had previous run-ins with Pnatt) almost immediately reverted the first two edits, also with reasonable edit summaries. Six hours later, things went downhill. Next time, Pnatt will be expected to use a talk page after the first revert, not the third, and to keep his edit summaries civil like he has showed he can. If he stuffs up again, he will have no supporters at all. Past behaviour should not have been used in the decision whether to block, only to decide how long it should be. This time round, a polite reminder note was the appropriate solution, not a block. --Scott Davis 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent with everyone. Yes, I do see improving behaviour. However, I believe that it is only marginal. It is the difference between a blatant vandal that is blocked on sight to a person that would end up being blocked through a WP:RFAr. Look at the examples of his very recent behaviour such as this personal attack on Jtdirl and this vulgar response to one of his only advocates. Please keep in mind that his most worthwhile edits are changing of spelling. I hope that his behaviour will continue to improve. But at this point, I am not counting on it. -- JamesTeterenko 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm rapidly becoming fed up with the behaviour of everyone involved in this. Including myself for poking my curious nose in. Please, could everyone stop provoking each other over such utter trivia? When his block expires, we'll all keep an eye on him and his behaviour will be obvious. What is obvious at the moment is that some of the admins involved are engaging in undiscussed reverts and abuse ("morons" is hardly professional language, Xtra!) and these are the very things that got Pnatt blocked. Understandably he perceives the whole Misplaced Pages thing as a case of "ignore the rules if you are an admin". --20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing we can all do is just close this discussion and when the block expires watch his behaviour closely. We can hope for an improvement, though given his recent behaviour since his talk page was unlocked the evidence of it seems thin. With one one page out of one million to edit (his own) he still manages to fight with people! FearÉIREANN\ 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:FairNBalanced blocked for a week

Block review

Just thought that this should be posted here. FairNBalanced (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been using his user page as an arena for flame-baiting by uploading hate filled inflammatory and unencyclopedic images and then posting them solely there. While going about my editing and discussion concerning topics of an Islamic nature I originally stumbled upon: Image:Islamist_hypocrisy.jpg on his user page. A short while later he uploaded: Image:Deadzarqawi.jpg with an editorial comment that said in effect "Zarqawi meets his 72 virgins.". He subsequently changed his user page to this. His last flame-bait was to upload Image:I_found_Allah.jpg an extremely vile and inflammatory image that equates God (specifically Allah) with a pig and that despite its obvious photoshopped nature he added to the image summary: "snapped in June 2006". Outside of his userpage he's been posting inflammatory statements and has frequently shown a lack of good faith relative to the topic of Islam. Due to these facts I fully support this 1 week block. Netscott 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Only a week? Seriously I question whether we want to allow Misplaced Pages to be edited at all by people who are obviously not here to write a neutral point of view encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question: why should a pig with the Arabic word for God be treated any differently than a goat with the English "God"? Of course I'm fully aware of why, but let's be upfront about it. If offense to Islamic sensitivities in particular is to be policy, let's write it into policy. Why be shy?

Otherwise, what we have here is 1) an abuse of userspace - that's nothing new - and I'm *100%* in favor of rigorously enforcing it, 2) the inclusion of knowingly false copyright information.Timothy Usher 11:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this goat image? If it's not encyclopedic in nature that it too should be summarily deleted. Netscott 11:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be deleted, but we're not discussing the deletion here - and as you know I am the one who nominated it for speedy deletion, with your assistance - but the block. I'm uncomfortable with the way everyone's lining up to be the first to not be biased against Islam - not that we should be - but there's something about this that strikes me as unseemly, and kind of fake.Timothy Usher 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, your commentary is puzzling. This isn't about being the "first to not be biased against Islam" but rather about making an encyclopedia and encouraging neutral point of view and discouraging signs of lack of good faith towards those ends no matter what shape or form relative to a given subject such acts should take. Speaking for myself I happen to strongly edit in the realm of topics on Islam and so it's natural that I should become aware of demonstrations of a lack of good faith on both sides related to that. Perhaps my only difference from other editors is that I actually do something about this. Netscott 12:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy has brought up a legitimate point: why FairNBalanced was singled out for punishment, while other editors blatantly abusing their userspace are left alone? I also want to know why this happens. Pecher 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Faisal attempt a neutral point of view? Does BhaiSaab? Does Amibidhrohi? Does JuanMuslim (username, hello?) Does Striver? Does Raphael1? Does Farhansher? Does Autoshade? Does Mystic? These are just a few of the editors we see around these articles who don't bother with the faintest pretense of neutrality, and my understanding has been that we're required to accept it as an alternative point of view. It's pretty silly to make allowances for Middle Eastern religious fanaticism while not tolerating the juvenalia of western right-wing discourse. Were there a policy that editors had to be reasonable, or be hauled before ANI, someone should have let me know, as it'd have saved me and several more scholarly editors than myself (most notably Pecher, the single most valuable contributor to this space by a longshot) a whole lot of trouble.Timothy Usher 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't speak about the others but User:Raphael1 is in plenty of trouble right now. Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a policy that Misplaced Pages editors have to be reasonable. To state otherwise is to introduce a straw man. If these other editors are abusing Misplaced Pages, file a report here. --Tony Sidaway 12:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well stated Tony Sidaway as I was about to make that point myself. To say that all of the others that Timothy Usher has listed were demonstrating a lack of good faith is very much a straw man arguement. Also regarding the part about "be hauled before ANI", you may not be aware of it Timothy Usher, but it is common policy here that when an admin gives this kind of block to someone their block is posted here for review by fellow admins. Since that's pretty standard stuff it seemed logical to me that User:FairNBalanced's block should undergo such review as well which is why I posted it here. Netscott 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of good faith, Netscott, but of approaching subjects neutrally. Faisal (for starters) comes on talk pages and blathers on about his love for the "Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)" (see recent discussions on Talk:Muhammad) - can we really believe he intends to treat the topic of Muhammad neutrally? And he's hardly alone in this. Tony is saying that this is a valid topic for the noticeboard, of which I wasn't aware.Timothy Usher 12:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, please quit while you're ahead. Without excusing Faisal's (or anyone else's for that matter) demonstrations of lack of neutrality your comparing that to someone like User:FairNBalanced's uploading of an image (and falsely labeling its copyright status) of a gray-black pig scrawled with Allah written in Arabic across its body thereby labeling it as Allah (note the file name) is preposterous and borderline asinine. Netscott 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, your incivility is not appreciated. As I'm the one who tagged this image for speedy delete, to associate my comments with the image is itself a straw man.Timothy Usher 13:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks on me. I . So please stop it. --- Faisal 13:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If they are bad faith editors who came to proselytize or evangelize, they'll be blocked like User:Jason Gastrich soon enough. If you really feel this to be the case, please pull some demonstrative diffs and file a RFC. Until then, though, all they're demonstrating is enthusiasm, and that's something the project can always use. The pig image isn't remotely comparable. It's contemptible hate speech, nothing more or less, and we don't have to put up with that crap here. -Hit bull, win steak 13:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, how am I abusing my userspace? BhaiSaab 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I am the person who blocked FairNBalanced for a week. I don't have any knowledge of this person at all, and was alerted to it by User:Crzrussian. I deleted the picture on sight and then blocked him for one week, as I quickly glanced at the contribs list and saw from first glance that he was contributing seriously - for the most part, there was no obvious vandalism and so I only blocked for 1 week and said that I was fine if someone else amended this based on their previous experience and FairNBalanced' behaviour. If he has a long history of bad behaviour, by all means remove my block and reinstate a harsher block.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

FairNBalanced has posted an {{unblock}} template on his page, giving this reason why he should be unblocked. I have reviewed and rejected the request, giving this reason. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

I have removed FairNBalanced

It's enitrely inappropriate to edit other people's userpages even if you disagree with their content. Self-awarding a barnstar may be a sign of vanity, but there is still no justification for removing it. Pecher 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted.Timothy Usher 10:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Could people with more experience also chim in User Israel shamir conduct. Thanks -- Kim van der Linde 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for an indefinite block on FairNBalanced

• FairNBalanced (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Having taken a closer look at this editor's provocative edits to his user page, I'm going to recommend an indefinite block. As Bishonen points out on his talk page, he had also placed this item on his user page, in which he showed Ivan Frederick, a US Army Military Police Staff Sergeant, sitting on a bound prisoner and described it thus:

Terrorist receiving Thai Massage from American soldier

This technique is known to relax the erector spinae muscles in the mid back. The side to side motion (not evident in this still photo) is purported to pacify the mind and calm the soul. This extra service is offered to prisoners who have not slept well due to the extra-firm mattresses in their cells. It should be noted that this terrorist did not leave a tip-- this is considered to be bad etiquette for a nice massage.

Sergeant Frederick has been imprisoned for eight years as a result of his torture, abuse and sexual indecency against muslim prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

There comes a point at which an editor's conduct is so beyond the pale that the community cannot accept that he is using Misplaced Pages for honest purposes. I think the kind of behavior described here, in two separate instances, is ample evidence that FairNBalanced's purpose in editing Misplaced Pages is malevolent. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit to mixed feelings about the idea of a permanent ban. Users who are blatantly trying to flame-bait Misplaced Pages tend to be sources for serious disruption that impede what we're here to do which is build a great 💕. There is no doubt that User:FairNBalanced's user page edits are blatant examples of flame-baiting and there is no doubt that he's made inflammatory statements on talk pages but there is also no doubt that he appears to have made positive contributions to the project. One thing that is a bit odd in User:FairNBalanced's edit history is the creation of an appearingly anti-User:FairNBalanced sockpuppet (I'm assuming it's a sock) named Fair_AND_Balanced (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). This sockpuppet seems to be created for equally harsh flame-baiting but in an opposite sense. Is this sockpuppet to be used as a tool towards disruptive ends or is it some sort of a black humor device to counterbalance his own user page? I'm not sure but if it is meant for opposing flame-baiting then I think that it's safe to assume that a permanent block is in order. Based upon others' view of these new details I'll make a final comment in support of a permanent block or not. Netscott 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Addedum: I noticed that there were several comments on his talk page referring to sockpuppetry (prior to it's "archival".. wherever this archive is, it's missing). It might be worth it to check if there's been utilization of sockpuppets towards disruptive ends. Netscott 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FairNBalanced is quite new user, and has made some obviously positive and good faith contributions, including uploading some high quality photos. It's clear that he has made some mistakes on his userspace, but he has already made it clear that he will not repeat these errors and will blank his userpage from now on: User_talk:FairNBalanced#Unblock_request_reviewed_and_denied. In my opinion an indefinite ban would be much too harsh, especially considering that he is indeed a new user, and that he promise not to repeat the early errors that he has made. -- Karl Meier 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fair. He is pretty new and perhaps didn't realise that hate speech is wholly inappropriate to Misplaced Pages. I am inclined to cut him some slack on this, abhorrent though his recent actions have been. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. This user has made a number of good-quality contributions that have made him something of a lightning rod for people opposed to his contributions on a political basis. I suspect that the "fair_and_balanced" new ID is not a sockpuppet but rather another editor angry at this editor. It doesn't seem especially fair to hold that user ID against thim, in the absence of any evidence that I can see.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for an indefinite block. The content and style of his first entries suggest he's not a new user, just a user using a new ID. The exceptionally corrosive nature of his edits and commentary makes an indefinite block appropriate. His Excellency... 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Be advised that User:His excellency is the new username of User:Amibidhrohi, who has amassed an impressive block log for 3RR, personal attacks, harrassment, disruption and incivility.Timothy Usher 23:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if User:Essjay is in a position to do any WP:RFCU check user verification but there has been a question or two about User:FairNBalanced being a sockpuppet. If there's sockpuppetry afoot particularly if it's disruptive in nature, then an indef. ban is in order. If not then I'd tend to agree that the original 1 week block should suffice. Netscott 23:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive users operating under new usernames should be indefinitely banned.Timothy Usher 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser would only be apropriate if there's a plausible accusation related to a named second user. Since this editor, FairNBalanced, has engaged in serious disruption (the two instances of hate speech), a checkuser could then be used. I don't know, myself, of any such plausible accusation. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken but from my own personal involvement with utilizing their services I've gathered the impression that the RFCU folks can essentially determine under which names/IP addresses a given user has likely edited. I imagine that such utilization of check user isn't standard but when we're discussing permanently blocking an editor I don't think such a check is unreasonable. Netscott 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP ranges can be seen but as far as I'm aware checkuser is not to be used for fishing expeditions. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, shy of any such proof of additional disruptiveness through sockpuppetry, I'm in accord with fellow Wikipedians in not supporting an indefinite ban... obviously should new evidence come to light, my view would change. Netscott 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure an IP check could determine if this user is the same as fair_AND_balanced or specific other suspected sockpuppet IDs. I agree that sockpuppets cross the line. However, in the pages that I have personally witnessed his editing, I have seen no evidence of sockpuppets. --Mantanmoreland 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Original blocker - well I am getting a reputation as somewhat of zero-tolerance admin against personal attacks, so given the evidence of previous blocks, an extension would be OK. Also, I note that User:Striver had the same picture of the US soldier with similarly inflammatory commentary.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Compare FairNBalanced's block log with Striver's.Timothy Usher 02:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This commentary is out of place and out of context chronologically at User:Timothy Usher's insistence. Netscott 11:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTICEmany of the comments in this section have been moved from their original places by User:Netscott, who has created the formatting above.Timothy Usher 13:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I think I about it, the more I think this reason is not a very good one. that the judgment by which the pig image is disgusting rests upon an acceptance of two assertions: first, the the arabic word for God is sacred in a way that the English word is not . Second, that the pig is a uniquely unclean animal, such that for any word written upon it, its meaning is besmirched. I grant you that it might be characterized as "flame-baiting", in that it's known that partisans of a certain ideology find this juxtaposition offensive. Perhaps flame-baiting of religious ideologues is disgusting. If so, let's establish it as policy: no statements, lexical or visual, which might be interpreted as offensive to or intended to provoke editors with religious belief. Comfortable with this? (Cyde Weys, are you listening?) I'm not.

Otherwise, what can be the issue? I agree that, by the most natural reading, the image was intended to either challenge or make light of Islamic thought and prejudice, but why is this any worse that doing the same with Christian thought and prejudice? It seems that Islam is being treated as a race or gender here, something towards which one may has no moral right to arrive at any judgement except advocacy. That is not the way the unique sensitivities of other religions have been treated on wikipedia. Religions are not just backgrounds but also ideologies.

I accept that the proclamations of disapproval, including my own, were made in good faith, but in retrospect have come to believe that these were wrongly decided. My thesis is that pigs are not obscene, and the Arabic word for God is not sacred, nor is their juxtaposition in any way offensive, except to whatever degree that we've adopted and accepted - thoughtlessly, reflexively, defensively, politically, fearfully or otherwise - a religious point of view. This is the very same sort of dispute which has occured at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, similarly Piss Christ, where one group finds something intolerably outrageous, where those outside this group find it perhaps objectionable, but within the pale of acceptable dialogue. Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics, one clause of which was clearly designed to prohibit the cartoons (hence its resurrection by Raphael1), was rejected. Why are we proceeding as if it's policy?Timothy Usher 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• In defense of hate-speech are we now Timothy Usher? Rememer, Misplaced Pages is NOT a forum for unregulated free speech. Netscott 10:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The question here is to what extent userspace is a forum for free speech. My position has been made abundantly clear: all extraneous material must go. But that's not the issue at hand. Here, it's being said that Allah Pig is especially offensive in a way that Cyde's porn pix (acknowledged flame-baiting) or Piss Christ (institutionalized federally-funded flame-baiting) is not. What's the reason for this? How is this different from the cartoons?

One might say, well, those are necessary to the article, and I'd agree with that, but currently policy as applied does not require that material in userspace is necessary. It should, but it doesn't.

What constitutes "hate speech" is apparently quite subjective, as seen in the recent Cyde Weys Christian template controversy - and that was actively screwing with other people's user pages. Wikiethics is at least clear and consistent - if someone's offended by an image, remove it. Just as my position is consistent - nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, remove it. Yours is manifestly not.Timothy Usher 10:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice, first you correctly submit the Allah pig image (no doubt knowing full well that an image of a particularly ugly gray/black pig with with the Arabic word Allah scrawled across it's body edited onto it with Photoshop is particularly hateful) for speedy deletion and subsequently edit it off User:FairNBalanced's user page prior to it's actual deletion and then you argue that his doing that wasn't hateful due to "subjectivity"? Ridiculous. You're equivocating Cyde-Weys rather discreet page of "Weird Pictures" that one actually has to search for or otherwise become aware through a means other than directly viewing his user page to User:FairNBalanced immediate user page hateful display. Uh, no. I was thinking before that you were acting in a misguided way in good faith but now I'm seriously beginning to doubt my previous estimation of the situation. Netscott 11:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe my request said "inflammatory", not "hateful." The first refers only to how some others are likely to view it. Cyde's actions go beyond this - he also changed the Christian template such that the cross was spinning, and including a very lengthy deliberately rambling text in place of the previous template text.

It doesn't really matter what you think of your "previous estimation of the situation". Address the topics at hand.Timothy Usher 11:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting how hateful displays do tend to be inflammatory. Why was it inflammatory then? Netscott 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Technically speaking wouldn't your "subjectivity" argument be equally applicable to content found in this sort of vandalism? It may seem hyperbolic but those in support of such displays could equally argue that "it's known that partisans of a certain ideology find this juxtaposition offensive.", that is the juxtaposition of the image to the words "your're next", no? Netscott 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There you go, it's like lynching. Look, this was a picture of a friggin' farm animal, with a word for God in a foreign language. It's only a big deal if one accepts one religious narrative, in which case it's blasphemy. If one doesn't, it's just a farm animal. Were the text "Jesus", I seriously doubt we'd be having this discussion. Nor was there any "you're next" involved. That's ridiculous, and unchivalrous. You know he can't respond. Stop kicking him.Timothy Usher 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, your failure to respond to my question about how the Allah pig image was inflammatory is telling. Your previous actions spoke much louder than your current words which makes them so puzzling and gives you that genuine appearance of a hypocrite. Not sure why you keep trying to state how I might have responded if this question surrounded "Jesus", from my previous statements it's clear that I would have responded equally in kind were I to be editing primarily on Chrisitianity related topics and encountered an equally hateful display relative to that religion. As well the "Stop kicking him" comment is out of place because this last part of the discussion revolves around your attempts at whitewashing FairNBalanced's previous user page display. Netscott 20:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. For what it is worth, I became aware of FairNBalanced from edits on article Bob_Newman. A read through the article history and Talk page shows several things. The article was created in two days, 1 to 2 October 2005, with massive cut and paste (including COPYVIO material later removed by others during cleanup) as a collaboration between Aj4runner and 67.102.198.2, an IP for Covad Communications in San Jose, CA, US. Aj4runner did a few of minor edits later in same month and was silent until May 2006 when they added a thanks to FairNBalanced for restoring the article after an edit war. Aj4runnerhas done nothing since adding that remark which is suspicious. User:67.102.198.2 was only used for the building of the article. I believe it to be a sock puppet of Aj4runner. I do not know if they both are sock puppets of FairNBalanced.

The article, which read like it was written by the subject (unsourced and not NPOV in my opinion), was tagged for cleanup in November 2005 and this cleanup continued into February 2006. By that time, the article was stable and looked concise and NPOV (at least to me - I don't have any personal interest in the subject of the article) for about a month. It had minor tweaking and even was vandalized and reverted until the edit war started on 7 April 2006. The talk page exchanges heated up at this time as well. User 71.198.141.63, was a major player and this IP address is an IP used by FairNBalanced as shown here on Karl Meier's talk page. (Karl was departing Misplaced Pages but came back. If that was for FairNBalanced, then Karl is commendable.)

On 15 April 2006, FairNBalanced re-grew the article, with a series of edits to nearly the original size, but without the COPYVIO material mentioned above. A series of reverts took place that ended with the article large, not sourced and not NPOV (again, my opinion) on 20 April 2006. Discussion on the talk page stopped at this point on the same day. This was the end of the edit war. FairNBalanced made some readability cleanups on 24 April 2006 and in May 2006 did clarify the copyright status of the photos that were in the article at the time. These are both commendable. However, readability was used as a reason to remove the source and pov tags left at the end of the edit war.

On 29 April 2006, after the talk page had been silent for over a week, FairNBalanced went back in and replied to one of the cleanup editors with comments about POV and citing sources which I find both ironic and baiting. It did get a heated response from one of the cleanup editors. I call this baiting because the next day, 172.166.237.185 an AOL IP address, came in with a sympathetic encouragement for the editor to leave. This IP has not posted anything else. Thanks for your time. --EarthPerson 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:EarthPerson has supposedly just now joined wikipedia, which in light of the jargon and formatting used in the preceding post, seems most unlikely..Timothy Usher 09:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All EarthPerson's contributions have been related to Bob Newman, one way or another. Pecher 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely true. But if was I pro-Newman, I could have reverted the article back to even more of its fluff. If I was anti-Newman, I could have reduced the article down in size. I did neither of these. What I am doing is using that article to learn from. --EarthPerson 14:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am new to Misplaced Pages. As for the jargon and formatting, it's because I have followed many of the conversations and also use "Show preview" a ridiculous number of times before saving. However, I am not anyone who participated in the edit war. I do realize what this looks like. But you don't know how much time this has taken from my real world job. I'm going to try very hard today to not even go to Misplaced Pages. As for FairNBlanaced, I think he'd be more happy in the Blogosphere. Now I need to get to work. Thanks. --EarthPerson 14:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block would be excessive. Let's see if FnB behaves himself after his week is up. Further discussion might be more appropriate to an RfC. Tom Harrison 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know quite where to place this, with the scewed-up chronology here, and my original post rather oddly positioned, but I must reply to Timothy's misreading of my unblock refusal reason, which he seems to have made the basis for a whole treehouse in the wrong tree. Timothy, since you call my reason "not a very good one", could you please re-read it? I didn't call the pig picture "disgusting", let alone do it on the basis of some religious reasoning. I called it flamebait and inflammatory, and then went on to call this edit disgusting. Not, as FairNBalanced trollishly professed to believe, the photo as such, but the whole edit, the picture with its caption. It's not to do with religion, it's about the amusingness of torture. Please click on the link and see. What do you think, disgusting or not? If you'll re-read my message, and perhaps even read my short reply to FairNBalanced claim of "satire" (I can hardly bear to repeat such steaming rubbish), my position should become much clearer. I believe strongly in my action of upholding the week-long block. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

You're right, Bishonen, I'd mistakenly associated your comments with the pig image. Sorry for the mix-up.Timothy Usher 01:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I find FnB's user page unacceptably offensive, he's made good contributions. He's already said he'll blank his userpage upon return. Give him another chance. - Merzbow 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let us consider the bigger picture before rushing to judgement. So far the focus is the deleted image. Let's not only focus on the pig image that was deleted by Timothy. There is also the image of the tortured Iraqi, under which he added a snide bit of commentary. Go through the deleted conversations on the talk page as well as the user page. These weren't merely his own views.It is also to be noted that he added his name to the Wikiproject:Islam group and the Muslim Guild. He not only placed inflammatory hate speech on his page, he positioned himself in groups and participated in editing directly with the people whom he wished to offend and insult. This person has an advanced knowlege of Misplaced Pages, and has demonstrated advanced knowlege since his first posts. Though this particular ID is new, the character behind it is quite experienced, and is versed in WP rules when it suites him. He knows how to play rhetoric, obviously he knew precisely how inflammatory his userpage was. His ID and his IP should be banned permenantly.

His primary defender here is Timothy Usher, the same person who deleted the offending image. A closer look at Timothy_Usher's edit history reveals his own interests in pushing a partisan perspective, particularly on topics where Islam or Muslims are involved. I intend on bringing up a separate case regarding Timothy's pattern of behavior here, particularly his baiting games on the Wikiproject:Islam page, though his actions on other pages deserve to be noted as well. His Excellency... 22:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't realized it, I'm not getting anything out of this. I fully recognize the political benefits of joining in the chorus of condemnation, and having recognized them, choose not to. I oppose the images, just as I oppose any editorial commentary in userspace unrelated to wikipedia, but also oppose the unseemly way in which several editors are tripping over one another to appease angry proponents of one religious ideology, where rather less angry proponents of another are fair game for said flamebaiting, some of which (e.g. the Christian template fiasco) went far beyond this incident.

As for my "baiting", if you mean that I've encouraged editors not to fill Misplaced Pages up with sectarian language (p.s., did you know I voted to delete the Christian userbox?) or to band together on the basis of religion, as per the Muslim Guild (see the reference to the deletion of Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages below), or to run around attacking editors as enemies of that religion, as you've repeatedly done (and been blocked for) under your former username, and have done again here - if that's what you mean by "baiting", than I plead guilty.Timothy Usher 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You share his ideological perspective, and you've worked alongside him, AND the admin who blocked me to push the same POV on articles. The loss of User:FairNBalanced would certainly be a blow to your game.

And actually by baiting, I meant you IMPERSONATING a Muslim (which you're not), going to the Muhammad page, and 'daring' a user who expressed his opposition to "Islam-POV", to come to the Wikiproject:Islam page to 'express' himself to other Muslims. Less explixit is you commenting on the Wikiproject:Islam page on the "Conservative Noticeboard" here, which I think was for the same intent of getting people prone to anti-Muslim sentiment to partipate in editing articles dealing with Islam. I know you're considered an annoyance on Wikiproject:Judaism as well. The fact that you frustrate members of more than one religion isn't something to be proud of. I would request users to check out the changes he repeatedly makes to the Wikiproject:Islam main page and talk page, particularly his requests that Muslims refrain from so much as saying "salaam" to each other. Reasonless and unprovoked comments such as "your userpage is not an appropriate place for persuading other editors of the virtues of your way of life"...At times he's the expert on WP lawyering, at others he's oblivious to such simple rules as WP:NPOV, WP:Civil, WP:RS and most of all, WP:CONSENSUS. His Excellency... 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"your userpage is not an appropriate place for persuading other editors of the virtues of your way of life" - that wasn't my edit, though I defended it against your reverts, and wholly endorse the sentiment.

As for Monty2, he'd accused me of being a "wikijihadist", which, in light of this conversation, might be seen as somewhat ironic. I suppose my response could have been more straightforward.

"The fact that you frustrate members of more than one religion isn't something to be proud of." - I wouldn't say I'm proud of frustrating anyone, but I've nothing to apologize for. The issue there, as with the Muslim Guild (though not nearly as egregious in this), was 1) whether or not it was okay to advise members that their religion was under attack ("be on the lookout..."), and that they must band together to stop this vilification, 2) whether "Jewish vs. Christian perspectives" was an appropriate section title. 3) whether editors should be advised to take offense if other editors say "Jesus Christ", rather than just to remind them that "Christ" is POV and ask them not to use sectarian language. I've no apologies to offer for any of this.Timothy Usher 23:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Folks, while all of the points being made here tend to be valid... this is a "noticeboard" not a place for discussion. I admit that I contributed to this "discussion" and admit that my part in this discussion should have stopped some time ago. I recommend that the rest of this discussion be taken to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents so that this board can remain dedicated to its purpose. Thanks. Netscott 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. There's one issue I would ask be considered. These days it is considered more 'sexy' to attack Muslims and Islam than other minority groups. Fair game for political talking heads, fair game for comedians, and all that. Make sure that this bias attitude doesn't affect your decision here. Apply the same standards on FairNBalanced that you would if he had made corrospondingly offensive remarks and made use of equally offensive imagery targeting Jewish users or people of black skin color. Had the choice of target been anything other than Muslim or Arab, I feel the response would have been far more severe than just a 1 week block. The standards should be same across the board. Remember, not only did he make use of flamebaiting rhetoric and imagery, he positioned himself so that Muslims could come in full view of this. This is extremely malevolent and shouldn't be excused. His Excellency... 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "Had the choice of target been anything other than Muslim or Arab, I feel the response would have been far more severe than just a 1 week block. " - Guess again.Timothy Usher 23:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor example. I see no history there of images with Jews being tortured, or of his commentary making jest of such atrocities. No inflammatory images mocking Jewish beliefs. Nothing close to FairNBalanced's. His Excellency... 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering this comment made under your old username, I'm not surprised that you'd arrive at that conclusion.Timothy Usher 02:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic here is FairNBalanced. You're welcome to open a separate piece for me. For now, quit complaining. And please quit stalking me. His Excellency... 03:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now the topic is FairNBalanced. I'm glad that diff helped you figure that out. You're in no position to be lecturing anyone else about hate and bigotry, Amibidhrohi a.k.a. "His excellency".Timothy Usher 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Dear archivebot, please don't harvest this thread just yet, as it's an important point of reference for a fresh discussion below ("His Excellency/Amibidhrohi indefinite block"). Bishonen | talk 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

User:Israel shamir - anti-semitism and personal attacks

User:Israel shamir, who may or may not be the same person as the subject of the Israel Shamir biographical article has been in an edit war concerning that article.

He has made the following comment on his personal Talk page:

"Don't you think here you guys prove there is a Jewish conspiracy? Or three Jews against one Christian is rather a pogrom? Israel shamir 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)"

In my opinion, making a doubly offensive anti-Semitic slur such as this should result in an immediate block - preferably indefinite. Homey 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the person for 24 hours (revert warring, incivility) pending further discussion here. -- Kim van der Linde 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is not the person of the article, the name should be block for inproper username. -- Kim van der Linde 19:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) After reading his comments, I am pretty sure it is himself. -- Kim van der Linde 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He basically seems to accuse anyone who removes the pov passages from the article of being Jews. I am really not sure that Shamir is even notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and especially not such a long one.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he's notable enough to have an article. I have no reason to believe User:Israel shamir is not Israel Shamir (though, to be frank, there's some debate on whether Israel Shamir is Israel Shamir), I just have no proof that the user and the subject of the article are the same person and don't want to make an assumption either way.

My problem is with this user's anti-Semitic slurs both in asserting a "Jewish conpiracy" and in inverting the historical fact of anti-Jewish pogroms by accusing Jews of launching a pogrom against him, a Christian. He's crossed the line from incivility into base racism and should be blocked indefinitely. Homey 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Accepting Shamir's "philosemite" slurs against editors would be much the same as putting up with a contributor calling opponents "niggerlovers". Also the user has steadily ignored, as far as I can see, the exhortations on his talkpage to say whether he's really Shamir or not, and to either a) stop adding OR and opinions to the article if he is, or to b) change his username if he's not. As for notability, I doubt that he's remotely wellknown even in Sweden where he lives. I'm Swedish and take an interest in these matters, and I haven't heard of him. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

There's no excuse either way. If User:Israel Shamir really is Israel Shamir, he shouldn't be editing the article on himself per WP:VANITY. If he isn't Israel Shamir, his username is inappropriate and should be indefinitely blocked. Either way, there is no way such a username should ever be editing that article. Kasreyn 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. His comments are clearly stupid and offensive, but how is that grounds for an indefinite block? Al 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine saying to some noxious troll, "The community has found you to be stupid and offensive. You have been blocked in perpetuity." Let's do more of that. Tom Harrison 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging from his contributions, the editor in question (username issues aside) has already demonstarated sheer contempt for the rules of conduct on Misplaced Pages, clear unwillingness to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages as a neutral encyclopedia, and inability to work cooperatively with other editors. I think there is a consensus that Misplaced Pages will be better off without him. Pecher 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree woth an indef block at this time. He just has been blocked for the very first time, and to jump immediatly to indef, no go with me, because he could get the point. It is clear that just warning is not going to help, but I will assume good faith and recommend that we see if he improves. -- Kim van der Linde 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose in good conscience I have to agree that this first block should not be indefinite. Tom Harrison 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ignoring the username issue. Jkelly 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is an username issue, and that it is indeed himself. Dealing with the person in question at the page about the person in question requires some more tact, because that person on one hand does know MUCH more about himself (Duh!), but also is more likely to want to skew the page in favour of himself. However, just reverting does not help out, as I just found that some links he updated are actually the new versions, and the old links do not go anywhere anymore. I have left some tips at his page, and I hope the other editors will deal with it in a concious way. -- Kim van der Linde 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There is a significant username issue, no matter whether he really is Israel Shamir or not. I quote from Misplaced Pages:Username:

Misplaced Pages does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following:

Confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames:

...

Names of well-known living people

Misplaced Pages:Username is an official policy and it states clearly that usernames must not be the names of well-known living people. The username is not acceptable, regardless of whether it is genuinely him. As far as I can tell, if a famous person wants to edit Misplaced Pages, they must do so under a pseudonym. Kasreyn 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Humm, I always have seen those rules as for using a name that it is not your own name, and I personally do not see anything wrong with having your own name. Otherwise, we should block Jimbo for using a well known name. That does not make sense as far as I can tell. I also recall older discussion in which the question was whether the person of the name was really that famous person, because in that case, it would not be an issue. -- Kim van der Linde 06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The single quote Homey gives seriously understates the problem. A visit to User talk:Israel shamir shows this to be not an isolated remark, but an ongoing mode of discourse. It appears he's not bothered to appear on the talk page of the article itself, instead content to repeatedly revert. Finally, his edits are not just unsourced and stridently POV, but also objectively disruptive, as they insert references to the Jewish editors he's attacked into the article itself:

“He (and this article) is an object of a concentrated attack by many identity-concealing Misplaced Pages-based philosemites.”

Israel Shamir is a writer and journalist who demands full equality of Jew and goy, everywhere from Palestine to New York. Such demand is considered antisemitic by Jews who are used to privilege. That is why Jewish critics and other philosemites created a Black legend around Shamir positively demonising him. The main source for the black legend is the string of ADL- related Jewish publications from Expo in Sweden to Searchlight in England. Here in the Wiki, where the Jewish presence is as great as anywhere, you can find a lot of sick stuff about Shamir.”

Simply outrageous. I see no reason to believe that he will ever contribute positively to wikipedia.Timothy Usher 04:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also direct readers to WP:ANI#Proposal for an indefinite block on FairNBalanced, where a one-week block has already been applied for uploading the photograph of a pig wih the word "God" written upon it into his userspace, which is called hate speech. Meanwhile one who openly and relentlessly attacks other editors and Jews generally, even inserting these attacks into mainspace, with no visible good-faith contributions whatsoever, is being given the generous benefit of a non-existent doubt. Appalling.Timothy Usher 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 ours pending discussion here. I have no problem if another admin extends the block, or when there is clear consensus that it should be extended, I would do it myself. -- Kim van der Linde 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there reputable and reliable sources that even mention this guy? I tend to think that someone that would spend this much time acting crazy and editing his own article on an online encyclopedia is probably not notable enough for an article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The thread is getting long, so you may not have noticed my comment above: "... I doubt that he's remotely wellknown even in Sweden where he lives. I'm Swedish and take an interest in these matters, and I haven't heard of him." Bishonen | talk 09:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

That is a separate issue. The issue here is this user, and any way you slice it he does not belong as an editor here. His comments were deeply offensive even to a parochial school kid like me. The comparison with the swift axe falling on FairNBalanced, an editor who contributed often and in good faith in congrast to "Israel shamir," is well-taken. --Mantanmoreland 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time today to go into much more depth than others already have on this issue, but I have to say Timothy Usher's analysis hits the bulls eye. "Outrageous is only appropriate because a stronger word doesn't exsist...and outrageous leads to only one conclusion: this guy is unacceptable. If we can't get non-trolling unanimity that he should be blocked indefinitely at this point as a useless editor, I don't see that he'll be with us much longer anyways...if we're not going to all agree, we may as well just stop talking about whether or not we should, right now, and just let the blocks get longer and longer until he's finally booted permanently. From what I'm seeing, dragging it out like that does nothing but give him more opportunities to disrupt WP and wastes a great deal of other editors' time.

The username is a separate issue--WP:Vanity quite clearly prohibits him, if he is "Shamir", from editing the article (but not its talkpage, which he hasn't bothered to do)... if he is not Shamir, he shouldn't be editing any article as User:Israel shamir nor as User:Israel Shamir. If anyone can ascertain that he is Shamir, then he has to be told in no uncertain terms that he is prohibited from editing Israel Shamir, and blocked as appropriate for violation. If he is not Shamir, then the account should be blocked until the real Shamir stands up. Cheers, Tomer 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This user continues to revert war at his eponymous article, continually re-inserting a massively POV version. - Merzbow 00:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week for immediatly continuation of revert warring despite being warned etc, and in line with the nmore general sentiment here. -- Kim van der Linde 04:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Kim, somebody — I presume Shamir himself — has neverteless reverted Israel Shamir to Shamir's preferred version, first RhinoRick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and then 86.139.10.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I have blocked the RhinoRick sock but don't know what's best to do about the IP (except revert it). Time for an indefinite block of this disruptive individual? Or does anybody doubt that those are his socks? Meanwhile I've semiprotected the article so other editors have a chance to actually work on it. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

If hw goes on like this, I think he will be very soon indef blocked because of the disruptive nature. Having said that, I think the article does need a serious rewrite, and some information should be deleted as based on very unreliable sources. -- Kim van der Linde 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is a new disruption, which I've reported at the bottom of the page. I say that one tips over the scales towards an indefinite block; what say ye? Discuss at the bottom of the page please, as that's where people will notice. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

69ersforever (talk · contribs)

69ersforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Made some edits of vandalism with a possibly inappropriate username. Yanksox 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked by me. Jkelly 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a little extreme? I can't see anything wrong with the user name at all, and an indefinite block for what, 6 bad edits seems overly harsh. I would have blocked him for a few hours at most. Exploding Boy 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a play on the SF 49ers football team. So what if the number is 69? If you find that perverted, it's in your own mind. 69 is a number you know. Haizum 08:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it may not have anything to do with the 49ers or sex (although both are good guesses). If you google '69ers', there are oodles of hits including this one, a motorcycle gang . I agree that on the sex front it's a pretty weak criticism, but isn't there a rule about alluding to proper names?--Anchoress 08:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll say one thing for those "69'ers," they're guilty not only of the wanton misuse of apostrophes, but of egregiously bad web design. As for the user in question and her/his name, I don't think the average reader is going to associate the name with some obscure motorcycle club. I still think an indefinite block was extreme in this case. Exploding Boy 00:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was intended for vandalism based on the term Yanksox 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. But even so, an indefinite (in other words: permanent) block for six bad edits seems extreme. Certainly as it appears to have been his first block. Exploding Boy 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even notice that there was a conversation about this. I don't understand the American football comment (off by twenty?), but it was pretty clearly a vandal account. Regardless, if someone wants to unblock, they should feel free to. Jkelly 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board

Oh yes, this is going to go over well--name 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the stated purpose of the page was to use a Misplaced Pages: space page to organize editors to promote a partisan point of view, I am ignoring all rules and deleting the page. I am very specifically not using any existing speedy deletion criteria to do this, and am putting my action up here for review. I will not revert any admin who undoes my action. Nandesuka 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's physically impossible to pour too many megatons of salt over the earth where this page once stood. --Cyde↔Weys 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I agree with the deletion, but I also think that there is very little good that could have come from the association. If the association had been present, like the saints portal, to be sure that neglected figures of conservativism (are there any?) were represented, it wouldn't be a big deal, but there's no need for a project to do that. Besides, eventually the thing would have to have succumbed to battling "liberals," and liberals are, according to the sorts of people who hang out at conservativism projects, everywhere and include pretty much everyone who dissents, so it's probably delete it now or delete it after the RfC's, RFAR's, etc. have gone on. Misplaced Pages should never have factions. This is not Guild Wars. Geogre 15:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this deletion fully. Wikiprojects should be for widespread topics, not points of view. --InShaneee 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The avowed purpose of the page is not to promote a partisan point of view. It says: "This is the Conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to Conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of conservative Wikipedians." It seems similar to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild among others. I don't see any pressing reason this needs to be deleted now rather than after five days of deliberations at WP:MFD. I've restored the page. Haukur 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Haukurth's reversal. Take this one through process; or establish a policy to remove all projects about political philosophies (since, of course, the adherants of those philosophies will be the most interested in the projects.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between WikiProjects and "noticeboards". This one had a list of "action items" with links to Afds and Cfds on conservative topics. It was transparently a vote-stacking page. The deletion should not have been reversed. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh boy! WHEEL WAR! Someone get the lawn chairs; I'll bring the beer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Stop trolling. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Personal attack withheld. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Cyde's assesment. This is humor. --mboverload@ 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested elsewhere, this is not WikiProject:Conservativism, this is Smash the filthy liberals: you bring the petrol and I'll bring the marshmallows. Unlike the Muslim project cited above, it makes no attempt to be neutral, merely listing pages on which "action" is required. If the Muslim Guild went the same way, I would advocate for deleting that also. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is deleting it better than just editing it into something neutral? -GTBacchus 17:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If a house has a rotten foundation you don't just keep pouring more plaster on the walls to cover up the cracks ... you demolish the house and start somewhere else on a steady foundation. If someone wants to try this thing from the ground-up with a neutral perspective, then that's one thing ... but the purpose of this page was very transparent. --Cyde↔Weys 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty useless metaphor on a Wiki. Reworking a page like this into something neutral and then moving it to a better title would be a excellent way to communicate how we function. -GTBacchus 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you deleted this project when it simply followed the model of the pre-existing Misplaced Pages:LGBT_notice_board . --Facto 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion#Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board

Why was this debate closed so early (less than four hours after it started) and closed by an admin User:JDoorjam that voted for its deletion? --Facto 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that page was an utter violation of Misplaced Pages's policies. --Cyde↔Weys 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it conformed to the model of the pre-existing Misplaced Pages:LGBT_notice_board, which also has lists of "action items" with links to Afds on LGBT topics. --Facto 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One is an issue of sexuality and another is an issue of partisan politics. I don't see the similarity. --Cyde↔Weys 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the US, everything is political. -- Kim van der Linde 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism is a philosophy not just an issue of partisan politics. And LGBT is not all about sexuality, see http LGBT_movements and LGBT_Political_Investment_Caucus. --Facto 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I closed the MfD as a matter of housekeeping: the article was already deleted (appropriately, IMO, though not by me). You keep going back to the LGBT board, but obviously political conservatism and LGBT issues are not at all of the same ilk. It's the content and potential for misuse, not the formatting adopted, which editors objected to. In any case, WP:AN/I is the incorrect forum to discuss the form and merit of the Conservative notice board. JDoorjam Talk 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam, you say that political conservativism and LGBT issues are "obviously" not at all of the same ilk. I find that statement very un-obvious; certainly not obvious enough to warrant bypassing discussion in favor of a speedy deletion. -GTBacchus 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. The MfD page was the place to discuss it, and you short-circuited that discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:MFD: "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas." From WP:DRV: "Misplaced Pages:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted." From these two page-purpose descriptions, it's my interpretation that MfD is not, in fact, the correct place to discuss pages which have already been deleted. JDoorjam Talk 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT notice board has potential for misuse as well. Also, I did not start the discussion here. --Facto 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the LGBT notice board has the potential to be misused and believe you would be within the guidelines at WP:POINT, I would recommend airing those concerns on the talk page of that board. However, this discussion has not been about, and most likely will not morph into, a discussion about the LGBT board. That you did not start the discussion here does not mean that this is the correct place to discuss these issues. I am not placing blame for using the wrong forum; I'm simply pointing out the fact that this isn't the appropriate place to have the discussion. If you would like the deletion reviewed, I would recommend you air your grievance at WP:DRV. You are unlikely to receive any response or cause any action on this board that you would find satisfactory. JDoorjam Talk 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you and other editors believed the conservative notice board had the potential to be misused then why didn't you air those concerns on the talk page of that board instead of ignoring all rules (Nandesuka) and deleting the project. I'll check WP:DRV later.--Facto 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people want to delete a page, some people want to keep it. Outside the narrowly defined speedy-deletion criteria, our procedure in cases like that is to hold a discussion at *fD on the merits of keeping or deleting. Meanwhile the page itself is kept readable to all. After five days or so someone closes the discussion and if there is a consensus to delete, the page is deleted. This mechanism has served us well for years. When individual admins ignore all rules and summarily delete content they don't approve of they are spitting in the face of our community-based decision making. Now non-admins can't even view the page to comment intelligently upon whether it should be undeleted. I can understand that in cases where something is seriously embarrassing or damaging (and yet doesn't meet the CSD criteria) it may make sense to shoot first and ask questions later. But no one has claimed that allowing the page in question to stand open for five days would cause any damage. Haukur 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the impatience. Why bypass *fD, if it seems remotely controversial? Maybe this didn't seem remotely controversial to Nandesuka, but by now it's clear that there is difference of opinion. I don't even think it's clear that this page should have been deleted instead of improved. -GTBacchus 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Haukur, you've said just what I've been trying to say. I rather think this page should be deleted, and would happily say so on WP:MFD. However, I am very strongly opposed to this out of process deletion, and worse twice. It doesn't come remotely close to any of the CSD criteria, and is a perfect candidate for WP:MFD. I don't understand why the admins who deleted this are so bothered by it hanging around a few days while it undergoes the proper deletion process. Incidentally, I really can't see any difference between this and the LGBT one, it seems to have exactly the same purpose to me, and therefore either both should be kept or both deleted. Petros471 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that when the page is such an outrageous violation of Misplaced Pages policies, like this one, it turns the situation on its head. It's not "what's the harm of letting it hang around a few more days," it's "why should we have to put up with this egregious misuse of Misplaced Pages for a few more days?" Crap gets deleted immediately, not after a waiting period. --Cyde↔Weys 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you are quite wrong about that. Crap very, very often gets deleted after a waiting period. Your impatience (or Nandesuka's, or anyone's) is no reason to change how we do things. Take your time, explain why something is crap, and if it's truly obvious, everyone at *fD will agree, as very, very often happens. If it's not that way, it's possible that it wasn't crap, and that some course of action other than deleting might be wiser. It is utterly unobvious to me that this noticeboard is an egregious violation, when almost identical noticeboards exist unmolested, and I really don't see the argument that Conservativism is different from LGBT issues in a way that makes it obviously un-noticeboard-worthy. This seems to me to be a perfect candidate for rescoping in a way that educates all the editors involved about how we see the NPOV policy working. Handing them a cause to complain about process violation, practically begging to be criticized on utterly beside-the-point procedural grounds, is actually stupid, and helps to prevent the right conversation from happening. "Crap gets deleted" is a foolish motto to speedy-delete with, unless your goal is to generate DRAMA! -GTBacchus 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I regret commenting about the LGBT page. This discussion is not about that page. It's about the merits of and problems with the now-deleted conservative portal. "Either they both stay or they both go!" arguments are rather pointless, as the page in question needs to be able to stand on its own merits. The deletion of the LGBT page would have no bearing on whether the page in question has any value. When this inevitably makes it to DRV, I'll comment there; as WP:AN/I is the wrong forum for continued discussion about the matter, this will be my last comment about the deletion on this page. JDoorjam Talk 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Crap should be edited, not deleted. -- Daniel Davis 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This would leave you with well-edited crap. Which would, nonetheless, still be crap. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatsamatter Calton, you've never edited crap into something that was no longer crap? You should try it sometime. POV-ectomies are good perspective stretching exercise; speedy deletions cause that part of the brain to atrophy. -GTBacchus 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wavering on this until I saw that the defence of it was "well the gays have a noticeboard". Salt the earth, set the salt on fire, douse the fire with cyanide, nuke the cyanide from orbit, then throw the orbit into a black hole. WP:NOT Fark.com. --Sam Blanning 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the deletion of the project unwarranted but also the page protection. None of the criteria listed in Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#A_permanent_or_semi-permanent_protection_is_used_for: are met. --Facto 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You were caught trying to recruit over 50 conservatives to your new noticeboard. Why I didn't just block you for spamming escapes me at the moment. This clearly was not a good faith effort to create a noticeboard about conservative issues. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of spamming Tony as it is incivility. I already told you on your talk page that the precedent had been set for inviting people to notice boards. I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues to a project page where we can share articles of interest. Admin User:Samuel Wantman did the same thing when he started the WP:LGBT notice board, inviting editors interested in LGBT issues. See and Thanks. --Facto 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to grant you any assumption of good faith when you continually give me a good solid reason to doubt it. You say: "I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues" but this is what you said to those editors (my highlighting):

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks.

You contacted those editors, not because of their interest in conservative issues, but because of their self-asserted conservative political leanings. You're pretending that it didn't happen. And just because you did the spamming by hand doesn't mean it wasn't spamming. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the canonical defense would be truth, and that one seems to be ironclad. You've spammed many talkpages for this. Also, WP:SALT is where you'd look for the protection precedent. -M 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SALT says, "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions, it becomes prudent to protect these pages in a deleted form. This practice is commonly known as "padlocking" or "salting the earth" and should be used at the discretion of the deleting administrator. You can use {{Editprotected}} to edit these pages." Also, please do not accuse me of spam when I followed cross-posting guidelines and admin precedent. --Facto 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're highlighting the wrong part there, chief. "This practice is commonly known as "padlocking" or "salting the earth" and should be used at the discretion of the deleting administrator. Try again. -M 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No I did not highlight the wrong part. Protected pages are considered harmful. "These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances." And the limit is defined as "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions" --Facto 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness

Folks, you are kidding yourselves if you think Muslim Guild and LGBT noticeboards are not centers for precisely this type of advocacy and solicitation. Alternately, you're fully aware of this, which is even more disturbing. I'd suggest that all such partisan Guilds and projects be deleted, but short of that, this smacks of manipulating the system to achieve a desired content bias throughout the affected articles. Nor is this the first issue in recent days which suggests that the idelogies of favored "minorities" are acceptable, but American conservatism is not. I'm not opposed to drawing distinctions, as some ideologies are broadly accepted to be beyond the pale (e.g. Nazism, segregationism), but I'd like us to be upfront about what they are and not play games like "conservatism is political, LGBT is sexual." There is a name for the ideology which considers Islamism and LGBT as oppressed classes worthy of special protection (never mind that under Islamic law the LGBT crowd must be executed), while conservatism merits scorn. It's called political correctness, and it doesn't deserve our support.Timothy Usher 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A simple endorsement. Haizum 08:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you worry about our political bias: this would have been nuked had it been the other way around, you can be assured. In any case, anybody who accuses me of "political correctness" obviously has never actually paid attention to anything I say; now excuse me while I go and give my cats a good laugh! HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all and anything like them. They're all partisan, they're all edit rings, and they all should go. There are already categories to help editors navigate through related topics, and there are already article talk and user talk pages to discuss things. Such projects are just ways to facilitate and evade restrictions on spam by gathering like-minded editors in one place.Timothy Usher 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

POV clans and vote solicitation are known problems. Whether it's for a cause we favor or one we oppose, we need to stop it when we see it. I think we sometimes fail to see it when we like the result. I know I see it more clearly when I don't. Tom Harrison 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

POV clans and vote solicitation are known problems. At some point, it would be very useful to collect some explanation of and evidence for this claim in a place where we could point people to it when it comes up. If that already exists, I'd appreciate a link. It seems we are obliged to repeat ourselves far too often on this point. -GTBacchus 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Alliance and this one are two that immediately spring to mind (since I was involved in dealing with both). --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That discussion may be found at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia.Timothy Usher 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Careful now we don't want anouther wikpedians for decency on our hands. Some things are just a bad idea. The old wikiproject alt med was so POV that it caused problems.Geni 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Misplaced Pages:Watch/schoolwatch is ok, but this group of links isn't? - brenneman 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We really need a policy about schools. They're constantly swamping WP:AFD, and it's really never clear what to do with them. Paying attention to the fates of the myriad school articles -- kept, merged, deleted -- may be the first step toward establishing at least a guideline in that arena. You don't see that as a value-add? JDoorjam Talk 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it actually possible to delete schools again? For a while, even hoax articles on schools were hard to delete. --Carnildo 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's never possible to delete schools. I think I figured out why - if they start to get deleted (as they should be), then people's vanity articles about their own schools would be in danger. So they just mindlessly vote 'keep please schools are notbale too' (spelling intended). Oh, yeah, and Nandesuka goes on my list of admins I like for applying common sense over some garbled, policy-wonking Wikilawyering. Sadly, it's still a small list. Proto///type 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As uncomfortable as I feel about people discussing me and my motivations, I would hope that people assume good faith whenever a notice board is created. I put some effort into the creation and management of the Misplaced Pages:LGBT_notice_board so that it is not seen as politicizing Misplaced Pages. The LGBT notice board has stated clearly from the start that it is for ANYONE interested in articles related to LGBT topics. The reason someone is interested may well be because they believe they should all be deleted. When I found out about the current controversy, I went to look at the deleted pages to see if they were so constituted. It concerns me that this page has been deleted, because it puts the LGBT board in a similar threatened position.

I think the conservative board was presented in a pretty much NPOV way, and I appreciate that it used the LGBT board as a model. The test for a board that has postings about controversial articles or issues, is if it would be useful to people on both sides of the issue. In this case, I would have found the board useful even though I in no way consider myself a conservative.

Anyone who works on controvesial articles, whether they be related to politics, reproductive rights, religion, or sexuality, more likely than not will bring their own bias into play to some degree. The question is, what is the best way for the Misplaced Pages community to address those biases. People may think that the LGBT notice board is attempting to organize support around LGBT issues. I don't see it that way. I see it as people being honest about the issues that concern us. The LGBT notice board is as much a vehicle for everyone to watch us, as it is about us watching an issue. I hope that the conservative board, and those like it can be restored, stripped of any POV bias if necessary, and allowed to peacefully coexist. -- Samuel Wantman 03:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at WP:LGBT? Obviously, deleting this conservative noticeboard was correct ... but I see multiple xFDs listed on the LGBT board that all got plenty of vote stacking. Why is ANYTHING that serves as a clearinghouse for votes allowed to continue? Having a list of articles of interest that need work is fine IMO - for gays or for Conservatives - but listing xFD debates is pure vote stacking. BigDT 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to assume good faith. The notice board lists are a useful feature, not vote-stacking. And it exists in many Wikiprojects (Schools, etc) - not just notice boards. We all know there are MANY POV-motivated nominations for article deletion. Most of the editors who use the LGBT notice board are busy working on other projects - and unable to constantly check up on the VFD (AFD) boards every day (or every week), because instead of being involved in the politics of voting for deletion every day or talking on talk pages, we are writing - or editing actual content articles. The notice board allows us to give notice to each other when articles in our area of expertise are being discussed or voted on elsewhere - probably by folks who are honestly ignorant about issues and factual realities. Notice boards ensure a sunshine law-type running of this project and allows experts in topics to voice their opinions/concerns and helps ensure the quality of this project will steadily improve. Davodd 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it, as someone might easily in good faith believe, and in these cases probably usually does believe, that religious, political or otherwise partisan revert-solicitation and vote-stacking improves wikipedia.Timothy Usher 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I still cannot understand why conservative noticeboard was has been singled out for speedy deletion and protection. At least for the sake of consistency, other similar noticeboards must be speedily deleted and protected. Pecher 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of this project is outrageous, and I'm disappointed in the "logic" used to justify it. Haizum 08:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic:

• A noticeboard is for those intereted in the topic, all are welcome.
• Since all are welcome, a "conservative" noticeboard may attract conservatives, yes, but it will also attract those that wish to make sure articles related to conservatism are kept up to quality standards.
• A conservative noticeboard will therefore attract a diversity of editors; this is no different from any other article on Misplaced Pages; it attracts people that are interested.
• Since all are welcome, and since various groups may take an interest in a conservative noticeboard as they may take an interest in any other article, you cannot assume that such a board will only serve a conservative agenda just as you cannot assume that any particular article will serve any agenda.
• If you cannot assume that an agenda will be served, you have no reason to oppose the creation of a conservative noticeboard as it will only serve to attract a diversity of editors, which is positive. Haizum 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated the project for deletion because of recruitment message that the founders sent out to 50 people, including unrepentant POV-pushers with a history of attempted votstacking, and because the only articles it targeted were ones that the founders were in meaningless revert wars over. I suggest if people want a conservatism notice board, they make one, and link articles that could use people with special knowledge about conservatism could be helpful with - for instance, Edmund Burke, but not articles that people with special opinions could edit war over - for instance, Partisan Bitchfest with STONES. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If such activities are unauthorized, why not take action against the individuals? Why punish those that might be well served by such a noticeboard? What happened to AGF? Haizum 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed when we redirected WP:AGF to Misplaced Pages:Ignore Bad Acts, like, say, spamming 50 people who have edit warred on your side of issues to get them to join your "neutral" project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Both sides are right... or wrong, take your pick. The organizer(s) of this page clearly 'leaned' towards one side of the political spectrum... but the page clearly did not (as yet) present any bias. It simply listed issues relevant to the topic like any other noticeboard - some of which also have 'leanings'. If one assumes (bad faith) that the page was going to develop into a 'bias springboard' then an out of process deletion would be justified... but I don't think we can, or rather should, make such assumptions.

All that aside... would it not make more sense / be more generally acceptable to instead create a 'Politics noticeboard'? Truthfully, a great many issues 'important to conservatives' are also 'important to liberals' and vice versa. You could put the same list of articles that this page had onto a 'Liberal noticeboard' and they would fit perfectly... all topics that people 'interested in liberal issues' might want to comment on. Putting 'conservative' in the name when the issues are really of interest to all sides might imply that the page is only or primarily for conservatives. Make it a page for the issues without reference to one particular viewset over another, put little 'noticeboard advertisement banners' on the talk pages of relevant articles, and try to work together. --CBD 10:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a politics noticeboard is a great idea - it would concentrate all the lunatics, trolls and POV warriors in one place, and we could live happily ever after. Proto///type 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the best suggestion I've heard so far on this issue. Petros471 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this would be obvious. No issue is exclusively "conservative" or "liberal". Even liberals have an opinion on conservative opinions. A politics noticeboard is the best way to go, and I would have suggested it earlier had I not forgotten about it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is people have a tendency to take ordinary, non-political articles and turn them into politically-flavored-flame-balls--64.12.116.65 15:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that the page was deleted out of hand and the discussion short-circuited. Restore the page, protect it, restore the MfD, and move the discussion there.- Merzbow 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This poorly-named page professed to be a place for organization of editing to topics related to conservatism. It seems natural to me that the project creator would invite conservatives to participate, since conservatives obviously are interested in conservatism. I suggest a rename, not a deletion, and I find the deletion to be entirely unilateral. IAR does not give you the right to supercede consensus. Nevertheless I will not wheel-war about it. Deco 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented this idea at Misplaced Pages:Politics notice board since there seemed to be some support and it should address the 'NPOV' concerns. --CBD 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Politics notice board was quickly deleted as a re-creation, but there are discussions about restoring it on its talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board

I've started the deletion review for the project, please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board if you are interested. Thanks --Facto 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, admin AmiDaniel opened a MfD on the Misplaced Pages:LGBT_notice_boardMisplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion#Misplaced Pages:LGBT_notice_board --Facto 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If In The Future If I Should Happen To Have A Complaint

Such as my jerk/ex friend Sid that stole my passcode! I'm afraid he may vandalize, is this where I report it?MarkMcGavel 19:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Change your password, in case of vandalism (by any person) the account will likely be blocked. Conscious 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sid" must be quick, since the account only started contributing today. Could this be your famous "ANI troll?" - David Oberst 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --InShaneee 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here I thought the AN/I troll was quoting a missing Italo Calvino novel title. Geogre 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geogre, dear Geogre, you have no complaint,

You are what you are, and you ain't what you ain't,

So listen up buddy, and listen up good,

Stop wishin' for bad luck and knockin' on wood.

Bishonen | talk 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Ongoing sock warfare over Rajput articles

The other day I reported edit-warring abuse by Tatra (talk · contribs), probably a "Rajput" sockpuppet, which lead to an indef block by User:Tony Sidaway (). He was back yesterday with a new throwaway account, Y not (talk · contribs), making the same series of rapid blind reverts (and removing the sockpuppet warning from User:Tatra.) He seems to have access to some automated editing script that lets him make dozens of reverts in a few minutes. Is there anything to stop him creating new socks of this kind every day? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this guy for 24 hours and rolled back his edits. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to take this to a vandalism forum in future, and cite the Rajput arbitration case as justification for treating these apparently mechanised edits as vandlism.

The reason I didn't block for longer is that I'd rather he waited out the block and restarted from the same (easily identifiable) user, until he gets bored and goes somewhere else. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:67.22.244.93 on Shock site

Hey -- can someone please help me out with this? Through the course of discussion on Talk:Shock site and Talk:List of shock sites before the two pages were merged, we've built some consensus about certain sites. One site in particular, "porkhole," we rejected because it gets very few Google hits, a puny Alexa rank, and we didn't have any sources for it. However, a particular anonymous user, User:67.22.144.93, has added "porkhole" back to the article at least 2 dozen times in the last month. The first several times when I reverted this, I have asked in the edit summary for discussion to be made. Eventually, I started leaving spam warnings on the user's talk page (after all the pleas for discussion, I figured this person must be trying to promote the porkhole site for whatever reason). Earlier today, the user finally asked me on my talk page why I was opposing porkhole, and I explained thoroughly on his/her talk page: basically, the reasons we had for the consensus, and that they should enter the discussion instead of just repeatedly adding the site back. Nonetheless, they have continued to add porkhole back to the list. I don't know what should be done, exactly, so I'd like someone to take a look at the situation and do what they can.

As a note, I requested semi-protection for the page a while back and it was denied. Many other anonymous IP editors have added random non-notable sites to the list that we've had to revert, on top of this continual re-introduction of porkhole, but it was felt that this wasn't frequent enough to justify semi-protection. Mangojuice 03:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? 67.22.244.93 has added the site back a few more times, and continues to ignore. Mangojuice 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL mass image vandalism

We have an AOL editor rapidly changing IP addresses who is high-speed adding Image:Mrbelvedere.jpg to multiple articles. I've been doing a great deal of reversion, but the only other solution is to lock down all of AOL, which, although tempting, is not acceptable. User:Zoe| 04:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed the same vandal. Do you think lots of short blocks are in order? DVD+ R/W 04:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He changes addresses with each edit. User:Zoe| 04:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Per page not per edit, but nevermind that, some days I'm convinced that the majority of AOL must be infested with 3 year olds, or monkeys, it could very easily be monkeys--AOL user 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Another AOL editor is doing the same with Image:Sarahvulva.jpg. Any help in keeping an eye out for this guy would be appreceated. -Loren 07:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I've found the most effective way to stop it is to go to Image:Sarahvulva.jpg and check for pages linking to it. With normal user tools it is fairly time consuming, but it tends to get the pages. I second that any help would be appreciated. --Alphachimp 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable pattern, the IPs all seem to resolve to the range 207.200.116.* . A short range block might be feasible, but as has been mentioned above, there's the collateral damage issue. -Loren 07:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal has moved on to using Image:Time 100 Jimmy Wales stares and grins.jpg. -Loren 07:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have wizened up and is now inserting random gibberish. -Loren 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Found another one: Kilo-Lima| 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Taran Rampersad

I have recently put up verify and citeneeded tags on this article where information was not cited through direct citations or through the external links. The user Guettarda informed me that it was an abuse of tags but I feel that it is not so since the info in articles must be verifiable and cited and comply with WP:NOR. Perhaps I am wrong but Guettarda seems defiant on accusing me of Wikistalking which I have been adamantly denying and thus refuses to point me in the direction of the appropriate policy which regards the abuse of tags. I'm not quite sure how to deal with this situation. --Strothra 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Stroth and Guettarda's talk pages, although others should, of course, feel free to offer guidance and assistance. Joe 05:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally, there is no reason to use {{fact}} when the information is not disputed by anyone and has been affirmed by the subject of the article. Sure, we need sources that meet WP:RS. But we don't need a plethora of tags when the content is not in dispute.

The real issue though is one of harrassment. Strothra (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a campaign of low-level harrassment against TaranRampersad (talk · contribs) for the past couple weeks. The dispute between the two users began when Taran complained about a number of articles that Strothra had listed on AFD. Strothra retaliated by adding {{unreferenced}} to the latest articles that Taran had edited. When I saw that, I told Strothra that behaviour like that is often seen as bad form, and that you shouldn't dig through the contributions of someone with whom you were in conflict - that things like have prompted accusations of Wikistalking in the past.

I hoped that I had defused the issue, but Strothra followed this up by nominating Taran Rampersad for deletion, and seeking out the support of other self-identified deletionists when he got no support at AFD (e.g., ). He also continued to harrass Taran to the point where he considered leaving the project (note: while he is not a high volume editor, Taran has been here since early 2003 and has also done much to boost Misplaced Pages in other fora). I honestly think that Strothra has abused his editing privileges. Despite evidence to the contrary (e.g. ), Strothra insists that he has not been in conflict with Taran and is doing nothing wrong. Guettarda 06:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not seek out the support of other deletionists because they were deletionists or because I wanted them to delete the article. I asked Proto (the only said deletionist I contacted) to relist the nom as I felt it merited further discussion. He was not the only admin I requested to do that and I'm not surprised that your usage of my requests is selective as it would damage your argument. Other admins have also seen fit to state that this information needs to be sourced as per my WP:3O request to bring in a neutral third party which Guettarda clearly is not. . Another admin who stepped in on the debate confirmed that as well as my good faith in the AfD on my talk page . I responded that I was willing to resume WP:AGF so long as Guettarda ceased making inflammatory comments and hostile remarks on my talk page - especially accusing me of racism. I am simply trying to edit an article which seems that it may survive my AfD. If it is to exist, I might as well work to improve it in the best way that I can. Seeking help for sources is one way to do that. --Strothra 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean "tolerate abuse". You are engaging in harrassment. You insist on inserting {{citationneeded}} tags for claims of nationality on this article, but you see no problem with uncited "claims of nationality" in other articles - not even in articles you are actively editing. In fact, you have inserted uncited weasal words into Jesse Dirkhising. This is transparent harrassment. Guettarda 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yousef al-Khattab

Could someone keep an eye on this article, some offensive statements are being used in edit summaries, and I'm trying to avoid a massive revert war. Yanksox 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Final warning given to user with offensive edit summaries. And I think User:Hakamia may have more than 3 reverts -- Samir धर्म 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The ongoing return of banned user User:PatCheng

I sent this information to JzG to forward to the mailing list, and he suggested I post it here as well (modified a bit):

PatCheng continues to rant and rave in the mailing list at the same time that he is returning via anon IPs to continue his harassment and disruptive revert warring.

You can see on his first ranting , among other things, that he was observing the Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi page when I briefly visited it around the time of the reports of his death. He mentions my removal of a clear and unambiguous personal attack on other editors, which was curiously put back in its place by an anon (the entire section was later removed) who was busy traversing through several articles I had edited, whether with my name or anonymously.

This obvious sockpuppet was blocked by Blnguyen, and since that time, two more anon IPs have shown up , with all three IPs tracing to the same provider in Australia (where PatCheng admits he is from), doing much the same thing, including straight reverts of content and summary reverts which practically constitute vandalism because of the various fixes involved in my edits. Not only is he not interested in discussion and compromise, much less a quality article, but he should not be editing in the first place given that no one has sanctioned his return.

Let's be clear about what the evidence shows. That the anonymous person in question:

1. Was observing the Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi page in a narrow frame of time.
2. Reinstated the deletion of a personal attack (referenced specifically by PatCheng).
3. Is from Australia.
4. Is revert warring.
5. Has been posting harassing information on ANI and talk pages concerning my IP addresses.

PatCheng is the only person who meets all of these qualifications and has reason to do so.

In other words, he has not merely created blatant sockpuppets to extend his campaign for parole, but he is busy continuing the same disruptive practices that helped to get him blocked in the first place, even as he gives token "apologies" for his behavior and pledges to stop revert warring "as a compromise" for his return. He obviously feels he has the license to behave this way unimpeded in any case, but is on the mailing list simply to seek official sanction from administrators to do so with their blessing. I hope everyone can now see his crocodile tears for what they are. --TJive 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Major AOL Vandalism attack

"In the late hours of June 16th, 2006 An AOL user using 207.200.116.xxx IP addresses, possessing at the least a limited knowledge of wikimarkup started adding images to articles and did not cease his unrelenting attacks. It was finally stopped by blocking a whole range of IP addresses. Due to a rule saying that you can only block AOL for 15 minutes, the attack was NOT stopped and continued.

Click here to read the whole thing

--mboverload@ 08:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

POST QUESTIONS/COMMENTS HERE

Shucks, and I missed it =(. Or is it still ongoing? Hit me back if you need my help, though I was planning on going to bed soon. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Still ongoing, all attacks coming from 207.200.116.* . Back to CDVF. -Loren 08:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad enough to warrant rangeblocking? AmiDaniel (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Normally I'd say yes, but that seems to be the vandal's goal (see above discussion). -Loren 08:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now. No vandalism from that range for about 10 minutes now. Finally... bed. -Loren 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just block for longer. The many good contributors out there are understanding and generally will wait. --pgk 08:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Another minor blip followed by another long pause. Almost as if he/she is testing the waters. I suspect we haven't seen the last of this individual. -Loren 08:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Range blocked for an hour--I know that's what he wants us to do, but 15 minutes quite obviously wasn't going to do it. Maybe he'll go to bed now =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: Should we investigate a semi-block, analogous to the semi-protection? I.e. disallow unregistered and new accounts from an IP address/range, but allow established accounts to edit. This should help in situations like this. It probably would require some changes to the software, of course. --Stephan Schulz 09:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely be in favor of such a change. Though in all fairness perhaps it should be an optional feature analogous to protection that is only turned on when needed. -Loren 09:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See bugzilla:550. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Great minds all think alike ;-). Also see Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy proposal for an in-Wiki discussion.--Stephan Schulz 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, right after the block expired I decided to go check Recentchanges again and found voila! about thirty edits from this range, all vandalism. I've now blocked 207.200.116.0/24 for three hours and will look for any edits from the range that didn't get reverted. I know this is not typical dealing with AOL, and the vandal clearly wants to be blocked to invoke a DoS; however, I think this may be the only solution. It looks to me like a vandalbot that clicks back on immediately following unblock and edits at quite rapid rates--no doubt an attempt to force a change in policy regarding AOL. I'm off to bed right now, but please review the block, and I wish the rest of you luck in dealing with this. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's a bot, it can't respond to some of our tricks. Just put the image it is currently using on Mediawiki:Bad image list. Not a normal solution, but it may well help in this case. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I put up the vagina image for now; good thinking. Jimbo's pic I think probably should not go on there, and the other one he only used a couple of times. I still doubt that this three-hour block will effect many people at this hour (the IP's being used are all North American, currently 4am in mountain time), but the bad image list may well help with the next attack, which I anticipate occurring at around 12:52 (UTC). AmiDaniel (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually, the BIL wouldn't be used for vandalism, but if it really is a bot, it can slow it down connsiderably, and may well take out the desire to vandalize, if the individual has to sit and reset the image constantly. Obviously, any non-"bad" images that are added should be removed ASAP; I'd say a standard of 15 minutes or so, moving up the scale as the blocks did. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if putting the image on BIL will work. Towards the end of his/her last attack the vandal seemed to wizen up and started inserting random gibberish into articles instead of images. -Loren 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that blocking the vandal never worked anyway, if it is at AOL, and blocking all of AOL is the only way to stop it. Since we don't have a method of allowing logged in users to post while AOL is blocked, blocking the whole ISP will inevitably mean blocking several admins. At the very least, those admins will unblock themselves, which will open a single IP for the vandal again (and if it's a -bot...). The point being that blocking is not effective. Again, blocking is not effective, if blocking for :15 didn't stop the -bot, then blocking for 3 hours won't work (if it's a bot, it's a bot). Further, if you're finding more vandalism while there was being blocked, it didn't work. Geogre 11:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The attack is still ongoing, as mentioned previously the vandal's new MO includes inserting random text, as well as images. The most recent image to be used is Image:Breasts1205.jpg. -Loren 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In case we miss the images, is it worth temporarily adding them to the bad images list? Kilo-Lima| 18:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Now appears to be obsessed with the math formula. Kilo-Lima| 18:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's time to contact AOL and tell them they have a seriously bad user. They should be able to locate who it is quite easily and disable the account. Who do we have that can contact AOL for us though? Danny? --Cyde↔Weys 18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, blocking is not effective, if blocking for :15 didn't stop the -bot, then blocking for 3 hours won't work (if it's a bot, it's a bot). Further, if you're finding more vandalism while there was being blocked, it didn't work. - Geogre And I believe that is a SERIOUS problem. We need a final solution for the "AOL problem". --mboverload@ 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure that it is a bot. The vandal did not return immediately after the 15 minute range blocks were lifted, and generally operated in continuous periods of a couple of hours each. His/her MO also changed throughout the periods when he/she was active going from image vandalism to inserting gibberish and back again. This could very well be some disgruntled individual with too much time on his/her hands. -Loren 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be back again: -Loren 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP range for another 15 mintues. Something definitely needs to be done about this. -Loren 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have listed this vandal on Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse#AOL DoS Vandal from 207.200.116.* since he/she shows no intent of stopping. -Loren 04:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal is back on the same IP range, still obsessed with the math function, see AIV. --james_{(lets talk)} 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think we should block the whole range for about an hour (despite it being AOL) to see if it stops him/her. Thoughts? Ian Manka Talk to me! 13:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Block, and report to AOL officials - I've reverted must be almost 100 of his attacks already, and probably twice that I've seen others get to first. It's getting absurd. -Goldom (t) (Review) 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rangeblocked by User:IanManka. See you all in an hour, then? --james_{(lets talk)} 13:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like that ;). I'm a new admin, so I don't know how to report to AOL, but if someone else would, that'd be great. Ian Manka Talk to me! 13:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just contacted AOL. I will update on the status as this progresses. Ian Manka Talk to me! 14:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we stop pussing out and just block it for a week? If an established editor has a problem, they can tell us. --mboverload@ 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

VANDAL IS BACK FOR MORE

Vandal is back for more at 152.163.100.xxx. IT NEEDS TO BE BLOCKED NOW

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lazard&diff=next&oldid=59396980
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nickel_deposits_of_Finland&diff=prev&oldid=59396953
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christophe&diff=59396920&oldid=49164241
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shirts_Versus_Skins&diff=59397238&oldid=59397168
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blake_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=59397205
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Balakishi_Arablinski&diff=next&oldid=49471625
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kuching_City_centre&diff=prev&oldid=59398133
--mboverload@ 06:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An admin has blocked the range for 15 minutes. Expect another assault when the blocking is undone. --mboverload@ 06:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

attack has started again --mboverload@ 06:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Major vandal attack

I have just blocked the IP address 81.213.91.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 2 weeks for malicious vandalism. This user has been making a lot of edits today - adding subtle factual errors, as well as more obvious things such as removal of content and categories or replacing it with nonsense, with misleading editing summaries. See also the deleted history of his talk page. Due to seriousness of his vandalism, I believe a complaint to his Internet provider is in order. - Mike Rosoft 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Two IPs posting "in my name" to throw mud on me

After I got erroneously blocked for an alleged 3RR violation, two IPs appeared, posting "in my name" stupid messages in order to throw mud on me: I got reblocked for this for "evading blocks" by an admin who got since desysopped. Have any such cases happened before? As obviously only users who knew me would do such things, can the IPs be tracked down? Añoranza 10:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• 70.87.34.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was probably Thewolfstar again, editing from another backslashing open proxy, judging from this edit and the fact that she has used other proxies from this ISP before (it's blocked now, by the way).Thatcher131 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User 213.157.193.136 (aka User:Grandmaster) suspected of avoiding a 3RR block.

I strongly suspect user 213.157.193.136 is User:Grandmaster trying to avoid a 3RR block for his reverts on the page. User:Grandmaster was blocked at 11:47, June 17, 2006 for violating the 3RR rule by continuously re-adding a "disputed" tag on the Nagorno-Karabakh page. Here is the decision to block him, and here is his latest revert just a short while ago. Just minutes after his blocking (12:18, June 17, 2006), user IP 213.157.193.136 joined the site (see his editting history here) and immediately made exactly the same revert (see here). I would like to ask someone to verify if User:Grandmaster is user IP 213.157.193.136, and take action against him. Here is the history of edits on the Nagorno-Karabakh page. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 13:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

thewolfstar reincarnated part 237

Check out 84.92.161.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and PatriotFirst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I think this is yet another sockpuppet of thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Clues in the case of the IP are: * Editing Metrocat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to remove the sockpuppet notice and to revert back to the previous version * Editing User:PatriotFirst (while logged out, I guess) * This edit to Democratic Party (United States) with the typical backslashing of an anonymous proxy and her typical ideological viewpoint

A clue in the case of PatriotFirst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are: * Starting off with a politically-motivated edit at Libertarian socialism (she's been on a kick lately with adding the {{fact}} and {{original research}} tags to political articles)

Give her twelve hours, and she'll probably go to User talk:Jimbo Wales and appeal on behalf of some blocked user.

Interestingly enough, she categorized her user page under Daniel Shays. She uses the alias "danielshays" on *cough* that "review site" *cough*. (Also, this thread there suggests that she might have a problem with schizophrenia.)

I know I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak from this namespace, but I thought this was important enough to mention here. --Elkman 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) I had no business saying this. I hereby repudiate what I've said here, since it was wrong, blatantly wrong, unacceptable, inexcusable, and unforgivable. Besides, I should shut the hell up about this -- about ANYTHING -- because of the image copyright violation on my record. Maybe next time I should edit a damn encyclopedia instead of yapping on and on about other users. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User on WP only to row with someone, and do not editing

BaCK2EssEnce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has contributed nothing to WP; no articles or edits of any sort, other than a bitter rivalry with (an equally bitter) other user. Other than that he has added a non-notable image without sources, removed the orphanbot tag on it (I've now deleted the image) and vandalised the other user's page using obscenities, for which he had now been blocked. Is there a policy on users who join WP simply to engage in fights with another user (at least that other user contributes something, even if some of it gets him into trouble!) and don't actually contribute to WP? Can they be removed from the site? Jtdirl 13:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if their entire contribution list is just vandalism, they can be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Kilo-Lima

• 00:41, 18 June 2006 Jtdirl blocked "BaCK2EssEnce (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (account used to fight with users and breach copyright, not edit articles)

We should put this in the blocking policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza

This was brought up previously, I am sorry it seems to be rehashed yet again. Following the users block they have continued to revert articles removing all mention of Operation Iraqi Freedom from wikipedia. I once again ask for an admin to please clarify to me if the policy is that operation names cannot be used anywhere in articles. I am fine with them being removed from titles perhaps, but this user is removing them from the body of the articles now. Two previous discussions took place here and . There seemed to be no decission on if Operation names are allowed in articles or not.

Articles affected:

• Foreign relations of France: Edit summary says accusations are ridiculous, however they are sourced and even linked to another article on Misplaced Pages. The term Operation Iraqi Freedom is once again revert, however its not mentioned in the summary.
• Martin Dempsey:
• David Kay:
• Norman_Schwarzkopf,_Jr.: the edit summary on this one states they are avoiding a redirect, which one does not exist if you see the link its formatted properly with the | character to prevent redirects
• Napalm:
• Colin Powell:
• Colonialism:
• History of Panama:
• George_H._W._Bush:
• United States Marine Corps:
• Manuel Noriega:
• History of the United States National Security Council 1989-1992:
• Military history of the United States:
• Impostor:
• United States casualties of war:
• American Empire:
• List of battles 1901-2000:
• Urban warfare:
• United States Army Special Forces:

There is actually more, you can see the edit history here Can an admin please tell me if operations names are banned from Misplaced Pages. Is this permitted mass editing?

The user has even gone on to accuse me again of being a sockpuppet after its been proven twice that I am not here and here I feel these accusations are being made to attack my standing and to intimidate me. The first RFCU stated I was an individual user, the second I requested to put an end to accusations, now this third is just more unfounded accusations. --zero faults 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User has also said I have made personal attacks against him for reverted the edits he was banned for. --mboverload@ 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding redirects is nothing wrong and mass edits are needed on many articles where wrong links are widespread. mboverload, as you well know, you got the NPA warning for the edit summary Reverting editor who has been blocked for his edits concerning this using VandalProof) when reverting the fix of a redirect. Consensus shows my suggestion to move "operation just cause" to a neutral title was completely ok. Añoranza 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

An admin will judge after reviewing your contribution history, 2 other users have already asked you to seek concensus before making your edits like this, not after, however you seem to ignore this. There is a discussion going on Anoranza page, hopefully they can reach an understanding with this user as they do not let me participate. --zero faults 03:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza is selectively changing operational names, exclusively those of the United States military. Unfortunately this user is no expert in United States military history, which is a factual observation, not a personal judgement. Haizum 00:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry confirmed but not blocked

CheckUser confirmed sockpuppetry but no action has been taken yet. Anwar 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll deal with this. --Yamla 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user URBAN_MEDIA_INC. evading block with sockpuppet

User:WESTCOAST_HEAT-2006 has been established by checkuser as a sockpuppet of blocked user User:URBAN_MEDIA_INC.. Their editing patterns are identical, including editing many of the same pages, removing maintenance tags, blanking pages, and ignoring wikipedia convention and ettiquette (neither user has ever used an edit summary or participated on a Talk page other than URBAN_MEDIA_INC. removing warnings from his or her own Talk page). --ElKevbo 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. --Sam Blanning 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WoW/milkman Possible

IceAndSorm (talk · contribs · email) made a couple of minor vandal edits this morning, and claimed to be WoW and Milkman in the edit summarizations. User:Rickyrab has tagged his page with the WoW template. Can anyone follow up with a block, or confirm the account? Kuru 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him/her. They seem to have decided not to use the move function, instead the {{title}} template, which is even easier to revert. Kilo-Lima| 16:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot blocked due to malfunctioning

I hated to do this, but I've blocked AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs) due to malfuctioning. It was reverting edits outside of the article namespace, which it was not supposed to be doing. Several legitimate editors had been warned for testing on the introduction page. Tawkerbot2 also made some reverts outside the main namespace, but I didn't block it since it wasn't making bad reverts unlike AntiVandalBot. After all, we should still have at least one anti-vandalism bot running.

I won't have Internet access for several hours today, so another administrator is welcome to unblock the bot once this issue has been resolved. I've already notified Tawker (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs) about the block. --Ixfd64 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a recent change we made to increase the number of namespaces it fixed vandalism on, obviously it needs some work, so I've reverted the change and I'm running him just on main namespaces now. --Cyde↔Weys 20:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 is supposed to handle certain special cases on Misplaced Pages:Introduction, but certainly the logic being used here is wrong. I've fixed it and checked in the change. Joshbuddy 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Awaskow and User:71.126.119.154

User:Awaskow is an apparent sockpuppet of User:71.126.119.154. Both have carried out identical edits to Arthur Waskow, adding or reverting nonsourced, non-notable, self-reverential biographical material. Also User:Awaskow has edited Shalom Center for Peace and Justice, which is run by Arthur Waskow, and removed Arthur Waskow from the list of Jewish communists. User:Awaskow is obviously Arthur Waskow or, far less likely, impersonating him. In either case, this is blatant violation of WP:VAIN, as well as WP:SOCK and, at one point, WP:3RR. Both this user and sockpuppet should be blocked from editing indefinitely, since he is clearly here solely for self-promotional purposes. --Mantanmoreland 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Math formula vandal

There are numerous AOL vandals going about doing an "${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$" formula into pages, all in the 207.200.116.*** range. Please watch out for these. Kilo-Lima| 18:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the AOL vandal trying to force a DoS for the last two days. See discussion above under "48 Major Vandalism attack" -Loren 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SteveLo and Western Sahara-related articles

This user has been editing articles to push a pro-Moroccan agenda, reverting without discussion, used an anonymous i.p. to break the 3RR, and threatened to vandalize pages. Please arbitrate and/or block. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Images on User:Magicz's Userpage

I removed several fair use images from User:Magicz's user page and informed the user of the policy against fair use images in the userspace. However, nine hours after I removed them, he simply put them back. I didn't want to remove the images again because I don't want to get in an edit war over his userpage (although rightfully I should win), but I feel another notice on the user's talk page won't help much considering it would essentially be the same message posted twice in a row. How is this type of thing supposed to be handled? joturner 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back and left another note. If they continue an edit war to keep unfree content decorating their userpage, let someone know and the userpage can be protected. Jkelly 19:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fancy double checking that rv - I think you've blasted away other edits too... /wangi 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume that your concern is about the updates to the "50 Greatest footballers" list that was lost in my revert. I've replaced the updates, but it isn't clear to me that we should be obliged to make sure that someone's favourite footballers list on their userpage is maintained properly remains a priority over efficient copyright-issue cleanup. Jkelly 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to piss in someone else's garden then at least respect the grass & flowers! ;)

(I mean you'd not want to blast away edits normally, so this is no different) /wangi 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Lucy-marie and counter/anti-clockwise

User:Lucy-marie is repeatedly copying the content of Clockwise and counterclockwise to Clockwise and Anti-clockwise and redirecting all pages related to clockwise and counterclockwise there. She has been told to stop but has not listened. It's not vandalism, as I think she genuinely thinks she's improving the encyclopedia by "fixing" the spelling, so I'm listing it here. TomTheHand 19:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can back that up. See the history. I left her a note on her talk page yesterday, but she seems to not have listened. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think WP:MoS#National varieties of English would be dispositive here; because each term is widely used, there's no reason to depart from the status quo. Even as good-faith editing isn't vandalism, it can nevertheless be disruptive, and blocks can, I think, be appropriate even for users who edit toward the end of improving the encyclopedia (I don't think a block is yet appropriate here, but I can imagine a situation under which a short block to prevent continued disruption might be in order). Joe 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it sets a bad precedent to suggest a block for an inconvenient good-faith edit, when editors are in the first instance encouraged to—be bold! Then any edit one disagrees with can be classified as disruptive and administrators would encroach into the editing process in a way which has not been seen as their prerogative. There are established ways of dealing with edit disputes, which is what this appears to be. Tyrenius 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "an inconvenient good-faith edit", but rather repeated edit warring, with literally no attempt at discussion, against Misplaced Pages policy. She crossed out warnings placed on her talk page and proceeded with a further round of edit warring. I'm not sure that your visions of the oppression of minority opinion are applicable. I agree with Joe that a block would be premature, but I believe that if this proceeds an administrator should at least step in and warn her. TomTheHand 01:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like Tom, I don't mean to suggest that ill-advised or poorly-made edits ought to result in blocks. Where a user edits in good faith, where disruption concomitant to that editing is avolitional, the net effect of his/her contributions may be disruptive; even as one may make valuable edits to some articles, he/she may also make less-than-constructive edits the reversion/repair of which consumes the time and energy of other editors who might otherwise contribute productively. When a user, irrespective of his/her intentions, proves a baneful influence, the community's patience might be exhausted. Never ought we to block a user simply for his/her non-conversance with the project, but where a user demonstrate profound intransigence in dealing with other editors, eschewing the collaborative process on which the project depends, we've a different. Now, the editing here isn't particularly disruptive; it's fairly easy to revert redirects. If we had, though, a user whose English was so poor as to render his/her contributions less-than-useful, and were he/she apprised of the problem and, whether as a result of intrinsic intractability, intellecutal infirmity, or some other factor, didn't reply to the entreaties of other users and continued to disrupt the project, a block might be in order. This would, I think, be consistent with Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not therapy (not, of course, a guideline or policy), a fundamental assumption of which is that an editor who acts in good faith but cannot help but disrupt the project, having been asked by other editors to stop disrupting, may be blocked indefinitely. Joe 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've checked out the article history and relevant discussion pages. It seems to me this dispute is at an early stage and relatively light-weight compared with many of the edit disputes in Wiki, and that there needs to be a lot more discussion first. There is hardly any at the moment. It is a penalty of the collaborative process that these differences occur, and they need patience to address. I don't think it's the best approach to this to talk about good-faith edits which are disruptive, as the same argument could easily be put the other way round. However, this edit is certainly a cause for concern. Tyrenius 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre anti-Semitic attacks from User:Halwomack

I blocked new user Halwomack (talk · contribs · block log) for posting bizarre anti-Semitic attacks to my userpage. My assumption was that anyone who believed that his role was to "transcend the present global cruelties of the Jewish-American Tyranny" and that Misplaced Pages was made up of a "joojingo clique" was probably not somewhat we needed as an editor on here. I suggested he try the White Nationalist Wiki if he was really intent on using a Wiki. I didn't think anyone would mind much but thought I should put a little note here to keep it official and all. --Fastfission 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly. Nothing wrong with that. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 20:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Womack's a long time Jew-hating crank from usenet. No loss. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Jobjörn is attacking me personally and calling me stupid"; or, "Thewolfstar, episode 2,000"

This editor, Jobjörn has insulted me and called me stupid. here: This is not the first time he has personally attacked me. thanks for checking into this. PatriotFirst 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not new, you've been editing here since at least March 21. But let's check into it by all means, starting here. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Uh, no. I started editing here a couple of days ago. PatriotFirst 09:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not very nice are you? PatriotFirst 10:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're not supposed to just read and respond to the sentence I wrote , but to click on the links I posted and see what they say. I invite everybody else to do the same. That's where the most interesting stuff is. And if you don't want to be recognized for who you are every time you create a new sock, you should avoid acting so much like yourself. P.S. I have clarified the header. Complaining about PA's isn't what the admins' noticeboard is for, so people are ignoring this thread while it has your heading. My addition may get more attention. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

It should be noted that the new and stupid user I was referring to was not User:PatriotFirst, but rather User:Together&forever for his crazy edits and image uploads. Together&forever has now been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated attack on Jake Gyllenhaal and editor's pages who had edited it.

Yesterday, I, stevenscollege, and others worked together to produce a section on Jake's friendship with Austin Nichols. Since then, this section has been reverted repeatedly by an IP number, 64.12.116.137, which has also, upon looking at the history, also vandalised many other pages.

Since making our edits, both my and stevenscollege's user pages have been blanked, by 64.12.116.7 for my page and 64.12.116.199 for stevenscollege. Given that the vandalism patterns are the same, and my page has never been vandalised before, I can only conclude that this was the revenge of someone who did not want that edit up there, but knew they couldn't fight consensus. However, because all these IP numbers are used by Aol, I don't know what to do. Can an administrator do something? Jake Gyllenhaal is still being reverted and I've discovered I REALLY don't like my page being vandalised. : ) Dev920 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jake's page has since been edited, in exactly the same way, by Spocks brain, whose contribution list is three Jake edits. Dev920 22:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Spocks brain has just reverted again. Dev920 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph referencing defamer.com—please read WP:RS. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Someone just created this page America's Free-Roaming horses (also commonly referred to as "wild horses"), which has its own issues with the title, wikification etc. It was first created here . It is a direct copy of this page http://www.wildhorsepreservation.com/resources/wild.html, however, the creator claims that he/she has the copyright and waives it. What to do with it? -- Kim van der Linde 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The author needs to send an email to permissions AT wikimedia.org asserting that the content was created by them and that they are licensing it under a free, reusable license. Or they can just update their website with a copyright notice to that effect. Jkelly 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have notified the creator, and taged the page with the copyvio tag for the time being. -- Kim van der Linde 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just some additional information: all pages (including the one copied) on www.wildhorsepreservation.com bear the following copyright notice: Copyright © 2004-2005 AWHPC. All rights reserved. Reproduction authorized solely for educational purposes, provided www.wildhorsepreservation.org is credited as source.

Afd issue

A user listed the disambig page Age of reason on Afd on the grounds that it was blank. At first, I advised a speedy deletion, until I checked the page's history and discovered that an anon had blanked the page a while back. Now I have requested that the article be de-listed from Afd, but the article's deletion discussion was accidently posted on another article's deletion page. Do I have the go-ahead to erase the nomination, or is there some sort of process I should follow?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. (i.e. moved discussion to the right AfD subpage, closed it and listed it so that it gets archived properly). Maybe it could just have been dropped under the table, but this way at least the link in the history of Age of reason works. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, I alerted the nominee about it.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If anyone is to be thanked, it is you for noticing the vandalism. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of Ordo Templi Orientis talk page

User:Imacomp is disrupting the talk page of Ordo Templi Orientis by deleting material and moving material around out of context. Given the contentious discussion, and poor use of nesting tools by some users, this is likely to cause a serious problem as we attempt to move forward with the article.ALR 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

highlights commentary on the repeated addition of superfluous content counter to consensus.

Deletion of same

Moving said comments in response and decontextualising other comments

Moving comments again

I reverted to improve discussion, followed by

reversion and moving part of my own discussion with User: SynergeticMaggot out of it's context, potentially leading to additional friction considering the difficult discussion between us at present

I moved these comments back into context and bearing in mind Imacomps sensitivity about the suggestion that he is disrupting the article added only this:

Then removed by Imcaomp

Added again by myself and then removed by Imacomp

Followed by yet another shuffling around of the discussion to include non-seqs within other discussion

ALR I'm sure that people can read for themselves. You make a good case against yourself. PS you did not notify me, but this page is on my watch list now. Imacomp 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ALRkept vandalising my comments by deleting material and moving material around out of context, and adding sections around my comments to take them out of the context I wrote. I only re-set my comments back. Imacomp 00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also noticed the problem with Imacomp. He removed my citations on the Hiram Abiff article without discussing it first, nor disputing the source. Zos 01:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Always disscussed, hence ALR here, or else what is this all about? Doh. Imacomp 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(Zos comment not even posted in right place) Imacomp 03:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp is being unfairly targeted here. He made some good faith edits to the article because he has concerns about the veracity of certain statements in the article. He attempted to introduce cited material to show a contrary view, only to have his material summarily dismissed. While I do think he showed a lack of patience in dealing with this dismissal, I do understand his frustration. A look at the edit history, talk page and talk page history should surfice to show that there is another side to any claim of "disruption". Blueboar 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block placed on an editor

I am requesting that some admins take a look at the 3-day block placed on User:Alienus by User:Tony Sidaway. I will not go into detail here, as Alienus' talk page contains substantial information. Please read Alienus' arguments there, as they clearly demonstrate how this block was unjust. Thank you, Romarin 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Upon review, if 3 days is harsh, it's only slightly so (I'd've done 48 hours). See User talk:Romarin for my further comment. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Romarin's doubts. I've reviewed Ayn Rand, and, aside from last week's "vandalism" section of the talk page, which got a little heated, the tenor of discussion doesn't seem particularly unusual for a controversial topic, nor does there appear to be any kind of full-scale edit war. While Alienus is known to have been incivil in the past - and been blocked for it - Alienus' behavior in this instance seems to me quite uncontroversial. Immediately prior to this, another administrator had placed an NPA warning on his talk page, accompanied by diffs which are not reasonably construed as personal attacks. This is completely puzzling to me. I can only guess that he is being judged primarily on the basis of behavior he appears to have ceased. If the point of previous blocks was to bring him into compliance, mission accomplished. The relentlessly negative treatment of Alienus has become unseemly. Let's stop kicking people when they're down, shall we?Timothy Usher 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Alienus and I are nearly constantly at loggerheads. So this is not the dispassionate evaluation of an uninvolved admin, but the strictly personal opinion of an editor who has to suffer his nearly constant badgering and insults. With that out of the way: I am mystified how you can describe the things he is being warned and blocked for as "behavior he appears to have ceased" when he is making edits, on a nearly daily basis, like these: ,,. Nandesuka 12:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, your response is appreciated. I do not think the third diff unacceptably incivil. In the second, he appears to have removed his own comments. The first is clearly incivil, with the "snipppies" epithet which he's resorted to, and been warned away from, in the past. This diff was not presented on his talk page, nor is it on Ayn Rand, for which he was blocked, and which I'd reviewed, so there was no way for me to have taken it into account.Timothy Usher 12:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're misreading the second diff. The point isn't what he wrote in the text itself, but the edit summary in which he provides his reason for removing it: referring to Arbcom as a "kangaroo court." With regard to the third diff, the key point here is that it is representative of this user's well-established habit of addressing arguments at people rather than issues. It is not incivil for Alienus to describe the actions he thinks I am taking, but he doesn't limit himself to that: he crosses the line with "Clearly, you do not respect the rules you are expected to enforce." Obviously, I take that as a rather severe and personal insult, and the people who reviewed his accusation on the personal attack intervention noticeboard agreed. His response to that was to imply that they are operating in bad faith as well.. Numerous editors have suggested, advised, warned, threatened, and begged Alienus to address his arguments to subjects rather than to the people he is arguing against. To date, he has shown no willingness to do this. Nandesuka 13:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy is right (and thank you for taking a stand); those examples that Nandesuka has given are irrelevant to this case. The quote that was judged "uncivil" in this particular instance was, as Tony Sidaway wrote on Alienus' talk page, "*sigh* the cult allegation is well-documented; please stop edit-warring against us; we have the consensus and the rules on our side." This is in no way uncivil; it shows someone who is wearly of having to revert what could be taken as vandalism, considering that the changes being made were against concensus. As Timothy stated, Alienus is being judged for past incivilities (which no one is denying he has made), not for what he has done here, as he has done nothing wrong in the particular instance for which he was apparently blocked. Unfortunately, it appears as though he got picked up by a trigger-happy admin. There seem to be many who would jump at the chance to block Alienus. Is this really the point of adminship? Romarin 13:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked. -lethe 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Romarin 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat perturbed to see this unblock decision by Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), in the face of Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s correct description of the harassment that Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in. Also disturbing is the fact that Lethe did not consult me as the blocking admin, nor did he engage in the discussion and justify his unblock.

Also of relevance is Alienus' long-running animosity and edit warring with LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), for which I blocked both in March. It was because this was a recurrence of the earlier pointless and disruptive behavior that I blocked both of them.

Two administrators commented on this block here, and while one thought allowed that the duration was excessive "but only slightly so" (indicating a reduction) the other thought it was amply justified. Pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had also previously reviewed the block and rejected the request to unblock it. In the circumstances, to unblock without further consultation, against the opinions of four administrators, was an extraordinary act. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, I think unilaterally removing the block from this rather tendentious editor was perhaps a bit premature. Better to consult with the blocking editor and review what has transpired before, the removal of the unblock request seems a good clue that unblocking would not necessarily have consensus. Lar 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is especially disappointing that Alienus is using this unblock as a sign of his vindication (that the block was somehow improper), and proceeding to harrass Pschemp (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) for not unblocking him. NoSeptember 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the claims of harassment are false. Just wanted to make that clear, thanks. Al 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you will claim that. However, inserting accusations of me not wanting to admit a "mistake" and not properly reviewing the block repeatedly into my talk page after it was clear that I consider such notes false accusations is indeed harrassment and is considered so by other editors besides myself. Not to mention this lovely note here: . While I'm sure you will claim you did nothing wrong and didn't mean anything untoward because you have masked your incivility and attacks in pretty words, the meaning is quite clear and offensive. If you were so sincere and innocent, you would have no need to post such things in the first place. pschemp | talk 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You and Tony are correct. I have made a gross error. While I stand by the opinion that the block was unwarranted, my reversal of Tony's block was not only against policy, but was also is exactly the sort of thing that I have vocally criticised others for. I think I should have declared my intent and waited for a little while to establish consensus a bit better before reverting another admins actions. -Lethe 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lethe, will you please stop unblocking people without consensus and discussion with the blocking admin? You do this all the time, and it is more than annoying, it is becoming time to file an RfC against you. User:Zoe| 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my unblock was out of process, and this is getting to be a pattern. I will try to learn my lesson. -Lethe 22:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I wonder if a week of debate would suffice to justify overturning a three-day block. Al 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed this with lethe on my talk page and am happy that he has taken on board my concerns. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Alienus and RJII for three hours. Unblocked, Alienus got himself into exactly the same kind of sterile edit war for which I blocked him the other day. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of project pages

User:BhaiSaab has been spamming a number of User talk pages, every one but Zora of whom is listed as a member of The Muslim Guild, where Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad was proposed for deletion: ,, , , , , . Additionally, User:His excellency has advertised this vote at WikiProject Islam, restoring the solicitation after it was taken down. The Muslim Guild is not only a perennial location for such advertisement, but its membership roster, which until very recently also categorized its members by religious affiliation, is being used as a mailing list. In light of previous discussions about uses of Conservative and LGBT noticeboards for vote-stacking, and the deletion of the Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages for this reason, it seems on-topic enough to merit a post here.Timothy Usher 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One sided report as usual. See my reply on the category for deletion page. BhaiSaab 01:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab asserts that what he did is allowed and writes “Yeah? So sue me”. I would like some clarification as to when, if ever, solicitations posted on project pages and across a number of user pages are allowed.Timothy Usher 01:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the Guild question, one can't help but wonder if User:Timothy Usher is selective in his call for attention to solicitatious behavior when he himself hasn't commented upon the talk page of User:Briangotts relative to Briangotts's own solicitatious posts (of which User:Timothy Usher was a recipient):

• 13:35, 16 June 2006
• 13:35, 16 June 2006
• 13:37, 16 June 2006
• 13:41, 16 June 2006
• 13:55, 16 June 2006 (Timothy Usher's own notification here).

I guess that's just one of those Things that make you go: hmmm?. Netscott 10:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, see my talk page. See yours. See Brian's. The goal should be to stop all this spam, on the Guild (which I also watch, as you know), on WikiProject Islam (which I also watch), and on user talk pages (which for several of the posts I'd reported, I watch) in all directions. Your tone suggests that you're attempting, once again, to join BhaiSaab and Amibidhrohi in turning this on me, as you did in the FairNBalanced report. I spammed no one. I reported a spammer. It's not about me, except insofar as I'm sick of it occuring. You are muddying an attempt to get non-partisan clarity by raising absurd question of which spammers were right, or whether recipients of spam (across my watchlist, in my case) are invalid reporters thereof. Let's stick to the subject, and get some clarity on the spam guidelines which can apply to all.Timothy Usher 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, I even called your attention to User:Briangotts's solicitatious post fully expecting you to council him on that on his talk page. You are were nowhere on his talk page until after I again called your attention to it. Ergo, the appeance of hypocrisy you're showing. Also, you do youself no favors when in the course of discussing issues surrounding what you've mentioned here you "archive" a discussion between us on your talk page with the editorial commentary "achive trolling". Who archives genuine trolling? That editorial comment is sooner a personal attack. Netscott 12:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you supported the existence of the category (albeit named slightly differently) that User:Briangotts notified you about lends credence to claims of hypocrisy. Netscott 12:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've asked you again and again to keep it civil, Netscott. Each time you agree, and then revert to your old ways. At a certain point, one calls it as one sees it.

"You are nowhere on his talk page." Um, look again. I posted immediately upon receiving your message.. Might you then retract your false charge?

Oh you mean my second message? I see. Netscott 17:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So far, it seems your main interest is in defending spammers with whom you agree.Timothy Usher 12:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, I called your attention to the solicitatious nature of User:Briangotts's initial message at 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC), then when I again called your attention to that fact you finally responded on 10:31, 18 June 2006 (edit). What's to retract? That you weren't on his talk page until after I again called your attention to the soliticitous nature of his original message? Ok your voice is on his talk page but the appearance of your hypocrisy is still there. Netscott 16:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While the appearance of your personal attacks is right here. Or you have another word to describe your reference to Timothy Usher's "hypocrisy"? Pecher 17:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black?

Timothy gets very edgy when certain users contact each other on the matter of supporting each other or an article.He takes a strong stand against 'solicitation', and has made a virtual crusade of littering talk pages (article and user both) and project pages to voice his disdain for it, in all its forms. By strange coincidence, he particularly expresses outrage when said users happen to be Muslim. Actually, to my knowlege he only vocally complains in those particular cases. He's less outraged, downright appreciative in fact, when he RECIEVES and SENDS OUT messages urging the very same type of 'solicitation' he complains about here (and just about everywhere else): His Excellency... 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never spammed, Amibidhrohi/His excellency. The "strange coincidence" you report is a simple result of the fact that there is a "Muslim Guild", but no "non-Muslim Guild". It is increasingly tiresome to hear your denunciations of editors as enemies of Islam, particularly in light of your own history of anti-Semitic remarks made under your old username (e.g. , for starters) This report is about Guilds and spamming, not about your religious biases, so let's keep it on-topic, alright? I want a clarifciation of the policy so we don't have to keep going over this.Timothy Usher 03:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Read your first sentence. It's about a user, and user pages. I don't want to violate WP:Civil by calling you a hypocrite, but the dictionary gives me few other words with more flattering tones. I also never called you an enemy of Islam, but in light of several of your comments, I can see why YOU use that phrase so often to discribe how you might appear in the eyes of people like me. His Excellency... 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please.Timothy Usher 03:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please...this isn't an administrative issue. Please take it back to the appropriate talk pages. Tomer 01:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I need an advocate and help with mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition. Please note that I have supported everything I wish to add on the talk page of the article, and nothing I wish to add is original research. I only wish I had the ability to do original research in theoretical physics.

For a good explanation of Hugh Everett's Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics please see Michael Clive Price's Hugh Everett FAQ: http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Hugh Everett's Interpretation does not add one equation to quantum mechanics. An article filled with equations only obscures the significance of his theory.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Misplaced Pages reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It does away with Bohr's "principle of complimentarity." It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, " has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

John Wheeler was Everett's thesis advisor. He put his name on Everett's thesis, but later criticized it as "carrying too much metaphysical baggage." Hugh Everett left physics because of the poor reception his theory received. It initially attracted no followers and was largely ignored. It gained adhereants in the 1980s, and today is considered a mainstream interprepation.

Michael D. Wolok 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A Voice of Sanity

A Voice of Sanity (talk · contribs) has been modifying Scott Peterson to fit his view point (that Scott Peterson was framed by the Modesto Police Department's investigation). I warned him, and since then he has gone progressively loud about it (see User talk:Nlu#Scott Peterson). Suggestions on what to do next, as well as having someone stepping in, would be appreciated. (See also .) --01:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone's been trying to take over my user account

I've been getting password change requests a couple of times a week for months now. I'd appreciate any help that could be provided in this area, like maybe if we could stop whomever is doing it from doing it any more. Thanks.

Your best bet would be to temporarily disable your e-mail address. There's really no way to disable requests right now, so... Ral315 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you just ignore them you can continue to use your old password. Whoever is triggering those notices is not getting any info about your account. Thatcher131 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys!

You can also set an email filter on them; that saves you having to turn off all email from WM, and prevents you actually using your password and not being able to get it back. Just filter it into a folder, then scan through it and delete what isn't needed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Moderator3000 misleading people and inserting vandalism

I don't know whether this should be put here or whether it should be reported as a bad username. But User:Moderator3000 is being viewed by the editors of the page Khatri as an administrator or moderator with special power, because of his/her username. I inserted this to inform people that Moderator isn't an admin. But Moderator himself and other IP Adresses which I suspect are his keep reverting my edits so that the people are still under . The page is in chaos and the users expect the Moderator to do something about it...This can be seen in diffs like this which were posted after Moderator had reverted my notice. I request official warning and possible blocking. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, half the people on that page or possibly even more are in violation of WP:NPA but the problem is that the contributors are all IP Addresses and I think some are using dynamic IPs so they won't really get the message. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for this report. I've blocked it for reasons explained here . --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sufficient indication of legal threat for blocking?

Hello. Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a post which I believe consititutes a legal threat. I cautioned him, and he has essentially reiterated the threat. Is there community consensus that this does in fact consitute a legal threat and is there community consensus for an indefinite block? I also see much evidence of incivility both at the article where the legal threat was made as well as elsewhere in the user's edit history.Johntex\ 05:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The diffs I see have only an argument about whether personal recollections by a subject are allowable (Sbharris says they are, because they do not conflict with WP:BLP, Johntex says they are not, because they violate WP:CITE). Sbharris did not make a legal threat in any of those diffs. He simply theorized about what kinds of information the courts might rule on. It seems to me that perhaps Johntex got confused and thought that McCoy and Sbharris are the same person, but there is no reason to think so. I think this is an overreaction, and I unblock. -lethe 12:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The text which looks vaguely like a legal threat is

"Courts tend to regard "public figures" as people who actively try to put themselves in the public eye (like politicians or actors-- the people in your example list), and not people who are simply dragged into the public eye 40 years ago, by means of a single tragic occurance which made it into the news then. So have a care, because you're on thin legal ice, and complaints to Wiki are going to a lot more effective here than if Maddona was complaining. You understand?" -sbharris

(and note that this comment was in an earlier reply, not in any of the diffs Johntex provides) But anyway this looks to me like merely an explanation of why McCoy might have a case if there were libelous material in the article. Sbharris is explaining to Wookitty that in fact people are not prohibited from editing their own articles, something which Wookitty had claimed. In fact, Sbharris is quite right in this matter: people are allowed (though discouraged) to edit their own articles, and the courts do indeed take a disfavourable view towards damaging information about people who are only unwillingly famous. Misplaced Pages has acted on this theory before (see the star wars kid). Sbharris claiming that McCoy might have a legal case if there is false information does not constitute a legal threat on Sbharris's part. -lethe 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris' remark looks like a legal threat to me. I think the block was appropriate. Tom Harrison 12:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The intent to chill discussion by making (vague) legal threats is clear. Just because they aren't very effective legal threats is no reason to avoid blocking for them. Nandesuka 12:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously I disagree. Harris was correcting Wookitty, and Johntex mixed up Harris with McCoy. But if you have to reblock, then I won't wheel about it. -lethe 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He was, I think, saying that someone else may take legal action or complain. He does not plan to initiate or participate in it in any way. Therefore, I don't think he was making a legal threat. If the concern has a real basis in law (I have no idea), then I think it would even be prudent to point it out. Is there something I'm missing? -- Kjkolb 12:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider this comment from a later diff see below, :

COMMENT:' Thus, those who plan on re-inserting any unsourced negative biographical 
material which I remove under this policy, may find themselves on the negative end of what 
it says above may happen. In that case, please don't say you acted in ignorance of the 
possible consequences. Thank you.  Sbharris 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I read that as him attempting to use vague legal threats as a way of gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. This isn't "be careful, or Misplaced Pages might get in trouble" it's "you had better do what I say, or you will get sued." I currently intend to re-apply the block, but I'll wait a while and see what people here have to say.Nandesuka 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have given a diff to a comment by Johntex, not by Sbharris. -lethe 12:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed it -- take another look. Nandesuka 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The "negative end" which Sbharris refers to is blocking. He is making threats that people who insert libelous material will be blocked in accordance with WP:BLP and Misplaced Pages:Libel. Read the text immediately preceding the comment you quote to see the context. It is not a legal threat. -lethe 13:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me -- that second diff I posted was indeed referring to blocking, and not legal action. I withdraw my objection. Nandesuka 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris has been unblocked (by Lethe) and is appealing the block at WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kmweber blocked for personal attacks

After three warnings, Kmweber (talk · contribs) persisted in making personal attacks on admins he doesn't like. He's been blocked for personal attacks for 48 hours before, so I blocked him for a week.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Kylests

User:Kylests has moved his talk page to an article about one of his ancestors John Mac Street. The same user moved Stupidity to William Street which is another ancestor (this was since corrected). I'm not sure how to fix his moving his talk page to the article. So could someone take a look to correct the situation? Metros232 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject help

Does anyone know if there is a relevant WikiProject relating to plants??? I am trying to get thistle-related articles peer-reviewed, and to featured status.

Hope this helps. --Sunholm(talk) 13:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't the right place to ask. This isn't an incident requiring administrator attention. --Lord Deskana 14:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't find the relevant WikiProject. --Sunholm(talk) 14:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick search by myself at WP:VP turns up Misplaced Pages:List of WikiProjects. Please try not to ask questions like this here though. WP:AN isn't a help desk for random issues, least of all WP:ANI. --Lord Deskana 14:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just found it - by trial and error. Apologies. I'm only trying to take part in a few WikiProjects. --Sunholm(talk) 14:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do try not to bite the noobs, Deskana. --InShaneee 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, Deskana, questions like this can be directed to the Help desk (or possibly the Village Pump). --Sam Blanning 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's O.K., don't stress it too much (but do use the venues listed above in the future). Try WP:TOL. Snoutwood (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunholm knows Im not stressing, we had a dialogue on my talk page. --Lord Deskana 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Actually, though, I was talking to Sunholm, but it doesn't really matter, looks like it's all cleared up between the two of you. Snoutwood (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation editing

I have filed for mediation in the long-standing and very problematic Golden Dawn articles, as I am attempting to resolve this situation and make ground with a mediator involved. Frater FiatLux 14:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the rest of the complaint; it does not seem to require administrator intervention. You can see it in the history if you are interested.

It looks like the page has been fixed; Essjay has asked that the issues be described in brief bullet points. Since Zos has agreed to mediation, the only dispute would seem to be over how to word the application. Why don't you try working on a set of bullet points on a user subpage until you get a description of the problem that you both can live with. ("Zos says article X should say Y; Frater believes it should say Z.") Thatcher131 15:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I will do so as the mediator that contacted me asked me to do so, this was not what I asking advice for.

The problem was that user Zos had edited the medaition page and also added commentary, this is aganst mediation protocol as stated on the mediation page. Please refer to the version in the history that documents this.

Frater FiatLux 15:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• It frankly doesn't look like a big deal. Baba Louis has also edited the page, fixing some minor formatting issues and adding confirmation links. Essjay is not so anal retentive that he will reject the mediation based on a stray remark; the point is the parties should not be arguing with each other in the mediation request itself. To avoid this, you could ask Zos to collaborate with you on the summary of the dispute before you post it. It doesn't have to be perfect, just something you both can live with as a joint opening statement. Anyway, the only thing admins can do that you can't on your own is protect pages and block users, and I hardly think that's necessary, so you'll have to work this out elsewhere. Thatcher131 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left messages on thier talk pages, they won't do this, now there are more users reverting the medaition file. I have contacted the mediator. The carn't even leave the mediation file without editing and reverting the dam thing. They should just simply leave it alone as per the medaition rules on the mediation page. They will turn this into a revert war on the medaition file next. Frater FiatLux 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• If a group of users can not create a mediation request without edit warring over it, they are probably not good candidates for mediation. One final thought: in this case, the first one to back off wins. Thatcher131 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was never asked to help. I did however help Frater FiatLux, and he got upset. This is the kind of thing that has happened all over the pages he has listed for mediation. Thanks. Zos 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir solicits meatpuppets to do his reverting for him

Israel_shamir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for his activities at Israel Shamir and for racist attacks, see above, and meanwhile the article has been reverted to Shamir's preferred version by a brand new user, RhinoRick (talk · contribs). I blocked RhinoRick as an obvious sock, but now it turns out that he is more likely to be a meatpuppet, unblushingly recruited by Shamir through a message board. (User:Denis Diderot sent me this link.) I think this action by Shamir warrants a longer block. See Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry: "Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Misplaced Pages". Bishonen | talk 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

• I strongly agree. Also, semi-protecting the page in question for a bit might be warranted, as well. --InShaneee 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree too. Block him and block all meatpuppets, as the more he edits, the more disruptive he becomes. Pecher 17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised he had not already been blocked indefinitely.--Mantanmoreland 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Me too... -- Grafikm 17:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no longer any room for assumption of either good faith or newbie ignorance. It's time to put this one to bed. Since I'm seeing little in the way of defense of this guy, we'll skip the "all in favor" and go directly to "Is anyone opposed to an indefinite block of this guy?" Tomer 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My own feeling is that there are three different block discussions going on:

1. User name violations
2. Hate speech, repeated
3. Calls for intervention and 3RR

and the three folks aren't talking to each other very clearly. As for #1: if the user has an article on himself, then he can't have the name, but the user shouldn't have a page about himself, because he is not actually substantial enough for the .se Misplaced Pages to have an article on him. As for #2: absolutely. This user's speech has been horrid and continuing. However, for process sake, I don't think an indefinite ban for hate speech is at all allowable. Personal attacks and bad speech is not sufficient, IMO. The user's edits are not all vandalism. Instead, they're all worthless, but worthless isn't vandalism. There are plenty of ArbCom cases of people calling each other "communist fascist" and the like, and since there are no priviledged classes, the mere hatred behind the terminology can't allow an indefinite block without consensus. For #3, the call for meatpuppets is at least a cause for resetting a 3RR block for the duration that the call for intervention is visible. In this case, I think the worst offense should be treated. To me, that's #2, not #3. I'd say a month block for repeated and pretty much sole attack and hate speech is appropriate and a referral to mediation/ArbCom after that month at the first sign of attack language. Incidentally, I think that Israel Shamir should be sent to AfD after the block is in place. If that is disrupted by any calls for intervention, etc., I'd say we're looking at an indefinite block. Geogre 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, from the point of view of the encyclopedia, I believe that the worst offense is not the hate speech, it's the "All edits worthless" and its concomitant "user is not here to build the encyclopedia". I've gone through his edits, and they may be divided into POV rants in article space, extreme personal attacks on userpages, and additions of useless external links. Following your argument I will block indefinitely for encyclopedic uselessness, not for the call for meatpuppets. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

P. S. Excuse me, I forgot to mention that User:KimvdLinde who placed the week-long block is on wikibreak till the beginning of July, or I would have consulted with him, naturally. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

I think that it would not change anything... -- Grafikm 22:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre: I think the only "problem" with the 3 simultaneous discussions/causes of action against this user is which each of us thinks is the worst of his blockable offenses, not that some of us regard one as a problem but not the other two, etc. I don't think we're talking past each other so much as saying "yeah, I saw that, but look at this! this is even more outrageous!", all the while agreeing that everything is sufficient cause to block him indefinitely. The guy needs to go for all three reasons, and I think sufficient evidence has been brought to demonstrate that an indefinite block for any of them will meet with zero admin disagreement. We can discuss and discuss all day which of his offenses is worst, but at the end of the day, the verdict is still an indefinite block. Cheers, Tomer 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of terrible in being process oriented. I'm well aware that our dispute processes are...overburdened?...but I worry very much that a lack of dissent on one project page (this one) be taken for positive assent from the project. Again, I'm certainly not defending this person or his actions. I think he's probably irredeemable, but I'm concerned that we have all allowed "well, I'll mention it on AN/I" to replace our fuller, slower, but surer methods. I also don't like relying on "well, anyone else can block for a shorter time." Again, in no sense do I vouch for this anti-semite. I'm all for a block, and past offenses are plentiful, but past remediating actions aren't. Even though it won't do any good, I recommend a month. <shrug> I'm just one scold, but that's my nagging opinion. Geogre 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Boobyman

Boobyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandal who has done nothing but vandalize and add nonsense. he has been warned time and time again and likes to blank the warnings on his talk page and replace them with rude remarks. Deserves ban of some kind. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

taken care of. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Vaquero100

This user has just performed a massive move of articles dealing with Roman Catholicism without any sign of consultation, apparently in some sort of protest against Anglican dominance of Misplaced Pages. I have left him a warning, but if there is a bot to revert all this, it would be helpful. Septentrionalis 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency/Amibidhrohi indefinite block

For his calculated personal attack here I have blocked indefinitely His excellency (talk · contribs)/Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs). I don't intend the block to be permanent; I invited him to get in touch with me or another admin to unblock him when he decides to follow the rules. Tom Harrison 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to a fellow editor as a "bigot" is unacceptable. This block was a good call. I do hope that H.E. realizes the error of his way and agrees to return to demonstrating civility. Netscott 18:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense! No one can be blocked indefinitely for a personal attack -- at least not according to Misplaced Pages policy. First, WP:NPA is not policy, but a guideline. Second, when people feel attacked, their response should not be to block. Third, only vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely. I read the exchange, and saying that someone's actions show them to be a practicing bigot does not amount to hate speech or even an insult. The person may be disagreeable, but folks need to lay off the block button and start using other methods. Geogre 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I see that you don't intend the block to really be indefinite, but that's not cricket. Please don't be theatrical with the block button. We really, really, really need to curb the block-happiness that's become common on AN/I. (Most of the people blocked are totally horrid, and I don't want to talk to them, but blocking is extreme.) Geogre 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Geogre, I don't understand this block. I've been reading some dialogue between the users involved, and it seems to me to be a matter of strong differences of opinion and a rather hostile tone (the presumed victim giving as good as he gets) rather than of His Excellency making any extreme personal attacks--let alone of disrupting the wiki by doing so. I urge Tom to unblock. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Gentlemen, if you haven't seen it I believe this is why Tom Harrison has taken this action relative to User:His Excellency. Perhaps those previous blocks were not called for either? Netscott 21:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency/Amibidhrohi mounted that personal attack shortly after a previous personal attack and after Tom had warned him to stop. The user has just emerged after a week-long block for personal attacks under a new username, so a block was more than justified. Contrary to what was said above, WP:NPA is an official policy and people are blocked every day for personal attacks; indefinite blocks for personal attacks are no rarity either. However, I also agree that any block must be serious, so if Tom does not intend this block to be permanent, I believe he should reduce the length of the block to, say, one month given that the previous block was for a week and the user shows no sign of repentence. Pecher 21:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Given his recent remarks on his talk page, I'm inclined to make it permanent. Of course, anyone who wants to can unblock him. I think that would be a bad idea, but if someone chooses to do so, I won't reblock. Tom Harrison 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency (talk · contribs)/Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs) has, over the past few days, posted to this page and to several others a series of hostile, highly personalized and paranoid screeds. The common theme is that selected editors, and Christians and Jews generally (now joined by Anglos), are joined in conspiracy to attack Muslims and defame Islam, and are out to get him in particular. His most recent comments are illustrative,,, as is this remark made just before his last block.Timothy Usher 05:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency is requesting an opportunity to add to this report. In lieu of this he's written a response relative to his use of the term "bigot". Netscott 07:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

His "response" is just an ongoing personal attack, for which Misplaced Pages probably should not be providing a platform. The "bigotry" to which he refers consists, first, of the unforgivable failure to rationalize and excuse Muhammad's treatment of Jews, and, second, of the assertion that Misplaced Pages - and scholarship generally - is best served by a non-sectarian environment.Timothy Usher 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm imclined to support the indefinite block, as the user makes ever more attacks with every passing minute and blocks seems to make no impression upon him. Pecher 08:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm? I don't see him doing that, Pecher, I see him on the contrary "removing heated remarks made in frustration". Netscott (above) directs me to HE's block log, suggesting that what's to be seen there is the actual reason (?) that Tom blocked this time, and asking rhetorically whether those blocks weren't justified either. I don't know. How could I? Two of them were for personal attacks: one recently for a week, by Tom Harrison, one in January by Bratsche.( I'm not in this context so interested in all those 3RR blocks, though they certainly show unacceptable edit warring.) I guess I won't bother Bratsche, since it was so long ago, but if it's significant here, as Netscott implies, perhaps Tom would tell me what the recent week-long personal attack block was for.

Meanwhile, I'm going to shorten HE's block to three days, for the following reasons:

1. HE's defence, posted on his page. He compares his own indefinite block for calling Timothy Usher a bigot with FairNBalanced's week-long block, just now expiring, for hair-raising racist and religious slurs against Islam. Many administrators above argued for an indefinite block of FNB (I was among them), but nobody actually set such a block. I find this comparison cogent, and note that the contrast is likely to make HE feel yet more beleaguered as a Muslim editor.
2. An indefinite block is an indefinite block. The notion that HE will remain blocked until and unless he apologizes to Tom's satisfaction is new to me, and unpleasant. It's humiliating.
3. The general situation between HE and Timothy Usher (the presumed victim). I regret that I can't realistically research all the contributions of HE and Timothy Usher, as they both produce a lot of text and I do have a day job. But just looking at their input on the FairNBalanced thread at the top of this page, the impression is of two users in long-standing conflict. They speak aggressively to each other, but Timothy Usher IMO definitely sounds more aggressive. Mediation would surely be more appropriate to such a situation than blocking one of the parties--has that been tried? I would caution against getting too technical with the NPA policy. Where two people are at loggerheads, blocking the first party provoked into calling an actual "name" isn't a good idea. There are many ways to offend without name-calling. See for instance where HE civilly voices his opinion that FairNBalanced merits an indefinite block, and TU (who was not being addressed) jumps in with "Be advised that User:His excellency is the new username of User:Amibidhrohi, who has amassed an impressive block log for 3RR, personal attacks, harrassment, disruption and incivility." Having just viewed that block log, with it's two blocks for personal attacks and the rest for 3RR, I consider that a highly exaggerated description (and not especially relevant to the discussion where it was offered, either). That's just one example, but it represents my over-all impression.

Tom points out that he won't re-block if somebody undoes his action. Well, of course not — what are we, wheel warriors? I won't re-unblock if my action is undone either, but I would expect any re-blocking admin to bring the issue here and engage with the arguments I have offered, as I have engaged with Tom's and other people's. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Needless to say, I concur with Bishonen's action and would have probably just unblocked until the proper steps were taken. This is not a condoning of the actions of HE. All I saw, though, were people clawing at each other and one of them had the block button. That is precisely when we cannot use the block function. That's when mediation (through whichever of the processes you prefer) or RfC is needed. We need to reserve blocks for fairly specific things so that users in general know what to expect and cannot legitimately accuse administrators of caprice or bullying. Geogre 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, I hope your action works out for the best. Maybe your block will show him that personal attacks aren't tolerated, and he'll come back as an effective and civil editor. The best thing now might be to let everything cool off for the three days remaining. Tom Harrison 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Feline1

I write on request (and also through my own personal experiences with) regarding the attitude of User:Feline1 and the way he reacts to other users. Simply observing his talk page and the Revolver talk page will illustrate my complaint. I oringinally referred my complaint to User:Kingboyk, who has ingnored it and User:Tony Sidaway, who acknowleged it but rather than deal with it himself, advised me to report it here. User:Feline1 is very difficult to work with - he is argumentative, acidic and confrontational. He causticly abuses well-meaning editiors who make honest mistakes and then, when he is questioned on this, further insults them, insinuating that they are "whimps" for questioning him. He seems to think himself infallable - everyone else is wrong, never him. All in all, this is an attitude completely contraty to the wikipeida ethos or respect and co-operation. His actions are likely to put people off working with him, and as a result, important issues may go unattended to. I feel a stern talking to as to the nature of wikipedia is in order (a block probably wouldn't do the job). I realise this may seem hypocritial coming from me as I have been blocked for personal attacks in the past, but I have made a concious effort to amend thisk, and maintain that I was never even close to being as awkward, rude, or mean-spirited as this user. Please look into this.--Crestville 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cheers for actually taking an interest, but what's the sum-total of that? He's clearly not repented. Would you please keep an eye on him?--Crestville 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com evading block

Indefinitely blocked user Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned as 68.194.14.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and is continuing his past edit-warring on Irish neutrality. Can an admin block this IP please? Thanks! Demiurge 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Already taken care of by User:(aeropagitica). Demiurge 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox proposal

Please see User:Sunholm/Userbox Proposal for more details and post on the talk page of the article. Hopefully this will sort out userbox edit wars. --Sunholm(talk) 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this more the sort of thing for the Village Pump? --InShaneee 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes have appeared on AN/I frequently. I suppose it's appropriate. --Sunholm(talk) 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Tony_Sidaway

I reported a personal attack from Terryeo. Sidaway threatens me with a block on the accusation that I falsely reported a personal attack, which was "User:Fahrenheit451 uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely. I had referred to this user as a banned user as he is banned from editing Scientology articles. Sidaway evidently warned me on an article discussion page, but not on my user talk page and claims that I have been warned before, then gave me a "final warning" on my talk page. I would like this situation looked into. --Fahrenheit451 22:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse banned user Terryeo. Publicly accessible websites and newsgroups are published, per the definition. --Fahrenheit451 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty sleazy backhand --mboverload@ 22:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Learn how to use diffs. I'm not doing your investigation for you. And mboverload, seriously. --Cyde↔Weys 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

...Now I'm just confused. Anyway, I came across this diff, I'm not sure how they relate. 1 --mboverload@ 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here but this guy hasn't presented his case coherently at all and I'm not about to do his investigation for him. My default position is to side with Tony Sidaway, who I know rather well. --Cyde↔Weys 23:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. Without a clean presentation or evidence there is nothing we can do for you Fahrenheit. However, it doesn't seem as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Please present the whole story along with diffs. --mboverload@ 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I confused you, I incorrectly interpreted your comment "That's a pretty sleazy backhand" as an attack on Tony Sidaway. --Cyde↔Weys 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. np. --mboverload@ 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Fahrenheit451 twice to stop referring to Terryeo habitually as "banned user Terryeo". As the first warning was on Talk:Patter drill I've corrected an earlier statement that I had already warned him. Apparently he left that discussion before I replied.

Although Terryeo is banned from certain articles, Fahrenheit451's use of that term in addressing and referring to Terryeo is clearly prejudicial and has the nature of a personal attack. Terryeo isn't perfect but his current relatively civil behavior should be encouraged and I'm warning Fahrenheit451 off because it is important to rehabilitate Terryeo as an editor and his activities are prejudicial to that. I have warned Fahrenheit451 that he will be blocked if he persists in addressing or referring to other editors as "banned user". --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think calling someone a "banned user", even if it's true, shouldn't be done if it does not have a clear relation to a conversation. It looks like he used it as a debate tool rather than bothering to present his case, an ad hominem if you will. --mboverload@ 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I waited for fifteen minutes on irc for your reply. A warning must be communicated to the intended party to be valid and you left it on an article discussion page. I left the patter drill discussion as I found further dialogue with Terryeo to be unproductive. --Fahrenheit451 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack from Terryeo was here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Is_an_opinion_on_a_personal_website_a_.22published.22_opinion.3F I made the complaint here: User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Another_personal_attack_by_Terryeo Sidaway responds with this: User_talk:Fahrenheit451#Personal_attacks_on_Terryeo I chatted with Sidaway via irc and this did not resolve anything. --Fahrenheit451 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He gave you a warning which you saw and told you he gave you another on the talk page. Why not just accept that and realize that your behavior is not appropriate? --mboverload@ 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Falsehood. He did NOT give me an initial warning. He evidently put it on an article discussion page. I did see the second warning on my user discussion page. His conduct as an administrator was not proper in that instance.--Fahrenheit451 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, now you have been warned. You have not been blocked, so nothing much has happened to you yet. Could we drop this here? Kusma (討論) 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, could you please explain what was improper about warning you against referring to Terryeo as "banned user Terryeo"? --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you are loading the question, which should be: "What do you consider improper?" I consider your sticking a "warning" on a article discussion page and considering that it was valid, then giving me a final warning on my user discussion page, falsely stating you already warned me. Also, I object to what appears to be a hidden standard on what constitutes a personal attack from Terryeo. --Fahrenheit451 23:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if that's true, why not calmly inform Tony that you think he is in error, and even calmly ask his complete reasoning if you don't understand it. Why are you here? --mboverload@ 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And if someone gives you a final warning for personal attacks, STOP, HAMMER TIME. --mboverload@ 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL!--Fahrenheit451 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so Fahrenheit gets a final warning for stating that a user banned of editing certain articles, is in fact a banned user on one of the articles he is banned from's talk page with the claim that his statement was a personal attack, even though it is most definitely a true statement (See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo). And, Terryeo, makes the comment "uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely" about Fahrenheit, and he actually gets a friendly message to tell him "I've issued a final warning to Fahrenheit451 for repeatedly attacking you, calling you a "banned user", and falsely accusing you of making personal attacks on him"

Does that seem somewhat (perhaps Very) unbalanced to anyone else?! - Glen Stollery 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know? No proper case was ever presented. --mboverload@ 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand when the diffs are above for each component

1. Terryeo is uncivil
2. Fahrenheit takes it to Tony
3. Tony posts a seemingly sudden final warning on Fahrenheit's user page, based on
4. Fahrenheit's uncivil comment
5. Tony then posts friendly "thought you should know" style comment about Fahrenheit's final warning to Terryeo.

Even if both users were uncivil surely both should be dealt with using the same yard stick? Surely? - GIen 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy with the outcome. The arbitration remedies applying to Terryeo, who has historically been a problem user, remain, but he is protected from undue harassment by Fahrenheit451. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic here Tony when the arbitration closed months ago and Terryeo's comments were made last week It would appear the historically problem editor may not in fact be so historic... - GIen 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This presupposes that Terryeo's comments were personal attacks, a claim that I think you need to prove. It's all very well for you to present a slanted account of matters, but this will not be much use in persuading those whose view of what transpired is different from your own. --Tony Sidaway 05:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually above you'll see that in fact I used the term uncivil to describe both their comments: an opinion that I am was fairly sure you shared when writing, so no presupposition of that nature is was made at all. However, if it is your opinion (and it would seem from your last post that it may well be) that Terryeo acted in complete civillity at all times and the sole party causing disruption is Fahrenheit then, well, I guess as a sysop that is your call and that is the end of that. I was/am of the assumption (WP:AGF even) that perhaps both parties were maybe over-reacting somewhat, but the reason I actually made comment here was purely on the basis by which each was handled. Regarding your closing statement, I of course am well aware that if someone reading this has already made up their mind then my comments serve little purpose. However, with respect, I believe the whole point in a venue such as this is that those persons looking into these concerns most likely have not formed a view "different from my own" until after they've actually read all the commentary herein. Glen 05:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Is there any particular reason that you continue to remove the sole green 'e' from my signature? A signature which, I might add, which including the green e font markup still only totals a mere 3 letters longer in wikicode than your own. Seems strange you remove it from my 44 length sig yet are happy to leave the @ that also occurs in this section. Seems an odd time to demonstrate what seems to be two sets of rules for two users, but, again, I will ASF and wait for your reponse before making that call.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that my rejection of Fahrenheit451's complaint about a personal attack meant that I think Terryeo acts with perfect civility at all times. What I did see when I investigated the complaint, however, was a clear personal attack on Terryeo by Fahrenheit451. There are nearly 1000 administrators on Misplaced Pages, and if none can be found to treat Fahrenheit451's complaint as actionable, I suggest that it was probably not actionable. --Tony Sidaway 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be false dichotomy if I assumed one implied the other - however it was not a sweeping statement on my part. Specifically my phasing was in line with how I saw the two being handled, final warning vs. nil. However even your edit above, the words "it was probably not actionable" does not seem to envoke the severity in levels of treatment each user received (or perhaps you were simply being polite in your wording). Well, I have no more to say, thank you for your time and look forward to hearing feedback from others. - Glen 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PS: You forgot to respond to my PS too.

Jesus, is it just me, or is this noticeboard regularly used for lengthy discussions of Tony's rough admining style and signature crusade now? Somebody called a "partly banned user" a "banned user"? Are there no more pressing concerns on Misplaced Pages (I wish)? I honestly think some people here seriously need to take a step back. dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like it, yeah. It's bothersome that incidents related to this one user are now mildly overwhelming this page.

In the present case, it seems to me as if Misplaced Pages admins are being used without their awareness to censor facts on the Scientology-related articles. It is a fact that user Terryeo is banned from those articles for specific conduct. Admins who are acting on requests or "warnings" posted by this user should be made aware of that fact. --FOo 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard will readily confirm my familiarity with the Scientology shenanigans. I am also very familiar with the Terryeo arbitration case, because as a clerk, I opened that case on April 3 and closed it on 13 May, and have had occasion to block Terryeo for repeatedly breaching his personal attack parole.

The current case arrived from a bogus complaint of a personal attack by Terryeo, made by another editor. Upon investigating the complaint, I found that the complainant, having repeatedly engaged in personal attacks himself in the past, was still at it. I warned him not to engage in further personal attacks. This is not "rough adminning", it's what any good admin would do in similar circumstances. All we're seeing her is the fallout of an editor who was dissatisfied with the outcome of his bogus complaint.. --Tony Sidaway 08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Tony. My complaint about Terryeo was valid, and still is. You can attempt to intellectualize it and justify it, but it remains a valid complaint. You, as an administrator, failed to communicate the initial warning to me on my user talk page. Instead, you dropped it on an article talk page, at a point where I broke off discussion with Terryeo. As an administrator, you should know that if you want to be certain to communicate to another user, it needs to go on their talk page. Also, the issue was not the generality of "personal attacks" as you now state, but my epithet of banned user, which Terryeo is for Scientology articles. I think this instance of rough adminning is a result of your not taking the additional effort to properly contact another user with an objection, and, not recognizing or really knowing the scope of what constitutes a personal attack. --Fahrenheit451 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bugman94 is continuing to create sockpuppets; two were created in one day

You may wish to review . This particular indvidual has created sockpuppets over the course of the past few weeks. All of them abuse the {{helpme}} template on their user talk pages, despite repeated requests to stop. In addition, they usually have the {{busy}} template at the top of their talk pages which reads "Michael is currently busy in real life and may not respond quickly to queries". A checkuser was run a while ago on the accounts which were suspected sockpuppets at the time (I currently cannot find this, but I assure you it was done), and they were indeed proven to be sockpuppets, and Essjay blocked the IP in question for one month; this was probably a few weeks ago, but I am alsmost certain it has not been a month since then. However, this user is still at it, creating sockpuppets (again, they are not proven my RFCU or anything, however, if you review the contributions from each account, the evidence is there) which all have the same pattern of abusing the {{helpme}} template, and just generally being annoying.

Long story short, Bugman94 is an indefinately blocked user, however, he is creating annoying and somewhat abusive sockpuppets. --Pilot|guy 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that someone "lost" the case when copying it from the pending to completed requests section (I won't go into detail, but his initials are S. J.). :-) I've tracked it down and it can now be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bugman94. Thatcher131 01:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Who, sj? --Cyde↔Weys 05:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares, it was an honest mistake. pschemp | talk 05:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Cyde was being funny because the link is there; I know I was trying to be funny. Goof ups happen, especially when you run 100+ checkuser requests a month. Thatcher131 11:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu is back with a new sockpuppet account

Strappingthesource (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is suspected to be a sockpuppet of Leyasu. See contributions for evidence as user is edit warring over the same articles as Leyasu. —RJN 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Another ip address of Leyasu. 86.132.132.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) —RJN 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you go to requests for CheckUser and ask for a checkuser on the accounts. --Woohookitty 06:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:MichaelIsGreat

This user has done nothing but attempt to write Bösendorfer to his satisfaction, and when challenged by others, he responds with heated, novel-length rambles, both on his own talk page as well as the talk page of the aforementioned making it difficult for many (including me) to understand what he's trying to tell us. Can someone deal with him? 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also being extremely rude in edit summaries and talk page comments. I've blocked him for a couple of days and advised him to read WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. --ajn (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL image vandal is BACK

here Needs to be banned now --mboverload@ 06:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Closure and revert of DRV by non-admin

Closure by Dtm142

Revert by Kotepho

Both are non-admins but they proceeded with closing and reverting DRV. I believe both user's actions are inappropriate, not sure what to do since I never faced this kind of situation before. --WinHunter 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

These actions are being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review, no need to bring it here. NoSeptember 07:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted pages created again

User:Dmaxwell has added two pages that I previously nominated for AFD which were subsequently deleted. Those pages are Andrew J. Maxwell and Big Hands for Little Hearts. Ckessler 07:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you happen to have other names for those articles? Looking at the history it appears that neither of them were deleted at any time. Mo0 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Maxwell and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Hands_For_Little_Hearts Ckessler 08:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

About the AOL image vandal...and me

I have given up. I'm not going to revert any more AOL edits like this one. I'm going to skip right past.

The feeling of hopelessness is immense. I'm sitting there with Vandal Proof watching edits by that user go by faster than I can revert them. I don't even bother leaving warnings. He will just change his IP with the next edit anyway. I just try and reduce the damage. It's a whole IP range. I jump the hell on IRC, yelling for someone to help me but no one does. An admin finally blocks it, but I see other admins seeing the same vandalism as me, reverting the same vandalism as me, and they don't do anything. What kind of climate are we living in when a sophisticated vandal with an efficient system (3+ vandal edits every 30 seconds, or an edit every 10 seconds) wrecking havoc with our encyclopedia gets to scare off our administrators just because he uses AOL? Even when the range WAS BLOCKED, it was ONLY FOR 15 MINUTES. The vandal promptly started up again and that's when I decided to throw in the towel. This isn't just some kiddie at his school putting in "omg lol" into articles. This is a determined vandal who knows our system with its red tape and silly rules can't stop him. He has the power and he knows how to exploit it.

"But mboverload," you say, "obvious vandalism is easy to revert and it only took a few minutes even if you had to look on in horror as thousands of peoples' work was being destroyed." Well, why don't we just let stupid criminals out of prison after 15 minutes? They learned their lesson. Stores can always get their money back from insurance and it's easy to spot them with the security cameras, right? Even if that were true in real life, it still wouldn't be acceptable. People hate being violated and they want to protected.

I don't know what's wrong with me. I'm supposed to be understanding about this. But maybe I'm just the cop that realises that it's a completely hopeless battle; we will never win. Every day we go back out there and we hand out warnings and we watch as they commit more vandalism and we hand out and other warning and then we watch them do it again, all in the name of due process. Criminals don't get 4 warnings. They get TASERed. Maybe I'm burned out. Maybe I need a wikibreak. Maybe I don't care enough about all the good that comes out the the AOL IP addresses with 8 blocks. Maybe I need to calm down. Maybe I need to think of the children. Maybe I need to shut the hell up and make a sandwich. --mboverload@ 07:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

if not enough people willing to spend their time reverting this are online, the entire range should be blocked. It's not like we'll get enough worth to counterbalance the damage out of the AOL range in the meantime. AOL either needs to collaborate in preventing this, or live with their IP range blocked much of the time. dab (ᛏ) 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...tough luck I say...editing here is a priviledge.--MONGO 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious vandalism. Easy to revert and the collateral damage would be huge. Seriously, but you're the only one with this huge obsession with this vandal. I'm content with the edits being reverted. The good coming out of the AOL IP's vastly outweighs the bad, blocking that range would be more disasterous then any vandal could possibly be. Our ultimate goal is writing an encyclopedia, not being elitist towards anons and AOL in paticular. As long as those using AOL contribute towards that goal, we just need to revert the vandals. Denying millions of contributers access fundamentally diverges from the wiki philosophy. -M 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When I come across more vandalised pages by accident (i.e. while not on RC patrol or looking at my watchlist), I might get behind a block on an entire ISP, but right now in my whole time reading Misplaced Pages I can only remember coming across three vandalised pages by accident, and I can't even remember what they were, though I do remember all but one were very obscure. Sure, if you go looking for vandalism, you will, shock horror, find lots of it, but that's not the impression the average reader will get.

I'm fairly understanding of those who block shared IPs for long periods, but people who are blocked at school can just go home - when people are blocked at home it's a major inconvenience. Roll on WP:BPP... --Sam Blanning 08:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Any time the vandal's giving you trouble, mboverload, drop a note on my talk page, and if I'm on I'll block the range for 3 hours. I'm truly not afraid of blocking AOL one bit for as long as need be, and have blocked that range for relatively long times before (as far as I know, my blocks of this range have never once been undone), and I truly don't think that many users are that harmed by it, with a couple of exceptions for whom solutions are typically found quite quickly. I get the impression that AOL simply doesn't give a damn about abuse, and AOL users are typically quite used to getting shitty service from their ISP--they'll understand, or perhaps consider changing to a decent provider. If a few users are unable to edit from home for some time, I think it's well worth it. This vandal, and many others, are quite well aware of the effort we put into ensuring that no AOL user ever be unable to edit, and they just sit back and laugh at our wasted effort. It is absolutely absurd to expect anyone--mboverload, myself, etc.--to simply "revert and warn" this vandalism without blocking, and anyone who does not find this expectation absurd obviously has not been involved in the clean up (as mb stated, we're not dealing with the dumb schoolboy vandal here). Might I propose that we at least keep this range blocked between the hours of 5 and 15 UTC (midnight and 10am pacific time) when nobody except the few of us are available to deal with it? I, like mboverload, simply refuse to clean up this crap anymore, and why should we with that nifty block button there? By the way, we're not talking all of AOL, just the pacific coast branch. I would really like to return to editing... AmiDaniel (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post AmiDaniel, thanks. I get mad at the regular vandals but I'm fine with that in the long run. It's just these people who take advantage of an ISP that doesn't care is what makes me mad. Even madder at someone who is this smart (I have heard that he must have found a special way to get a new IP address each time, it's not the regular behavior usually). And when we block a range he can just disconnect and call another number. God...I hate dialup. Maybe I'm madder at AOL than the actual user. It's just so awful that there is a stereotype of the AOL user, and they seem to reinforce it to me every hour. Thank you =)--mboverload@ 09:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One more time: blocks of AOL should never exceed :15. The bad outweighs the good? Hmm. Let's see: yesterday I wrote two full articles with references, cleaned out some CSD's, and added to four prosody articles. I mediated the behavior of someone about to get a block, and I tried to put the brakes on some overzealous blocking on this page. Sure, I can see why you might think that the bad outweighs that tiny amount of good. This is not a debate: our policy says that you will not block AOL for longer than :15. If AmiDaniel's block hasn't been overturned, that's just luck, because, although I've not before wanted to get involved in unblocking and wheel warring, the kind of attitude I'm seeing from you people is enough to pull me off the sidelines. If what I'm saying is changing tone too many times, just remember this do not block AOL for longer than :15. Oh, and you can put your prejudice aside. Your denunciations of AOL are as well reasoned as meeting drunken sailors and concluding that all the people of a nation are hideous. If you don't know who the AOL contributors are doing any good, it's because you're vandal hunting. Geogre 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote-Stacking?

User:Rangeley recently created a new poll to rehash some previous polls at Misplaced Pages:WOT. Rangeley then started placing talkpage notices on every single user listed at Category:Conservative Wikipedians. User:GTBacchus then asked User:Rangeley about this on his talkpage.. The total number of talkpage notices is over 30. Does all this constitute vote-stacking? If it does not would it be a problem if I added similiar notices to everyone listed on Category:Liberal Wikipedians? -- Mr. Tibbs 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It does constitute vote-stacking.

It is a fine thing to ask people who have expressed interest in a particular topic to weigh in on a discussion. However, it is never OK to selectively invite those who have identified with a particular viewpoint. For instance, on a discussion of religion, it would be proper to invite everyone who has identified as interested in religious topics; it would be wrongful to selectively invite only those who identify as atheists (or Christians, Sikhs, or what-have-you).

Vote-stacking weakens the credibility of the poll or discussion in question. Where it has occurred, it should be noted clearly on the poll or discussion page, so that people who interpret the poll results or discussion outcome are aware that it has occurred.

However, it is never OK to vote-stack in response to someone else's vote-stacking. To do so is escalation of bad behavior by worse behavior. It will not fix the problems that vote-stacking creates. It will worsen the bias by excluding a middle ground for compromise and consensus. It will foment incivility. It will even further invalidate poll results, and prevent discussion consensus. --FOo 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the category from the userbox and protected to prevent further abuse.. --Tony Sidaway 08:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What is important is not whether there is vote stacking or not. What is important is best summarized by Tony's post on the poll. He said that "You can't decide issues of fact with a straw poll". By responding to this offense of "vote-stacking", by removing categories and protecting pages, we tacitly give our approval to the process and encourage people to think that it is reasonable to vote on issues of fact. These actions give the appearance that we are protecting the sanctity of the voting process. There is no vote-stacking because there is NO VOTE. -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately those categories and things can be used to subvert the consensus-formation process by enlisting groups of like-minded people to overwhelm any discussion. We should obviously teach other less experienced Wikipedians that "You can't decide issues of fact with a straw poll" but we shouldn't underestimate the mischief that can be done to our system by these techiques. --Tony Sidaway 08:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Vote-stacking" is a misnomer, but the activity remains disruptive, regardless of the fact that it's not a "vote" that's being disrupted but a discussion. -GTBacchus 08:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What if everyone contacted in this case came and participated in a positive manner, and all the liberals were contacted as well? I bet with all those people one of them might figure out how to phrase things in a NPOV way. The problem is disruptive behavior, not the exercise of free speech. I created the Misplaced Pages:LGBT notice board because important decisions about deleting LGBT categories were being made by a handful of editors that were not involved in LGBT topics. Would it be alright if I informed one editor that a decision was about to be made? Is 5 too many? How about 69 (the current number of people signed up on the board). Should I not inform anyone because it would be vote stacking? How about if I just inform people I know are trustworthy? What if I don't know their entire history? Where should I draw the line? I don't think a line can be fairly drawn. What you can do is respond to inappropriate contacts. It is analogous to the difference between organizing a meeting and inciting a riot. Newspapers could possibly be used to incite angry mobs, should they all be shut down? Sorry that I'm going on and on about this, but I think this is very important. If AfD and other discussions are a mess, perhaps some other things need to be done to fix them. Let's have that discussion and come up with some creative ideas before we institute a police state. -- Samuel Wantman 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that vote stacking and prohibiting "talk page spamming" are both wrong. Part of the problem is how it is done, and I don't think it's too much to say that informing about an ongoing debate is different from soliciting support. "As a person active on issues of X, you might be interested in the debate going on at Location" is not solicitation. I oppose the use of any association or noticeboard page to gather votes, and I actually oppose interest or politically based associations taking part in such issues. Basically, if Misplaced Pages continues having "factions" and "parties," it's doomed entirely. If cranks want to perceive the place as a gay liberal communist project, the world won't care, but if the project develops the gay block, the TG block, the conservative block, the Roman Catholic block, the Democrat block, etc., then it very soon will be "ruled" by some group, and it will even more quickly disaffect and lose the "losing" groups. Providing information to the interested is something that, theoretically, I would oppose, if we didn't have IRC. Given its existence and the efficacy of it in getting a huge influx of "voters," and given the fact that no one is inclined to stop it, I don't think we can rule very strenuously on the subject of "talk page spamming," as long as it's informational, even if we must, I think, come down very hard on notifications that are political or designed to develop a faction of any sort. Geogre 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment but people are what they are, their views are also what they are. Removing affiliations just makes it so you may never understand why they have that view. You may argue for 20 days on wikipedia about an issue, for instance the war on terror issue. on the 21st day you find out that person is a staunch republican, wouldnt it have helped you to know before the 21 days began that this user was a republican? How about if they were a vet? These associations help users understand one another and their viewpoints, and help them relate to eachother and avoid saying things that may seem biased etc. It helps people get along and find a middleground. --zero faults 14:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This also helps in reverse now that I think of it, for instance I do not affiliate myself on wikipedia, but people have eluded they feel I am a republican because of what I support here. However I am not, perhaps a little info box on my talk page would have helped someone see I am not just being hard headed, or that I am not a Bush lover or those other kinds of ideas that run through peoples heads when ideas are being exchanged, and sometimes get heated. --zero faults 14:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not really on topic, you know, but people are what they say. I would prefer to believe that being a vet, a Republican, or a Martian doesn't make you hold views or limit your individuality, and I don't think that party lines are very accurate in any respect. If I argue with someone for 20 days, I hope I'm talking about issues, and not what the speaker is or is not, and I similarly hope that that person's words would be neither explained, lessened, nor endorsed by an affiliation. Geogre 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Khorshid removing talk templates

User:Khorshid has repetively removed the {{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}} before an actual discussion commenced for a possible merger of Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan Kurdistan Workers Party.

Khorshid uses edits summaries such as "RV Anti-Kurd attempt, PJAK is NOT PKK, but a separate group, you have anti-Kurd POV" while reverting... . User has been warned for personal attacks before which at the time lead to this discussion .

--Cat out 08:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski, Serbian nationalism, etc. Again.

I'd appreciate it if another admin could look at this, and make suggestions. Bormalagurski had various links on his userpage associating Croatia with fascism, and a fair use image. He was asked nicely to remove them, didn't, and so I removed them for him, and protected his user page (see here). He's now complaining on two fronts - firstly that he wants his user page unprotected so he can leave Misplaced Pages (what?), and also that the phrase "Kosovo is Serbia" is not a piece of nationalist polemic about a highly disputed area currently under the protection of the UN, but an innocent statement of geographical fact. There are also veiled threats being made. --ajn (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish discussion posting

Some guy called User:Dfrg.msc is posting rubbish on the discussion page of the Tomorrow series article, as well as my own talk page. Battle Ape 09:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Y_not is back

Y not (talk · contribs) is back after being blocked a while ago (See WP:ANI#Ongoing sock warfare over Rajput_articles). He is again making the rapid reversions for which he was blocked. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

The user User:Kizor has been edit warring the preserve original research at the page Male pregnancy, refusing to provide citations from notable sources or in some cases any sources what so ever.

Large scale DOS attack from 82.198.250.* range

Users from this range keep on vandalising as reported in WP:AIV --WinHunter 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The DoS attack is back apparently after the block has expired. --WinHunter 13:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As reported in WP:AIV

I've blocked 82.198.250.0/24 for 1 hour. None of the IPs have rDNS entries and the whois doesn't look like a school registration. Repost here if they continue after it expires and I will extend the block significantly with a request that the admin contact me via email. --GraemeL 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just keep blocking ranges as the vandalism happens. Not much else we can do. --Cyde↔Weys 13:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dfrg.msc

Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) is consistently vandalising and misusing the article Tomorrow series and its talk page, as well as many user pages. Also vandalised Che Guevara article when it was featured. Shows no sign of acknowledging comments or warnings and is clearly intending to be a troublemaker. Formerly a suspected sock puppet of User:Carbine, blocked indefinitely for the same actions. --Scottie theNerd 11:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested unprotection

Could someone please unblock User talk:Brasoveanul. The user is blocked, and is at meta complaining and is wanting to be able to edit his talk page to "appeal his block" like he was advised to do on WP:AN#Unblock. --Tēlex 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unatended WP:AIV

Backlog of vandal report for at least an hour. --WinHunter 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Natalya! ^_^ --WinHunter 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Locust43, Cola2706, and 68.113.77.49

I had unblocked 68.113.77.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which had been used by blocked user Locust43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on request from Cola2706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Ip Problem. However, I have just been told (User talk:CesarB#A user you unblocked) that Cola2706 is a sockpuppet of Locust43; accordingly, I reblocked the IP address, and indefinitely blocked Cola2706 as a sockpuppet (User talk:Cowman109#Re: A user you unblocked).

I chose to block for 6 months instead of indefinite, since the DNS makes it look like a dynamic DSL IP address; should I have chosen a different block length? --cesarb 15:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unethical Behavior and Possible NPA Violations

This complaint was posted here and archived automatically before getting any response. It has been reposted here by Karwynn on 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC). THe original two posts are shown with the times they were originally posted.

On the Laura Ingraham talk page, user Sandover has repeatedly cited a temporary block that I had to serve. This is not relevant to the discussion and is merely being used to fallaciously discredit me ,

On top of that, and mainly the reason I'm here, I've discovered some underhanded methods on the Keith Olberman talk page.

I have addressed this on the Laura Ingraham talk page for full disclosure .

I look forward to your input. Haizum 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this needs administrative action. I deleted my former statement, and replaced it with this; I realized I needed to be more concise and will bring the specifics up later. There have been numerous AGF, NOR and NPA violations as well as a refusal to listen to fellow editors' input. Karwynn 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards