Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:03, 4 July 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)

• 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?

Sussexman and legal threats.

On June 8th, User:Sussexman and User:Edchilvers had the following exchange:

*Comment Utter rubbish. GLF is not protected by the rehabilitation of offenders act and besides, the content of his Misplaced Pages article included a blatent falsehood in that it suggested he had been cleared of all charges on appeal. Seeing as the matter was widely reported in the national newspapers and has thus been in the public domain for some time I fail to see the harm in mentioning it as it is the truth.

- User:Edchilvers + User:Edchilvers.

• Comment: You're wrong Mr.Chilvers, as you will soon discover. Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Today, Ed Chilvers received a letter from Gregory Lauder-Frost's lawyers threatening him with legal action. Sussexman's "as you will soon discover" would be a reference to this and should be taken as a legal threat. If Sussexman is not Gregory Lauder-Frost then he is intimate enough with him to be able to pass on a legal threat. He should be banned from wikipedia until the matter is resolved and until GLF either concludes or agrees to withdraw any threat of legal action. Homey 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thats what you'd like us to believe because you are and have always been a major player against GLF, his article, and anyone remotely associate with him. Anyone breaking our laws will "soon find out" and that is very standard parlance. You cannot link Sussexman with this letter. That it may have arrived at the same time as these discussions were continuing is merely co-incidental, Sherlock. Do you honestly think that banning one, two, three, or more people unless they contact someone they havn't seen for years, possibly a decade or more, and tell him to withdraw a perfectly justificable private and personal legal action will work? Justice does not operate that way. 81.129.155.181 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How would they have gotten his mailing address? Paul Cyr 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By googling "Ed Chilvers" or looking his name up in a British database. It seems from Ed Chilvers' web page that he has been the target of legal threats from Michael Keith Smith, a friend of Lauder-Frost's, in the past so it's possible Lauder-Frost already had Chilvers' contact info. Homey 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Got any proof, like a scan of the letter? -Hit bull, win steak 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed Chilvers mentions it here - he sent me excerpts of the letter after I emailed him about it.Homey 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds pretty serious. I'd recommend blocking until this can be looked into at the very least. --InShaneee 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been in a content dispute with Sussexman over Gregory Lauder-Frost so I'm not the person to implement a block. Homey 19:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\ 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Sussexman has been consistently disruptive over any attempt to include content not flattering to Lauder-Frost. William Pietri put in some tremendous work digging up newspaper reports and showed that Lauder-Frosts's conviction for theft was the single most widely reported fact about him; Sussexman and a couple of anonymous editors were determined to remove this or at least relegate it to euphemistic references. Just zis Guy you know? 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Glad you said "digging up" the dirt. Bit of agive away as to the agenda here, really. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And this post, which he intended for another user, is fairly close to a legal threat.

• That's just tripe and you know it. He is just stating a fact. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly believe that User:Sussexman is Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong beliefs seem to be only legitimate on your side of the fence. Pity its wrong. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, as the person who blocked User:Lightoftheworld, probably leading Sussexman to veil his threats. Be on the look out for meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman is not Lauder-Frost. Preposterous. Sussexman has defended the vitriolic attacks made upon someone he knew years ago and liked and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Misplaced Pages which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For values of vitriolic which include stating in terms of studied neutrality the fact that he was convicted of a substantial theft from the health authority where he worked. As far as I can the most of the vitriol has been directed against those who attempted to fix the inaccuracy of the article, by supporters of Lauder-Frost. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Here you go raving about the pre-1992 business as though it were last week and without the full knowledge of the matter. It was illegal to post details of this. Telling people this should be taken in good faith. Instead you ban people for it. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I give my absolute support to Sussexman. I too posted information on how this cabal of smearers were breaking UK law. Any normal person would be pleased for the advice. But this lot knew what they were doing and were absolutely determined to smear GLF all over the world. Sussexman appears to be the third person they have blocked for "legal threats", yet none of them appear to actually be the person concerned and so were not in a position to threaten anyone! Is it Misplaced Pages policy to block out everyone whom you get sick of arguing with? 195.134.6.202 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are acting as a proxy for someone else's legal threats, I consider it substantially identical to making them yourself. Misplaced Pages can't prove the relationship between the Misplaced Pages username User:Sussexman and the real-world individual Gregory Lauder-Frost, but I believe it does not really matter. Conveying threats from another non-Misplaced Pages party when one is not merely a messenger but an associate and clearly involved in an on-Misplaced Pages effort to suppress the same information differs little in actual effect from explicitly making them yourself.

I note also that GLF and/or friends and associates were quite happy to keep a lie on the page (that GLF was acquitted of theft on appeal) but are willing to sue on extremely flimsy grounds to hide the truth. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• All rubbish, I'm afraid. The only person on "flimsy" ground on these issues seems to be you and the little gang of demonisers. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to have to inform you that I bear Gregory Lauder-Frost no personal ill will whatsoever. I don't know him, have never encountered him, and did not even know of his existence prior to your first postings on this page about it. I am, however, interested in keeping an honest historical record, concerned about an attempt to censor relevant truth, and opposed to those who seek to chill discussion and publication of facts by using dubious legal threats. A brief, half-sentence mention of Gregory Lauder-Frost's criminal conviction in 1992 - which could not be considered any kind of "youthful indiscretion" or to be prior to his public life - is not unfair to him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to update people on this, there've been further significant developments today. Amgine has reduced the entire article to a stub based on an apparent legal complaint (accessible through OTRS ). BradPatrick is already involved, though I'm not sure what the current state of play is. Further ongoing discussion is at Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost.-- ChrisO 18:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not accessible through OTRS - it's been placed in a restricted queue, as is common with privacy complaints. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. :-) -- ChrisO 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I must drudge up old conversation; Until there is conclusive proof that this was a reference to the legal threat/action, could we unblock? The content dispute is something to be handled by dispute resolution. --Avillia 22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, no chance. We don't operate in a realm of absolute 'conclusive proof' here - but Sussexman is either Gregory Lauder-Frost or closely related to him and passing on threats from him. Either is blockable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NLT is clear that a block must be maintained until the legal dispute is resolved. It's worth pointing out also that there is essentially no content dispute - the facts are uncontested; the dispute is over whether certain of the facts (i.e. GLT's conviction) can be included in the article, under English and Scottish law. If the dispute is resolved satisfactorily then maybe we can think about unblocking Sussexman. -- ChrisO 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• You have deliberately tried to rubbish someone all over the WWW. naturally you will receive legal threats. People have to get on with their lives, not commit suicide because of your smears. 195.194.75.209 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I support Sussexman, who appears not to be the first but the third User banned for these "legal threats". If ten people had come on and pointed out that you were all breaking the law with your reckless smears would you ban everyone? The question is, do you people think you can do anything and no-one can tell you you're wrong? I think you've got a bloody cheek. What's even worse is User:Homeontherange's current efforts to delete numerous UK biographies because he doesn't like Monday Club Tories or that Sussexman had some hand in writing them. What a bunch. 81.129.155.181 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Sussexman. There is a small team of anti-rightists at work here. I believe this blocking to be wrong. Tempers may fray sometimes but you cannot accuse everyone of legal threats because they state the obvious to other users who are clearly breaking the law. It appears that no less than three users have now been blocked for pointing out that Gregory Lauder-Frost was being defamed on Misplaced Pages. Had ten or twenty users argued like this would they all be blocked too? Are this gang above reproach? 86.139.185.202 11:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not the issue here. Just because supporters of GLF say that UK law has been broken here does not mean to say that it is so. I refer people to the article on Stephen Fry which makes mention of his serving time in a Young Offenders Institution for cheque theft. If what the anonymous users are saying is true then this would also be illegal under UK law.And even if GLF does have a case then it is a civil as opposed to criminal matter. --Edchilvers 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Supporters of GLF? Does that include the UK government who pass the legislation, and the legal profession? 213.122.71.45 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Again I challenge you to cite precedent when a public figure has successfully taken action after his criminal past has been revealed. I have done quite a bit of research on this issue and am adament that no offence has been commited.--Edchilvers 09:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't been mentioned here, but Sussexman and 213.122.46.228 also drove a good editor called Humansdorpie off Misplaced Pages completely, by a threat that included "Is this a threat? Yes, it certainly is." (See User:Humansdorpie and User_talk:Humansdorpie#Gregory Lauder-Frost) JackyR | Talk 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I must take issue with the ludicrous claims made via the last post by JackyR. The simple facts are that Humansdorpie spent a considerable amount of time goading and teasing Sussexman with a load of garbage. Eventually it clearly reached the stage where he had had enough and responded in kind. I can see from all those involved in this series of witch-hunts that it is perfectly all right for "the gang" to use snide and cynical remarks, to make absurd claims, and to delete articles that required a great deal of time and effort on the part of others. But it is entirely inappropriate to respond under this concerted pressure. One is then accused of being horrid. It must be hard being perfect. I'm not and doubtless Sussexman isn't either. 213.122.71.45 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not so. Humandorpie and myself was slandered as a 'red,' and a 'force of evil' on various extreme right wing forums all over the web. It was even suggested that the Misplaced Pages entries on our alleged 'heroes' Marx and Lenin should be vandalised in retaliation over the GLF article. --Edchilvers 09:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone doubting my "ludicrous claims" can simply follow the links and read for themselves. JackyR | Talk 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford again

This threat of physical violence does not impress me. According to the article about the artery he's referring to, his threat would be lethal. I'd say another block is in order? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with block. The comment in question is threatening and unwarranted under any context -- Samir धर्म 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Bishonen | talk 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Cartoid sinus/fingernail conflation is never good. As to the broader question, having followed the recent BGC discussions here only cursorily, I wonder whether anyone attempted to ascertain the reasons for his recent devolution? I don't mean in any way to suggest that his behavior has been appropriate, but I always knew him to be a sincere, if sometimes abrasive, editor, one who surely favored logical debate over (largely incoherent) personal attack, and who would not, in any event, write in the fashion in which he now seems to write. Even for Misplaced Pages, where valuable contributors sometimes become disruptive with celerity, this change seems odd. Joe 05:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long? I can't say I'm familiar with this user's history or the type of threat. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This person should be blocked until Jimmy Wales says otherwise, this is physical threat which could be potentially lethal if acted upon. Yamaguchi先生 05:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Realized that User:Brian G. Crawford hadn't been informed of this conversation, and informed him on his talk page --Samir धर्म 05:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what country Mr. Crawford lives in, but in the United States and United Kingdom threats of violence like this constitute assault. Yamaguchi先生 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for ten days. I suspect Guy might be right that some extra-wiki goings on have put Brian on extreme edge, especially as he'd never been blocked until a week ago and has now been blocked twice for the same sort of lashing out. Of course, there's no excuse to threaten users with violence. Other admins are free to review the situation and my block, and change it if you feel it is appropriate to do so. JDoorjam Talk 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep I'd agree with that. Well you know that's supposed to be the point of blocks. Preventive, not punitive. --Woohookitty 07:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame. I think Brian has external issues, but I also think that User:Badgerpatrol did not exactly help here, epecially after I posted a header asking people not to troll. That said, the problem is with Brian not with other people (except in as much as they engage in the addition of ludicrous sophomoric content which annoys people like Brian and me, not that I'm saying Badgerpatrol does this since I've not looked). I'll email Brian again. Just zis Guy you know? 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite annoyed at being accused of trolling here, JzG. My commentto Brian was in response to this diatribe on my talk page, which (I think) was in turn prompted (in some tangential way) by this. In hindsight, I regret that last comment, but I certainly don't think it was offensive or provocative, nor out of keeping with the normal back and forth associated with RfA discussions. I haven't ever been engaged in any previous disputes with Brian (except for good-natured and good faith discussion on AfD), and in the past I've actually tried to mitigate his abrasive behaviour (e.g. , see also this)). I'm not upset with Brian; if he's having problems he's having problems, everybody does stupid things sometimes in difficult circumstances, and the style of his comments (which admittedly was always robust and abrasive) has recently changed to such an extent that I frankly wonder whether his account has been hijacked by someone else, as seems to have happened in the past. If anything, I'm a bit more aggrieved at being accused of trolling- that just isn't the case, and it's all a bit disappointing. Badgerpatrol 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional history on Brian's edits at Asperger's syndrome: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdos (talk • contribs)

Quite frankly, that's the most sensible thing Brian has said recently. Proto///type 10:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not very sensible, because it is not the consensus there. Most of the editors happens to agree with my opinion and not his. The accusations were also totally unfounded. --Rdos 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm in Proto's camp on that one. Sorry, but it's true. -Hit bull, win steak 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind. As long as these "agreers" doesn't have a Category:Aspergian Wikipedians tag on their user page I will only take it as more neurotypical bullying. --Rdos 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, we'll just self-diagnose like you did and all will be well... Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do that? Try the Aspie-quiz! ;-) --Rdos 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's better to go the whole hog and make up my own test... Just zis Guy you know? 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd better distribute it to some hundred (or preferable thousands) participants and let them indicate if they are diagnosed. Ideally, you should screen all particpants for ASDs with DSM. Then you can take it yourself and compare results. It's not as easy as you claim it is. I've spent many hundred hours on this project. Additionally, many participants in the autistic community and others have helped my by taking time to fill it out. Aspie-quiz is probably one of the largest databases available on autistic traits. --Rdos 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this violent and abusive user should be blocked for longer. Skinnyweed 20:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly vandalising the George Galloway and Mazher Mahmood articles, adding erroneous information and blanking large amounts of content . This has been going on since early April. The user attacks only these two articles and ever since Mazher Mahmood, an undercover reporter, was exposed trying to bribe a British politician, George Galloway. It is no coincidence that the journalist in question has attempted legal measures to prevent the publication of his photograph - which failed - and now Paul Adams is attempting to remove the journalist's photograph from Misplaced Pages. He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion, despite appeals on his talk page. On the Mazher Mahmood talk page, the user writes in block capitals, accusing Misplaced Pages of assisting paedophiles and drug dealers by publishing the photograph. Instead of continually having to revert his vandalism, could the admins just block him?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to vandalise the Mazher Mahmood article, removing sourced material and Mahmood's photograph: . I wonder whether anyone is going to take this seriously and block this vandal, or shall I just keep reverting regardless?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The situation is repeating itself today on the Mazher Mahmood article: . Could it be locked in the unvandalised state (ie the version with Mazher Mahmood's picture, which keeps getting removed)? And is there any possibility of enforcing a block on Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and/or his IP address?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Another act of vandalism by Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). How long are admins going to ignore this? Please block the editor or lock the article on the unvandalised version.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet another act of vandalism by the same user: - are admins going to continue to ignore this?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Another case of systematic vandalism by Paul adams: - why are admins ignoring this?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this poster 100%. This is ridiculous and the vandalism must stop. Stephenjh 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I too agree entirely with the above points. Paul adams is repeatedly blanking sections of the Mazher Mahmood article relating to the subject's exposure by British Member of Parliament George Galloway, falsely claiming the material, which is wholly factual and sourced, to be 'disputed'. He also constantly removes a photograph of Mahmood which has since April been deemed fit for publication after a ruling by the British courts. This user is in flagrant violation of several Misplaced Pages rules, and IMO should be blocked permanently, and a watch kept for possible use of sockpuppetry. (So far, there have also been a few instances of edits identical to those of the user in question being made from an anonymous IP address). Guy Hatton 17:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him. It would have got more attention if you'd put it on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism rather than this overlong page. Secretlondon 12:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• And if you follow that link it says "This talk page is not for reporting vandalism. If you want to report vandalism, go to the page itself instead." ???

Provocative epitaph to Blu Aardvark as Wikipedian

Blu Aardvark started off, as many of us do, as a good earnest newbie Wikipedian. He did a few questionable things and got a taste of some of the Misplaced Pages community's officiousness. He did not handle it well and flamed out in a puerile fashion. He then co-founded a criticism site, quite likely with good intentions, but just stood by when it got out of hand and other members launched some vicious attacks. He had a change of heart and tried to come back to Misplaced Pages, but the community was unforgiving and reacted with anger. This time he left with class and maturity, trapping us in our own officiousness in a nice coup de grace. It sounds as if he has matured and learned from the debacle; let us hope that, in time, the Misplaced Pages community will as well. Martinp 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, his final actions were nothing more than an attempt to sow confusion by playing the "Ohh look at me, I'm making good edits but you're blocking me anyway!" card. That is to say, he wasn't editing because he truly cared about making the encyclopedia better, only to try to make us look bad. --Cyde↔Weys 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We really should avoid talking about other user's motivations, since it is complete supposition. - brenneman 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always found anti-semitic insinuations the work of good, earnest Wikipedians myself; I'm glad we all see eye-to-eye on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL vandal

Some vandal has been repeatedly vandalizing carrot from AOL (using multiple IP addresses). I don't know exactly what to do about it (they have persisted despite multiple warnings, and from the edit descriptions it is obviously vandalism and not some newbie's tests). Mo-Al 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is s-protected. (So now I suppose the AOLuser will simply indulge his squalid little masturbation fantasies elsewhere.) Hoary 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they've started on my talk page. (see User_talk:Mo-Al#Quick question!) Mo-Al 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page can be s-protected too. Do you want that? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Not neccessarily. Can I post a warning on their talk page for that? Mo-Al 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the vandal edits (and the associated reverts) from the history of Carrot, since some of the vandalism was in the edit summaries (which were also quite long and typed in ALL CAPS). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to again. Looks like there's some more vandalism. Mo-Al 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Fixed it again. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

I strongly suggest that this IP be banned. They have recieved multiple final warnings, and recently vandalized Today's Featured Article by blanking it and replacing it with hundreds of lines of nonsense. False Prophet 15:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think maybe my userpage should be protected. It has been vandalized twice now. Mo-Al 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No more often than mine has. Though "vandalized" seems to aggrandize the relevant, er, contributions of this birdbrain, who seems to be under the delusion that various people here (you, me, whoever) are proctologists. Your user page is on my watchlist. -- Hoary 05:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not like the guy's blanking my userpage or anything, but I do think posting obscene comments counts as "vandalism". Mo-Al 05:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

IP adress 64.12.116.14 needs to be banned. It has recieved 29 warnings, 2 blocks, and 10 final warnings. It blanked yesterday's FA and replaced it with obsene comments. False Prophet 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AOL doesn't work that way. The vandal would continue and hundreds of other AOL users would be inconvenienced when their IP hopped through that number. (ESkog) 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, he's vandalized from multiple AOL IP addresses (so, for all I know, all AOL users would be blocked). Mo-Al 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the way Ip adresses work on AOL, but still, This adress repeatedly blanks pages, and I have yet to see a constructive edit. If someone has a problem with it, they can create an account. If there was a reason to believe that this IP was helping Misplaced Pages, I wouldnt request this, but within an hour yesterday, they blanked the same page 5 times, in 2 waves. Once 3 times in 30 minnutes, then waited a few minnutes, then continued to blank it. False Prophet 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem - they can't just create an account :) Logged in users will still be hit by AOL IP blocks (at least under the current blocking system, see WP:BPP). We can't say that IP isn't "helping Misplaced Pages" because that IP changes ownership every few minutes. That's the big problem with AOL and their proxy system - no one can be held accountable for their edits (even more so than regular anon edits). --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Mo-Al should have to put up with that, so I've semiprotected his talk. Mo-Al, please let me know if the person migrates to your userpage (very common move in my experience), then I'll protect that as well. I don't care about most kinds of vandalism to my pages—least of all a blanking—but if some particular kind of idiocy starts to get to me, then I sprotect for a few days. (That reminds me, time to unprotect my pages.) Admins can do that, and a regular user should get to make the same call. (A la lanterne les aristos!) Bishonen | talk 02:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks! I'd appreciate it if you unprotect it in about a week; I figure the guy wil have forgotten about it/given up by then. I'll report if he moves to my userpage. Mo-Al 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was refering in general to the users of the IP adress. All of their edits have since been reverted. I have all ready voiced my opinion on WP:BPP. It isnt like this editor is trying to hide the fact their vandalizing. Their recent edits have listed the text they replaced the article with. I am just sick of tracking down vandals only to find out it's an AOL IP and I cant do anything that will change their editing habits. False Prophet 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bazzajf

I wonder if someone could look into the behaviour of Bazzajf . I am particularly concerned about this threat. I have been working with SP-KP to attempt to get a factual verifiable article and this is the response I get from a POV warrior trying to wreck the verifiability of teh article. Robertsteadman 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a month - looking over his talk page and his contributions, this sort of abuse and harassment has been going on for far too long. --ajn (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Robertsteadman 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to communicate rationally with the user, but Bazzajf seemed determined to continue to insult people despite the fact that the user has just been blocked for a month for it. I've not intention of letting Bazzajf continue to insult people, including myself. Usertalk page fully protected. --Lord Deskana 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bazzajf is relevant here - IP 62.77.181.16 (an Irish government address, apparently) seems to be only used by Bazzajf, and I suspect he'll pop up on his favourite articles again, so it may be necessary to block that too. --ajn (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this makes the connection quite clear - less the edit but the edit summary comment... As does the fact the anon has added stuff to Bazzajf's user page.... If it was me I'd block both - indefinitely!!!!Robertsteadman 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block is uncalled for, although it's fairly obvious he's evading the block right now. Frankly, I thought a month was too much, too, but that's within reason. Bazzajf has shown a complete inability to remain civil, but I don't believe he's beyond help yet, and he does have some value to the encyclopedia. Powers 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we pussy-foot around far too much with people who are consistently and unrepentantly grossly offensive to others. I've blocked the IP address for a month too, since it only ever seems to have been used by him. This is his sixth or seventh block for edit warring or personal abuse (depending on whether you count the penultimate one) in the month he's been here. The last time he was blocked for personal attacks it was for a week, I don't see that a month is at all excessive as a further step. --ajn (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IP address seems to be on a shared computer with several users, including one other registered Misplaced Pages user, so the address can't be blocked. --ajn (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits of Starsweep, created the day after I blocked Bazzajf, I'm convinced they are the same person. There's now a permanent block on Starsweep, and two months on Bazzajf and the IP address. --ajn (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A User:Bazza 7 has just emerged on British Isles. While they seem to be different from User:Bazzajf, looking at their contribution history and userpages, it is a little bit of a coincidence. Vashti 18:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Insane accusations surrounding Armando (blogger)

Will some disinterested parties please review the discussions taking place at Talk:Armando (blogger) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar (2nd nomination) ? A fellow Misplaced Pages administrator has stopped short of accusing me of contributing to an article "designed to attack and harrass its subject". For the record, the subject of this article disclosed their name publicly on NPR over 8 months ago. Thanks in advance, Silensor 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this request, although not in the same language. I also want to know if a Template:Test2a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) left on a user page for the removal of an Template:AfD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from an article under AfD constitutes a removable personal attack. I also invite to review the 1st AfD and the Deletion Review and my contribution to comment whether any of the accusations against me are warranted. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments such as this are exactly what I'm talking about. Silensor 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is policy. You guys want to include information that the subject of the article considers harmful to him - info that is related to his (non-notable) real-life career, not his (possibly notable) blogging career. WP:BLP says "do no harm"...and yet, Silensor et al. insist on including the information. The page was established as an attack page initially. It did it's job - he quit blogging because his identity became widely known (via the Misplaced Pages article). There's a campaign to include information about his his clients and the law firm he works for. The subject of the article considers it a threat to his job. I have no idea why certain editors are so hellbent on including that information. Either it's just raw abuse of power, or a concerted attempt to hurt the guy. And they seem to think that it's "insane" to expect them to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy. Very interesting. Guettarda 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"David Jason Silver" AKA Harvardlaw/69.10.123.4

• 69.10.123.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Harvardlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, who is apparently named "David Jason Silver", has decided that Misplaced Pages exists for his self-promotion. For the past month he's been writing articles about himself and his company, and inserting references to himself into many other articles, always inappropriately and sometimes fraudulently. He has been warned about this many times, but has barely acknowledged any warnings or used the talk pages. He has recreated deleted articles, removed Afd tags, engaged in repeated copyvios/plagiarism, and other inappropriate behavior. Each account has been blocked once for brief periods. I propose that the next time he inserts a self-reference, a copyvio, or other previously-warned behaviors, he get a one-week block on both accounts. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: His "next-time" has already occured: . -Will Beback 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to give the user a 3RR block for edits to Jessica Simpson, already blocked. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

24.137.173.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) He is also using this IP, same pattern of behavior, same articles. --Nobunaga24 01:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

After several more bad edits I blocked the two main accounts. If he uses 24.137.173.67 we can block that too. -Will Beback 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this guy's edits are bordering on the bizarre. At one point, in an article now deleted, he had listed the full name of his 16 year old daughter (not something I would do if I had a 16 year old daughter), and his home address. Not to mention the self-glorifying nature of the edits - he refers to himself as a "war hero" (he was a sailor in peace time on a ship off the Balkans - not exactly in the heat of battle, a "land baron" and "business magnate," a "famous amateur wrestler," a "business partner of Donald Trump," and a "future presidential candidate." Thanks to supplying us with his full name and address, I found out he has a weird trademark infringement lawsuit with Motorola, and equally bizarre "blog" and homepage , and has refered to himself as a "war hero" on numerous forums (just one example). I'm starting to wonder what is going on - is this a delusional individual with aspirations of glory but without the, *ahem*, social skills or intellect to achieve it, or is it someone else intentionally smearing David Silver or trying to make him look foolish? --Nobunaga24 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"At one point, in an article now deleted, he had listed the full name of his 16 year old daughter (not something I would do if I had a 16 year old daughter), and his home address." Oversight the revision, indefinite block the guy. No quarter for privio. --Avillia 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - the girl's name is still in the revision history of one of the articles Harvardlaw revised (if you need the link, I can supply it). Is there a way to remove that since she is a legal minor, and I would suppose not aware that here full legal name was listed for everyone to see?--Nobunaga24 04:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-05/Oversight. Go there, find someone currently editing on the list, and drop them a message. --Avillia 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Giving the name of the daughter sounds like a hostile act, but, then again, I have certainly known some people as ... desperate? delusional? ... as these edits. (I had years of being called "Fake Christian scum" by Steve Winter.) We really need that out, though. If the person is nutty, he may not realize the effects of the history. If it's an attacker, we should protect the victim. Geogre 13:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen, or don't recall, the edit which contains the girl's name. However I'm familiar with most of this editors work here on Misplaced Pages, and have looked at his personal blog. The style and focus are consistent, so I that this account really is Silver. I expect that he would have included his daughter's name due to vanity rather than ill-intent. I am more concerned with his energetic self-promotion, which is so unwarranted that it amounts to vandalism and which is sometimes outright fraudulent. I think that we should give him at least another chance, when his blocks expire, but that if the behavior doesn't change he'll eventually have to be blocked indefinitely. -Will Beback 08:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon 8

I don't want to start a wheel war, especially since I'm not really around that much anymore, but am I the only one troubled by Malo's deletion of eon8 after he was the one who started the AfD? This is a site that's been linked to from lots of places, and been discussed all over the internet. The page was written in NPOV and acouple of my friends on myspace even referred to wikipedia's link on it. Thousands of people are curious to what this is. But the more important part is, the AfD was improperly closed. Thoughts? Redwolf24 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Eon8. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same. There was no consensus in the AfD to delete, even discounting new editors' comments. Kimchi.sg 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we need a sysop to reinstate this article, and pronto. The situation at eon8 (the eon8 experiment having drawn the attention of the DHS and CIA, specifically) is the first reason I've had to contribute outside of Misplaced Pages userspace in almost a year. Last I checked, defaulting your own VfD's to any decision was a "no-no" here. That there's no consensus on how to handle eon8 goes without saying right now, and at the very least, the eon8 article should resume regular editing while a new VfD is conducted. Shem 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Shem, I thought you were sysop. Either way, restored. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hell naw. I'd only started the Texan collaboration, a few other things, but never bothered putting up with RfA's when they were offered on IRC. Dicked around in too many political articles, I reckon. You can still check my userpage's history for the disappearing act, though. Shem 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (Oh yeah, some people're real pissy about guys who drink and edit.)

Well, new afd here. I protected it from anons and new editors who messed up the last AfD. This should be closed round July 6th. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this what deletion review is for? And did anyone tell Malo he was being discussed here? · rodii · 14:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day I've seen way too many improperly handled AfDs lately. Esteffect 02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ackoz blocked

I have blocked User:Ackoz for 3 days for personal attacks and offensive behaviour (mocking users' IQs) on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Trampikey, and for disruptive behaviour in starting an RfC on a completely unrelated administrator whose only involvement was to place warnings for the above behaviour on his/her user page (which this user promptly removed). I have advised this user of ways he can seek to have this block overturned, and if another administrator feels that this block should be overturned, I will respect that. - Mark 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He needed to be in the time out corner, and 3 days is probably good. I endorse the block, although I do think this was a peevish person stamping his foot and might have been neutralized by ignoring. A short block is at least as valid an approach though. (I hate it when people try to be clever and just miss. The belly flop they make is much more noticeable than someone just jumping feet first into the pool.) Geogre 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey George, I was pleased to see you talking about me like this. Now that my block is up, I just want to tell you, that you are the most civil admin, an example for all editors, calling me "peevish person", and I wanted to say I am sorry I tried to be clever. Using the same way of argumenting like Mark used when he blocked me (check yourself) you are telling that I am stupid, right? I shouldn't have tried to be clever, my bad, I will never try again. And.. yup.. many thanks for the belly flop story, that also made me happy. How is that that you can be uncivil and call people "trying to be clever" and you don't get blocked?

PS: My user and talkpages were deleted on my request, and I am not willing to return to wikipedia, I have spent too much time in last month creating and editing articles, but once I stepped into discussion with people around wikipedia, I am not keen on contributing anymore. Wish you luck 85.70.5.66 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:InShaneee blocks against User:Fadix

While I know that another cases involving InShaneee has been brought here recently , I want some Admins to take a look at this one, the Armenian Genocide article talk page(and it is only a matter of time that the article will) is back to its spammed state after my announce of departure, which forced me to return. User:Neurobio is already calling to an 'invasion' of the genocide page using my departure. First by warning a user who is under probation, a probation which includes that article. , then contacting User:Lutherian asking the removal of a sourced information.

I request my talk page materials be undeleted and Administrators look over the rational behind InShaneee warnings for a block and finally the two blocks imposed against me by the same administrator.

The final warning for my first block was because for this edit , and then I was first blocked for 24 hours because of my answer of that warning by this .

For the second block (a block for 3 days), I recieved the warning after another user, Grandmaster, with who I was having a heated debate reported me because he was called POV pusher, so InShaneee warned me for a block which infuriated me and promped my answer. , as a result, InShaneee blocked me for 3 days. . Another administrator has found the rational behind the block shaky (I was not blocked for 36 hours but 3 days). InShaneee answered that the rational was that I made threats of more. . Which is not true as I have clarified in my update note , a note which was later deleted by InShaneee under the pretext that IRC materials should only be posted after an explicit permission by those involved even though he deleted just more than the quotes from the IRC. He also removed his name from my Farewell message , as well as warning again with a language which would have probably prompted a warning by himself had anyone used similar tone. .

Also, just a quick search in both Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan article (the articles in which I and Grandmaster interacted most) reveals that Grandmaster who reported me because of accusation of POV pushing, has in various occasion leveled similar accusations of POV pushing himself. , , , , , , , , , which I have never reported, since it is understandble that in some heated discussions few abrasive words are used and that any users are free to edit them rather than reporting even though as much to be blamed because the other happens to be someone with who you disagree. And also in an answer to InShaneee first blocking I reported similar edits made by Grandmaster. which InShaneee ignored.

Also, while InShaneee has edited a content of my userpage under the pretext that to post such materials it takes consent, I wonder under which Misplaced Pages policies this goes. Because I have specifically maintained who made what statment, while InShaneee may have ground for his consent request, so does, I in my opinion, have the right clarifying what InShaneee had been saying about me in my back, which is simply untrue. Every members should be permitted to defend themselves against what they percieve as false charges, more importantly charges leveled on media's not directly available to the concerned, and if InShaneee had found my clarification not proper to be posted on a members talk page, InShaneee was a concerned party and should have in my opinion reported such behavior to another Administrator rather than deleting the entire sentence. Fad (ix) 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your block expired a week ago. Secondly, you already tried to bring this up on the mailing list as well as requesting an unblock, to which no one responded. Thirdly, what I removed consisted of an IRC chatlog and a personal attack. --InShaneee 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to report an incident, and there are no policies retricting me on the basis that it is an incident dating about a Week ago, you should stick to policies. As for the mailing list, as far as I am aware of, no administrator agreed to the block, the only who even pied attention to the cases disagreed with you. Also, going around the IRC and making up reasons for the Block isen't also the proper conduct of an Administrator. Neither deleting ones talk page content, where the member is answering to false charges. And no, what you removed was not only chat log, to the contrary, most were not. You mostly deleted things which I myself wrote answering to the charges which you leveled against me justifying the block, charges which both of us knew to be untrue. Also, the thing you call personal attack is an opinion posted in my talk page, it is neither a heatlist, neither anything of that sort. I severly question your ability to administer, and say it again, and this was about what I have said there. It is not like I am posting that in an articles namespace, neither in a talk page, but rather an answer. On the other hand, you have restricted me to edit for 72 hours, something which you should apologise for. Fad (ix) 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is for reporting incidents which require immediate administrator intervention, which this does not. --InShaneee 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So according to you, reporting an Administrator abuses does not require immediate administrator intervention but calling someone POV pusher does?

Unless the administrator is 'abusing their powers' at the moment, no. Otherwise, it's something for mediation or RfC. --InShaneee 18:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are. You just have given another warning where there was no warning content. Fad (ix) 18:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a request, not a warning. And I'd consider comparing someone to a Neo-Nazi something that requires action. --InShaneee 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any comparaison of a particular user with neo-nazi. TAT has texts specifically saying that Armenians are the lowest form of life. What do you expect an Armenian to answer. Eupator has answered without attacking any members, and you posted that message in his talk page. Stop distributing such warnings. Fad (ix) 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, warning someone not to call someone else a Neo-Nazi is more than justified, and I most certainly will continue warning, or blocking if neccisary, people who do so. You've been here repeatedly, the mailing list, your talk page, other people's talk page, and yet there is no wave of admins telling me that what I have been doing is wrong. If people don't like getting warned for being incivil, the answer is pretty simple: don't do it. Then, I swear to you, you won't hear a peep out of me. --InShaneee 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A little note to Fadix from the top of this page, Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes.. You might want to adjust your commentary accordingly. Netscott 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I just bolded what is most important. Fad (ix) 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The original block looks like it was warranted to me; from what I can see, InShaneee never edited your user page so I'm not clear what you're talking about (unless you're referring to your talk page); and the most recent "abuse" you've reported appears to be InShaneee telling you not to violate Godwin's Law because it's rude, which seems sensible to me. This thread doesn't seem to indicate there's an incident requiring administrator intervention. JDoorjam Talk 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you haven't looked at the cases the same way as you have looked at what I was talking about (neo-nazi). InShaneee 'warning' about neo-nazi was to Eupator and not to me. As for your opinion concerning the original block, it is much clear that blocks on personal attacks are justified in clear cases of personal attack, not just some accusation of POV edits or telling someone that he was not reading what you were writting. InShanee clearly doesn't make the distinction between empty slanders and some abrasive words in a heated discussion.Also, you haven't said anything about the second block. Fad (ix) 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fadix that the blocks that was imposed on him by InShaneee might have been a bit harsh, eventhough he should indeed mind what he is saying, even when things get "hot" in discussions regarding controversial topics. It's very important always to be as polite as possible. I also agree that it's not nice that inaccurate reasons for blocking Fadix was mentioned on IRC, and I understand that Fadix is pretty upset about this. However, nothing good or constructive will come out of pursuing these issue anymore. As mentioned the block ended more than a week ago, and the best thing I believe would be for Fadix if he would just forget about the whole thing, and get back working on the articles where I and many other editors know that he makes a lot of much needed, very important and valuable contributions. Another thing is that I also believe it would help the situation if InShaneee would let other admins deal with any future issues involving Fadix. -- Karl Meier 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rms125a back again

Indefinitely blocked user Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as Stapletonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and reverting the edits of his "enemies"/vandalizing pages . See for a long list of the wikistalking edits carried out by another of his anonymous IP addresses earlier today. Can an admin block urgently? Demiurge 22:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. Will (message me!) 08:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• He is at it again as GlasgowMurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - could an admin investigate. He is reverting pages in order to intimidate editors also the usual biggoted remarks. Djegan 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rms 25a back again(again)

Seems this guy is up to his old tricks again. This time without hair.John Pairseenthbaeu 23:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Anybody that makes edits like these does not deserve a second chance after been banned indefinitely. Definitely rms - one of his old favs. Djegan 23:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not sure what to use on him either. Permblock, warnings, a stern email, a plea to other administrators, or just ignore himJohn Pairseenthbaeu 00:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RMS has actually been indefinitely banned. Ultimately if a user wants to "reform" themselves and return under an anonoymous account and contribute positively thats their business but when they return and go back to their old vandalism ways and harrassing users by undoing their recent edits (often to previously vandalised versions) then additional bans are required. Their should be no surrender to vandalism, even if its just one user. Else we all ought to leave the project and do something better with our time. Misplaced Pages gets enough flak in the media, new ideas are needed to fight vandalism. Open editing equals open war. Djegan 14:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Elliskev

this guy seems to have a history of uncivility, and also answered quite uncivily on my talk page about a question in the abortion article, calling me a "racist" and a "moron" about a query that i very honestly, politely, and curiously presented. Joeyramoney 00:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't even play around with these kinds of guys. You don't want to get sucked into thier games.Cowboy John Adamson. GGfather:Abraham Lincoln 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A history of incivility is cause for immediate dismissal from Misplaced Pages's archives.Philly CheeseDude 00:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly on the matter of incivility. I have a family with two boys6 mos. and 2 years, and you're damn right I teach them civility!Charlie Daddy 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To user:JoeyRamoney you are not a racist and a moron. All of us at Misplaced Pages are doing our part, yourself included. For this, I applaud you.Mr. Nice Guy Rides Again 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The four above users plus John Pairseenthbaeu above are confirmed socks via a checkuser User:Rebecca done in IRC and they are all blocked. Thanks Jaranda 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh bother. Thanks for noting that here, I have wasted some small effort. KillerChihuahua 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of Germany?

Don't you think this block is a bit long: "14:32, 30 June 2006 InShaneee blocked "84.190.0.0/17 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism through possible open IP)". It actually blocks T-Online, by wide margin the most popular internet provider in Germany, and seems to block larger parts of Germany. I already know of several trusted German wikipedians who are not able to edit on en: anymore. -- southgeist 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The block has been lifted. However, such actions really need to be addressed. At least, if there are problems with quickly-changing IPs, the IP range should be investigated to see who it is allocated to and the block, if necessary, should be limited to a shorter timeframe than a week. In this case, presumably a few hours would even have been sufficient. sebmol 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend lifting the block. Because you know what can happen when Germans get mad. And how bout lifting that edit summary "Getting rid of Germany". It sounds like some sort of reverse racist board.Hans 001 00:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:EQ? Or has that become obsolete? sebmol 01:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"you know what can happen when Germans get mad."

They get angry?Homey 01:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

they produce angry philosophical milestones? dab (ᛏ) 01:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I lifted this earlier and informed InShaneee of the lift. I guess he'll tidy up and block the specific IPs that he wanted to block again. Rob Church has said that this shouldn't be technically possible, and I believe is looking into preventing Mediawiki from allowing such blocks in future. Moral of the story, I guess, is that you need to understand the implications of blocks before doing them, especially when involving ranges. Esteffect 02:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We really need to fix blocking so that registered users aren't normally blocked by IP blocks. This is an ongoing headache. --John Nagle 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, except that that has its own headache (and I say this as an "AOL user," even though I'm not on AOL). If we do that, our ability to stop vandals who merely register a new account name every few minutes will be shot to hell. <shrug> Yet another case where the Push-me-pull-you turns out to be in charge of the world. Geogre 11:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

obviously, it should be impossible to create new accounts from the blocked range. Instead, some sort of "request for account creation" should pop up. I know this is all impeding to the wiki principle, but hey, we have 1.2 million articles to protect here. We'll need more and more finely honed blocking tools over time, such as the ability to block certain IP ranges from certain articles only ("surgical protection") dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Crap alive, my apologies to everyone that had to clean this up. I discussed this a bit in the admin IRC channel before hand, but I guest the real moral is that I should do some serious IP backtracking before rangeblocking. Again, this was entirely my mistake, and it won't happen again. --InShaneee 18:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunholm and scales

I am requesting the assistance of some other admin to help resolve a dispute with Sunholm (talk · contribs). Recently, the stop hand image on {{POV}} and related templates was changed to an unbalanced scales image. On the talk page, 11 users and one anon have expressed support for this change. Prior to this afternoon, 2 users had expressed opposition. Despite this Sunholm had reverted to the stop hand 3 times over 2 days. I told Sunholm that concensus existed at the talk page for changing the image and told him to quit edit warring. At which point he added a message to the talk page saying "Stop hand.svg is far better. It's a warning template, after all" and reverted again.

At this point, I blocked him for 3 hours for edit warring and POINT. (Keep in mind that the back and forth over the image was occuring across multiple POV oriented templates). Following the block expiry he immediately reverted again, with no further comment (this time also breaching 3RR).

This editor, previously known as Sunfazer (talk · contribs), seems to have a history of fighting over templates (see contribs in Template space). In addition, he is presently engaged in edit wars over {{peerreview}} and {{Misplaced Pages is Communism}} that are unrelated to the stop hand issue.

However, I feel my neutrality is compromised by having expressed opinions favoring the scales image. Arguably, I should not have even issued the block that I did, though I feel Sunholm's behavior is out-of-bounds and is exacerbated by his unresponsiveness. I apologize for not seeking a neutral party sooner, and would appreciate it if someone else would take a look at this issue. Dragons flight 01:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have issued a 24-hour 3RR block on Sunholm; along with it I'll note that while you haven't exceeded 3RR that I can see, DF, you're coming closer in a sterile edit war like that than I'd like to see. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is one reason why I would like to distance myself from this issue. Dragons flight 02:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:Jtdirl blocked Sunholm for 48 hours on this issue. -- ADNghiem501 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagerism

Hello,I hope I am doing this correctly. I need help with a problem Jesster79 began building an episode list for In the Heat of the Night recently.I thought it was great until I recognized the material as being from tv.com (formerly TVTome). If it was a little I wouldn't complain, but it's a lot. This is the evidence, it is quite lengthy.Please pardon the sloppiness as I was pressed for time while doing it.

Our conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jesster79

Note that while he says he is using his own words he has really just changed,re-arranged or added words to the material at tv.com(formerly tvtome)which has existed since 2000-1

This is a cut and paste comparing Jesster79's work (summaries and trivia) with that of tv.com.

This can be verified through the links for the episode list at both sites.

TV.COM Episode List - http://www.tv.com/in-the-heat-of-the-night/show/656/episode_listings.html

Wiki Episode List: http://en.wikipedia.org/In_the_Heat_of_the_Night_episodes

Also please see Jesster's Contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Jesster79

This really tells the story.Look how quickly the work was done.He just cut, pasted and slightly altered.

Note:At tv.com the notes and trivia appear below the summary.California12 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence can be found on my user page as it was apparently to longCalifornia12 03:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with In the Heat of the Night episodes - theres not really a lot that can differ in a list of episodes, but the date formats in that article are different to the ones on tv.com. As for the episode articles theirselves, they don't look copied to me (although some might be based on the tv.com descriptions - it should probably be cited as a reference) but I'm no experienced copyvio spotter. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 05:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the synopsis at tv.com and in some cases he has barely changed anything.The date format is not what I'm talking about.Synopsis on episode guides are usually vary greatly.The story is the same but the wording is different.Please look at the comparison here titled Evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/User:California12California12 05:34, 2 July 2006

(UTC)

This matter has been resolved, the person has removed the material in question.California12 01:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ForestH2

Could admin investigate ForestH2 and GrasslandT? The reason is these two ID edits samething in article Pansy Parkinson, and Gregory Goyle, also some of edits are disruptive edits. and Be aware on GrasslandT, because this ID also edits in disruptive way. OK, Let's me explain about these problems. First I don't know User:ForestH2 is. He still made personal attack. See this is an evidence. ForestH2, ForestH2 (talk · contribs · count). But He first apologized me for sending me message so much and made personal attack. when I put some questions on article's discussion's page, He also asks me everything that I did on Misplaced Pages. I personally don't care of him. He just bothers me. Could any admin help me on that? First I discussed this problem with User:bunchofgrapes. *~Daniel~* 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

...Who whistles a merry tune and runs to get fitted for a straightjacket whenever topics involving Daniel5127 or ForestH2 come up. I've yet to get a cogent response from either of them on any topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Bunchofgrapes#ForestH2 -- Samir धर्म 06:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm still here, I'd like to point out User_talk:NSLE#Subpage, about this revert I made for a redlinked RFCU. NSLE 14:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I don't have time to reply soon but I will leave a quick message since I'm on a trip. The edits on Gregory Goyle are not disruptive. There taken from what J.K Rowling says in the 6th Harry Potter book. I know GrasslandT- he and me both think were making correct edits here and I don't know the last time I made an attack on Daniel. I am going to tell him about Gregory Goyle edits. Have any of you read the book? Check one of the last chapters and see what I keep reverting? And how does GrasslandT edit in a disruptive way? All he does is edit Gregory Goyle in the correct way. I've had enough of this. This is a very stupid conversation to be having. My edits are correct, proof is in the book. And I haven't bothered Daniel since I talked with Bunchofgrapes. I've talked with Daniel about this and I'm going to talk with him more. Hopefully some one's read the Half-Blood Prince so they can see that I'm the right one and that this is a stupid conversation to be having. I'm going to leave a note on Daniel's page and Bunchofgrapes page. Sorry if I don't reply fast- I'm away on busniess. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 18:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse

I feel like I was mistreated and humiliated by administrator (])

He warned me not to use aggressive and uncivil language but he himself did it before blocking me. Such as:

` :::I will warn you one last time to keep your tone civil and not to make accusations. Also, you are not 'allowed' anything. If I see evidence that you are doing ANY blind reverts to circumvent consensus, no matter what the number, you will be blocked for purposeful disruption. --InShaneee 20:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) `

Please refer to my talk page to see it.

This message was posted after I , as a proud wikipedian as any of you , stated that according to Wiki Rules I can revert an article 3 times a day. And then he quoted : Also, you are not "allowed" anything.

Then for a discussion in the talk page I was blocked. It can be read from the link : this

I accept that my language is harsh and heated. However, if any of you regard to the discussed page, you can clearly reach more uncivil language ( even and especially in the Archives regarding user Fadix. ) so I feel that I was mistreated in this case.

Also, I did not clearly attack anyone, while I was blocked for personal attacks, what I did was to defend my point in a case which another user clearly (to my opinion) missed a point. If all of my posts are read, you will see that I am more or less a legal user. I may have crossed the line for a couple of times but this does not require a block or humiliation.

Furthermore, I admit that I am a new user, but if you refer again to my talk page, you can see the post by the same admin :

"please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Misplaced Pages articles. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --InShaneee 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)"

This is the first warning I get. I know how to edit articles. I know how to use Wiki at that level. But he tries to humiliate me by referring to "sandbox". Also it is interesting to note that eventhough this was supposed to be my first warning, it is ferocious. It is angry, and the warning is not a friendly one.

Also , I thought before being blocked by this admin. I was allowed to be bold in editing, I learned that as a major principle of wikipeida. But now I see that principles work under the tyranny of some admins. Please do not ban me for this too. I am afraid now, I feel suppressed.

I checked the talk page of this admin to see that he is very infamous for his repeated blocking of others too.

If becoming an admin justifies this kind of power in Misplaced Pages, I do not consider Wiki as a communal organization, which favors its citizens rights.

I hope you wont tell me that I am not allowed anything too, like a prisoner guard.

You guys are not that kind of people right ?

sincerely

ps : In case it gets archived I would like to post the te last two messages this admin has got :

Cculber007

Hi InShaneee!

I spoke with Cculber007 via email and he pledged not to make any threats or personal attacks on the wiki anymore if he is unblocked. I was thus thinking it would be a good idea to give him a second chance; he may very well one day become a valuable contributor. What do you think? -- Where 22:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

84.190.0.0/17

Hey. You blocked this last night. Now I nominated you for adminship so I know you're a good user, but please read up on blocking-related stuff. Your block was in good faith, but you actually blocked half of Germany. ;) I've undone it, so you may want to look at the IPs you wanted to block with it. :p Esteffect 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That said, I think you inadvertently discovered a Mediawiki vulnerability. Some developers are saying your block shouldn't have even been possible due to the effects it can have. Esteffect 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

END OF MESSAGES --Sokrateskerem 05:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC(

Note that exactly who said what in the above is rather confusing. The history and the signatures don't quite seem to line up. Some edits are by the anon 128.211.201.37 (talk · contribs) --John Nagle 06:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary: If other people are rude, I am allowed to be rude too. I have enforceable rights, including the right to three reverts a day. I think perfectly reasonable warnings are "ferocious" and "angry".

The warnings were for leaping straight into the Armenian Genocide article and claiming that it's a hoax, and the 24 hour block was for personal attacks - this sort of thing, I assume. Both seem reasonable to me. Sensitive little flowers shouldn't get mixed up with holocaust denial, or they will get their feelings hurt. --ajn (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

hah, I think it is self-evident that "do not bite the newbies" does not extend to socks, trolls and angry holocaust-deniers :) dab (ᛏ) 14:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked for its own good to prevent further instances of abuse directed against its "harmless" holocaust denial. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that these were posted from an IP while he was blocked? --InShaneee 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The two messages up there by me are from InShaneee's talk page, and I'm not involved in this dispute. :/ Esteffect 14:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think personally that the guy is a sock, but for the sake of assuming good faith, I will pretend he is not. And here, my opinion has nothing to do with me having something against InShaneee. Supposing that Sokrateskerem is a new user, he should have known for how long he was blocked(InShaneee should have told him), new users generally don't know how to check their block log to know for how long they have been blocked, InShaneee told him he was blocked, but not much more information as to when he could edit back again(unless I have missed something). We don't need 'administration' in the Armenian genocide page, for warning members for personal attacks, this in my opinion is unimportant, any users can edit a personal attack. Francis and other users were doing a great job editing them in the past. I will not go as far as to say that InShaneee decision to moderate the genocide page was to limit the damages after he realised what would happen if I am not there. For what we need administrator there, is to track possible socks (and they abound) and requesting checkusers, we need administrator to delete irrelevencies which have nothing to do with the article. We need administration to remind people what is NPOV. Those things directly affect the quality of the article. I don't think anyone was really offended by Sokrateskerem, of course before he posted the remark about InShaneee IQ, but this could have been prevented, by just removing personal attacks from the articles talk page. Fad (ix) 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. However, I wasn't initially warning him as an administrator, obviously, since as you stated, this is not an action strictly relegated to administrators. Since I'd seen a lot of troublesome editing coming from there in the past, I simply wanted to step in and see if I could help stem the tide. It was only when he continued past being warned that I took action as an admin. --InShaneee 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Serdar Argic? Is that you?Homey 18:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, he doesn't have the same style. But Serdar did indeed register an account here on Misplaced Pages to remove the connection between his true name and his nom de plume. He most certainly is still contributing under another pseudonym or an open proxy. For Sokrateskerem, it is hard to tell if he is someone else, I feal it, but since I don't have evidences, I will have to 'pretend' assuming good faith. Fad (ix) 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THREE REVERTS PER ARTICLE PER DAY. 3RR is a safeguard, not a right. Werdna (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:BenH

BenH (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has a history of making edits to TV station articles which are rejected as inaccurate or unsourced by other editors on those articles. He has not replied to numerous messages on his Talk page, or replied to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BenH. I left a warning that if he continued to edit against consensus and not engage in Talk I would block him for disruption. He continued, so I have blocked him indefinitely until such time as he starts engaging in Talk. Any admin should feel free to unblock him as soon as he shows some signs of responding to comments and criticisms. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is someone sabotaging my account?

Either the watchlist function is malfunctioning or someone has been hacking into my account. There are a number of entries on my list which I did not put there. Most of them are gibberish: 111111111112222222222222, 545hj6jh5u67hu54h, 56666666666666jjjjjjjjjjjjjj, Gggggggggggnnnnnnnnnnnnnn55555555555, Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Jhjfgh, Jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjfuuuuurncvjdkkkkkkkkkkkkkks, Kikytmr, Yhjrnr584nbth5845jkfj48, and Yyyyyyyyyyyyy555555555. Another, Uuuuuuuuusssssssssssssseeeeeeeeerrrrrr, shows demonstrable intelligence. More suspicious is the fact that User:Beebeep and User:Unforgiving, who do not even exist, have shown up on my list, as well as User:Thames, who was created only today (July 2, 2006). If I appear to flip out or vandalize a bunch of articles, someone has simply taken over my account. Otherwise, they have only been able to access my watchlist functioning. I do not know who to ask about assistance in this matter. If you do, please inform me. --TJive 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Change your password (I think you can do that) Mo-Al 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway explained to me that most of these are probably due to vandal moves, but this does not explain the user pages to my satisfaction, particularly Thames, who was created a couple of hours ago. Can someone look into those? --TJive 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a password change is needed at this point. It would appear to be some exploit of the watchlist rather than a general takeover, if it can't be explained otherwise. --TJive 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would change it anyway, just to be safe (can't be too careful). Mo-Al 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User pages are like any other page, and can be moved to and added to your watchlist the same way. Also, if a User talk: page is moved, the associated User: page gets added to your watchlist. NoSeptember 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why aren't there records of any of these moves, if that's what they were? Shouldn't there be a function to delete auto-watchlist additions if the pages themselves are deleted for vandalism? --TJive 16:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a record, but you can't see the deleted edits if you are not an admin. If you could see the deleted edit, it would tell you which page was moved there, and you could find the move listed in the history of that source article. NoSeptember 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Beebeep is a deleted redirect to User talk:Bishonen (a leftover from some pagemove vandalism), hence why that weird userpage name is in your watchlist. I haven't investigated the rest of them but I think they can all be explained in exactly the same way. I wouldn't be worried at all. --Cyde↔Weys 16:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to see what move was relevant to User:Thames? It seems that he used to be a contributor, as his signature exists on a number of pages, but his contributions and logs are gone, as if merged to another user. The fact that this user was (re)created a matter of a couple hours ago is what mainly set my alarm bells off. --TJive 16:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be helpful: --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking at this. But I'm still not seeing anything that looks familiar, so I don't know why he was there. I did have Bishonen on my watchlist though. Does Thames go by another name now, where he has his talk and contributions located? --TJive 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have chatted with Thames many many months ago, hence it is on your watchlist. None of us remember everyone we have ever interacted with. If a user wants their page deleted, we shouldn't go about revealing all the details about who they are and so forth unless they want us to do so. NoSeptember 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

TJive, not to worry. Most of those entries are there due to your having my page and talk page on your watchlist. When vandals move them to new article titles they get added to your watchlist. I think you'll find most of the mystery entries in the edit histories, , . No good deed goes unpunished. Cheers, -Will Beback 17:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, ironically I had not considered your pages. --TJive 17:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This may also be helpful: . Eugène van der Pijll 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I had posted a comment to his talk page months ago, and it was since merged into Perceval's. Also, it appears that this was the vandal that caused both of the other users. Several misunderstandings at once created a bad impression, but it's cleared up now. Thanks all. --TJive 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, now we can abandon this thread and get back to work. This link (173) may be helpful. NoSeptember 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu deleting AfD notices and moving pages while AfD is in progress

User has deleted 2 afd notices: . and procceded to move the pages while they were under AfD. User has a history of violating wiki procedures, is argumentative, has a prior complaint filed against him above WP:AN/I#I_have_been_having_a_dispute_lately..., and is exhausting the community's patience. He has flooded the Talk:F-14 Tomcat page with pages and pages of copy/pasted text, and despite continuous advice to heed wiki policies on reliable sources and original research, doesn't seem to take the advice to heart . I hae ceased to edit war with him, but despite repeated cirticism from other editors about the veracity of his claims and the methods and accuracy of his research (browse the last few comments on or on his talk page, and a request for mediation in progress, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation, he has continued to edit the page in question and has spread his misinformation to the VFAX page.

Administrators may in special instantces Ignore all Rules, but the same does not apply to editors and I amd tired of his belligerence. --Mmx1 16:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the tag on List of projects considered to be unusually successful in science and engineering and warned him. --Sam Blanning 16:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Block of Alienus by Will Beback for 3 days

We've had issues in the past with blocks of Alienus being lifted without sufficient consensus first. Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three days for recurring personal attacks. Although there was a particular incident that caused Will to review, Will states on Alienus's talk page that the block is for a pattern evident in his interactions, not a specific incident. In response to an {{unblock}} I have reviewed and I concur with the block. Some back and forth has occurred in which I'm accused of not being impartial, along with some possible mischaracterisation of past events surrounding previous blocks. I think further review by other editors may be warranted. I would ask again that consensus be reached here before any blocks are overturned. (note use of the vandal template here is just because it gives the blocklog easily and I don't recall another one off hand, no assertion of vandalism is specifically intended in this case) Lar 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for this block not to remain in place. Looking at the history, there certainly seems to be a pattern of incivil behaviour. Alienus, please take some time out, and come back with a new resolve to get along with other editors. -- sannse (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. We've been down this road before, and there's no reason Alienus can't try to be a little more polite. --InShaneee 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Alienus has continued to abuse his user talk page to propagate his personal attacks even while blocked, I've requested that the page be protected. .

The unblock-en-l mailing list is operational and he can argue his case there. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the block is ridiculous. Calling someone an "edit warrior" gets you blocked for three days? Bizarre. He is being held to impossibly high standards, and is practically being stalked by some, who appear ready and eager to pounce at the slightest infraction. ^^James^^ 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You sound just like Alienus. Will made it quite clear that it is the pattern of incivility, not that one incident that resulted in the block. Alienus's constant pattern of incivility and then claims that the rest of the project just isn't assuming good faith at his behavior was likely to exhaust the patience of the community sooner or later. As for the conspiracy against him, yes, there is a conspiracy here against uncivil users, and he is one of them. pschemp | talk 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That one incident is what resulted in the block. Yes, context was also cited, but not explicitly - it's all rather vague. There are a number of warnings and overturned blocks for trivial or nonexistant offences on his talk page. Not much substance there, just a lot of hot air.

I sound just like Alienus? What's that supposed to mean? Is that a passive aggresive personal attack?

Considering you and Lar were recently involved in an altercation with Alienus, no wonder this appears to be personal. Your posting here to vehemently defend a ridiculous block certainly affirms such an impression.

You say you are against users whom you consider uncivil (rather than incivility itself), and that Alienus is one of those users. Therefore any infraction, no matter how slight, should be used to get rid of him. That is what is happening here. ^^James^^ 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just keep breathing that paranoia gas. You'll be fine. pschemp | talk 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that one its true it wasn't constructive so let me rephrase: No. Also, I never said, "users whom I consider uncivil." I said, "uncivil users", which has nothing to do with my personal opinion, nor does it imply that it does, or that the slightest infraction should be used to get rid of him. Those are your words, not mine.pschemp | talk 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Case in point. That's quite insulting. And you are an admin, no? ^^James^^ 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't like my behavior? You are welcome to lodge a complaint. pschemp | talk 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with the original block... Al seems to be inducing other editors and admins to behave badly in response, which is not constructive. WP:CIVIL applies all the time. Take a deep breath and don't respond if that's your first reflex... Georgewilliamherbert 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note: Template:Vandal redirects to Template:Userlinks. People should really start using the latter to avoid that kinds of conflict. --Avillia 20:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've posted this here as well as Al's talk page as it summarizes how I feel about the current situation.

I have had worse said to me by others and have put it down to a learning experience. I also have been effectively bullied by other editors who seemed invisible to the admins. The warnings by Tony Sidaway are worthless as he has nothing short of wikistalked Al and made it his personal task to sort him out. He also called Al an "edit warrior" without getting so much as a slap on the wrist. I hate to go down the same route as Al but I have not been impressed with the conduct of any of the the admins that have so far commented on the block. From previous experience none of them have shown the impartiality or clear thinking necessary to fullfil this role in a just manner. They exacerbate situations also - but this is much more worrying as they should be examples of conduct as admins. Al is an easy target as he does say the wrong thing sometimes and has upset some powerful admins by disagreeing with them on their pet topics. I avoid conflict where I possibly can but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is just giving in to the "playground bullies" and a bit of digging my heels in on controversial subjects would help to remove some of the systemic bias that is so prevalent. Al works on the sort of subjects that get heated and to be honest the level of comment I've seen is nicer than your average political party spat. As long as it doesn't get completly out of hand a bit of "growing up" on the part of some editors wouldn't go amiss. We make a big thing of the fact that Misplaced Pages isn't censored for minors and then get all squeamish about words like "edit warrior". Sophia 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about an editor here whose favourite thing is to point out how people are hypocrites, yet he is one himself. Its the hypocrrite calling the hypocrite a hypocrite, which is not terribly original. Admins are not perfect, and nowhere is that a requirement of the job or is that claimed, however, they have been around long enough to show that they make logical decisions most of the time. If they don't, so what? If their judgement is terribly off, the community will correct it and that is the exact same for regular editors. I am really sick of the us vs. them mentality being shown here. Of course the inmates in a prison claim they are all innocent and the victims of a conspiracy and that the guards are abusing them. Never mind most of them are guilty as sin. As for "I have not been impressed with the conduct of any of the the admins that have so far commented on the block." Please show me where User:sannse has done anything questionable.pschemp | talk 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could have said it better than Sophia. There is a pattern of incivility here, that's true. But that pattern appears to be that Admins can say whatever they want and nothing is done. When an outspoken editor says one little thing that an Admin (who already has something against the editor) doesn't like, wham! Slapped with a big ol' BLOCK. This has been going on long enough, and it is about time that people start to speak up! Until recently, I, like Sophia, tried to avoid conflict. But right now, I just can't imagine letting this go. If Misplaced Pages is going to be worth anything in another few months, trigger-happy Admins must be curbed. We need more people to tell it like it is, and Alienus is being punished repeatedly for doing just that. In the past couple of weeks, my impression of Misplaced Pages's Administrators has been going seriously downhill. I really wish that someone could show me that it doesn't have to be this way, but this has not happened yet. And I am beginning to think that it never will. There are serious problems here, and one editor who sometimes gets himself into heated situations is nothing compared to the bigger picture. These problems really need to be addressed, before we lose our best editors. Please, get off your high horses and start acting like we are all equal human beings. romarin 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And, Pschemp, thank you so much for proving our point. Comparing lowly editors to prison inmates is just fabulous. romarin 21:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My analogy is quite obvious for editors who don't follow the rules repeatedly, not the ones who behave. Oh noes! trigger happy admins! Oh the horror! I'm sorry but wikipedia will be the sum of human knowledge, which means that somewhere, someone else has the same knowledge as you, so I don't buy the "we are going to run off our best editors" shtick. If only one person knows something, it isn't verifiable anyway, and certainly not published. We shouldn't run off good editors, but no one here is irreplacable. pschemp | talk 21:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp's apparent lack of concern for editors is somewhat disturbing. We are all volunteers here. We give our time freely to help build a great encyclopedia, and without us, there would be no Misplaced Pages. Abusing us is, in the end, only going to hurt the project. Exhibiting a disregard for issues of justice, as well as viewing editors as nothing more than knowledge-producing machines is quite troubling as well, especially coming from an Administrator who is supposed to be setting an example that the rest of us can follow. Editors, especially good ones, are valuable because they make decisions, they use their judgement to decide what knowledge should go into an article, and what should be left out. They avoid inserting POV, and they attempt to curb POV pushers who would only twist or censor an article. It seems to be these editors who often are most heavily targeted by Admins, particularly the trigger-happy, apathetic ones. I find it sad that certain Admins would exhibit inflamatory, uncivil, rude, and unsympathetic tendancies when their motives are questioned. It's true that we all make mistakes. It is a virtue, however, to be able to admit to such errors in a civil manner. I simply don't see this happening here. romarin 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out to me for which of Alienus's most recent 9 blocks he admitted making an error? I can't seem to find that. Nandesuka 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out to me where I said that he had? I can't seem to find it, nor do I remember having typed it. romarin 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the logic of Nandesuka's comment seems to have escaped you, let me spell it out. I'm quite sure he is refering to your suggestion that "It is a virtue, however, to be able to admit to such errors in a civil manner." and pointing out that Alienus has never done this.pschemp | talk 22:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment was made in reference to certain Admins; I wasn't talking about Alienus and thus Nandesuka's statement was irrelevant. But, since you are all so quick to point your fingers, let me show you one instance in which he has admitted error and offered an apology . Would you like more, or are you done with the baiting and hypocritical finger-pointing? romarin 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i'm quite sure he hasn't apologized for any of the latest incidents. If you were referring to me, i was simply interpreting a comment for you, not making any accusations, so calling me a hypocrite is a bit much.pschemp | talk 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Section break (1)

Misplaced Pages is loosing good people all the time - they leave or disengage from particular articles because of an increasingly uncivil enviornment, or they determine to stay and "fight it out," adopting a hostile approach, and reinforcing the vicious cycle. Constant low-grade incivility is corrosive, and it is disruptive. If we let it continue, we end up with an enviornment where it is the norm. Tom Harrison 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. As leaders, I think Admins should be the first to be cited for incivility, even if that means that their powers get taken away. They are supposed to be setting an example, and they so far seem to be setting a bad one. romarin 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us why Alienus's behaviour doesn't deserve a block instead of screaming about admin abuse? His behaviour is the real topic here, and I've yet to see it defended. pschemp | talk 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So if Alienus were an admin you'd say he needed to be blocked? or just de-sysoped? I support the block, if that wasn't clear. Tom Harrison 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that if Alienus were an admin he would not be blocked. Admins seem to be given cart blanche for being uncivil with impunity. The double standard is most clear in this case since all Al did was refer to someone as an "edit warrior?!" I have see countless times where even admins refer to "regular" editors in exactly that manner with not a peep out of anyone about its not being civil. Clearly Al is being singled out, targeted in a manner that is not based upon equal standards. This is another example of admin abuse having the effect of driving out the critical editors, who are among the best and brightest. Many admins seem to have formed something of a club, like some corrupt police unit. The prison vs. guard analogy is a particularly disturbing insight into the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. My opinion of admins has been going down fast (there are a few good ones), and this is just another nail on the coffin of the admin system. Why are so many admins of such low quality? If this perpetuates itself, Misplaced Pages is in trouble unless it gets rid of admins, or seriously checks their abusive pratices, throws out those who have shown to be terrible examples of the ideals of an ideal wikipedian.64.121.40.153 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that those people concerned with Alienus' approach to editing open an RfC or ArbCom case. This block/unblock cycle is neither fair to the user nor helpful to the project. Jkelly 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with trigger happy admins is that they are more likely to pull the trigger on people they disagree with, or have personal issues with. This block is such a case. ^^James^^ 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

fiddlesticks. Alienus has been warned about behaviour like this User_talk:Alienus#Glad_you_are_not_me and this User_talk:Alienus#To what do I owe... neither of which, I note, involve any of the admins involved in warning him in the past, in fact GTBacchus was one of his defenders in the past. You're being quite disingenious trying to paint this as some sort of big bad admin conspiracy. The guy is uncivil, he's been warned, he's not stopping and I think it's time that you all (James and Romarin) stopped too because you're way off the mark. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Come now Lar, admin-baiting is a delightful sport for the whole family! Seriously, though, we've got to stop acting as though there's ever an excuse for incivility. I support Will's block. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lar, regarding the posts you cite, the first is obviously a joke. And in the second, GTBacchus calls Alienus a dick! And you have the nerve to call me disingenious (see WP:NPA). It seems any accusation will do, no matter how insubstantial. Throw enough mud and some of it is sure to stick. And please refrain from invoking the word conspiracy, as it is usually used pejoratively to tar opponents as tin foil hat wearing loons. Ie: It's a personal attack. ^^James^^ 23:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy! Paranoia! Admin Abuse! Personal attack! pschemp | talk 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Voice of All removed this as not constructive and he's probably right. Its true, I am not perfect. I apologize. pschemp | talk 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, pschemp. This is precisely what I'm talking about. Admins can't even control themselves while discussing a case of alleged incivility! And yet Alienus gets blocked for three days for referring to someone as an "edit warrior"?! It's ridiculous. But it goes to show: editors that are disliked are held to impossibly high standards, while admins can hurl insults with immunity.

Case in point: pschemp insults me above, then dares me to try to do something about it. Not a pretty picture I'm afraid. ^^James^^ 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense begets nonsense. pschemp | talk 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What is nonesense is that a user got blocked for three days for calling someone an "edit warrior". ^^James^^ 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Red beams go quietly to visa giant LEGO cats. pschemp | talk 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the blocks in question, I'd like to again encourage all administrators to attempt to set an example of civil behavior. --brenneman 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let sensation lewis beauty check design in fan spray. pschemp | talk 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, you have seemed reasonable to me in the past, but you are losing me here.Timothy Usher 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my way of saying I've given up trying to explain things logically, as it doesn't seem to matter. Random strings of nonsense are being considered incivil now and that's a bit absurd. pschemp | talk 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, pschemp, but that's just not going to fly. You state above "nonsense begets nonsense". Thus, you are implying that every time you start spouting nonsense, it is because someone else did first. And calling the concerns of editors "nonsense" is not exactly civil. Just because you don't agree with these concerns does not make them nonsense, and it is quite disingenuous to suggest that those of us who question you are being absurd. If you have actually "given up trying to explain things logically", maybe you should let this one go and allow other editors and admins to take over. No one said you have to contribute here, and frankly, your incivility is not helping. romarin 20:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think I was so uncivil, please file an RFC. That's what the community is here for. Of course you are free to interpret my comments however you wish, whether that interpretation is correct or not.pschemp | talk 00:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Section break (2)

Al and I have clashed in the past — like others he disageed with I was accused of having a bias for trying to achieve NPOV. (One of Al's inabilities is to understand that his edits are can be less neutral than he himself thinks. But then we all have that failing in some form or other. It can be a particular problem with Al.) I agreed with him however (much to Al's shock!) that Tony's behaviour towards him was prevocative and unnecessarily confrontational. Al can be tactless, while believing that he is being tactful, and provocative while believing that he is being the exact opposite. In this case, having read the comments that led to the block, my reaction is to think that, taken in isolation, they would not warrant a block. However taken in the context of numerous other comments over a long period, and past warnings to stop, a block is understandable. He does push it a bit and a block, unfortunately, was in my opinion only a matter of time. I would hope that Al might get the message and reign in his tendency to preach and judge. We all do it from time to time (I'm waving both hands in the air at this stage. I know I do it). Al tends to be his own worst enemy. There is however a distinction between someone trying to provoke and offend for negative reasons, and those who do it out of a genuine and well motivated belief that they are doing the "right thing". Al is IMHO one of the latter. He needs to ease off on the attack comments. If he does this block, I hope, will be a once-off and not something constantly to be repeated. FearÉIREANN\ 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 04:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is much too late for this to be a "once-off". This is the user's tenth block, the previous blocks having been caused by personal attacks, incivility, or edit warring. -Will Beback 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the scale of that. That puts a different complexion in things. I created a template recently that covers a user with multiple blocks called {{blocknumbers}}. In it admins can fill out details of the number of past blocks and warnings a user has, the length of the most recent block and an explanation of the general context if required. It can be placed on the page of someone who is being blocked regularly so that other admins, in dealing with their behaviour, knows at a glance the stats, rather than having to go through their talk page and archives to see what their past behaviour was like. Perhaps you should put the template on Al's talk page so that the context is clear for everyone to see. It also has had the benefit of bringing home to perpetual offenders who may be in denial as to their behaviour just how many warnings and blocks they have received. FearÉIREANN\ 04:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review Al's blocks and you will see that the case is not as clear as Will Beback would have it. Also pschemp's prison analogy is far more worrying that he realises - see read the Stanford Prison Experiment to see how the situation we have here can go very very wrong. The truth is that admins are very reluctant to block each other and unpopular editors get blocks for the same actions that admins cheerfully get away with (see my previous post). If you protest your block you are a labeled a trouble maker or accused of making PA's by effectively calling the admins incompetent and I have seen Al's blocks increased in this way. Too much trouble comes from people being "trigger happy" about what is written. One person's offense is anothers wierd sense of humour/reaction to stress. This is an international project and all the time I see underestimated how cultural differences affect the way we approach situations. I'm British so I'm very good at being polite and queuing for my turn to edit 8-). I personally find some US editors "full on" and almost aggressively direct but I have also met many Americans in person who come across the same way. However it is just their manner, their hearts are in the right place and as long as you stick to the facts and sources you should be able to work together. If the integrity of the encyclopedia is most important what we should be looking at here is whether Al was adding to it when he was accused of "edit warring" or whether he was disrupting it. I have not agreed with him on everything but I have never had a problem with him. In fact I'm able to work with several "problem" editors just by not rising to the bait and sticking to what the verifiable sources have to say on a subject.

Now his talk page is protected which is ridiculous especially as it looks from the history as if one admin added a comment by bypassing the protection giving Al no chance to respond . If you repeatedly treat someone unfairly you are going to see a "pattern" of them resisting the system. I have been fully convinced that the last few blocks were intended to create an impressive history so as to work towards removing him and have seen nothing here yet to disuade me of that position. As for the juvenile comments by some admins above - what can I say other than that they no show empathy or understanding of the current situation and should be given LEGO blocks instead of admin tools. Sophia

Sophia, I appreciate your concerns. Certainly some people are odd. Heck, all of us have our eccentricities. I think that Misplaced Pages is extremely tolerant of different points of view, and of different behaviors. However we have a project: to create an encyclopedia by consensus. We've determined that civility is a necessity for this project to succeed, and so it has become one of our policies. Civility isn't an option, it's a requirement. Boorish behavior is not part of the expected norm. You are exactly right, we should focus on the edits, not the editors. Unfortunately, Alienus does not do that. He calls editors names. He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". Because he attacks editors he's been chastened repeatedly by a variety of editors. Personally, I think that Alienus makes some positive contributions to the project. But we cannot and do not tolerate incivility. Lastly, Misplaced Pages works by consensus. Eight different admins have now blocked Alienus. I'm sure it isn't a record, but it is a large number. At this rate he is in danger of exhausting the community's patience. If you appreciate his involvement in the project, then I suggest you counsel him to avoid behavior that could lead to a future, and perhaps indefinite, block. -Will Beback 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There can be no good faith extended to Alienus. He engages in the defense and avocation of trolls being let loose upon our fair wiki. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not take part in a rehabilitation project for disruptive people. One must really question Alienus's devotion to the encyclopedia when he/she speaks so freely of supporting that which would harm wikipedia. He's a openly admitted supporter of trolls. He, and the trolls he supports that would bring harm to this project, must be silenced and denied access to our website. -Zero 09:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, Misplaced Pages isn't some sort of fortress of civilisation that must be defended against barbarians. Once you start thinking like that, you've bought into the "battle" paradigm that is the root of about 85% or all conflict. And as to the number of editor who've blocked someone, there is an undeniable "pile on" effect where every block gets easier to justify, and people stop counting the number of unblocks. This is not a commentary on this case in particular, just that it's a terrible metric to use in judging how much of a "problem" an editor is. --brenneman 09:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Alienus has been unblocked four times. Two were to remove blocks, one was to lengthen a block and another was to change the blocking admin. I note that one of those unblocking admins has now posted to Alienus's page endorsing this block, if for nothing else the attacks that Alienus has written on his talk page. -Will Beback 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, consider that one of the unblocking administrators did so in the face of three administrators (beside the blocking admin) who supported the block, and afterwards expressed regret for going against consensus on the block. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When an editor supports that which harms the project, I think it a valid reason to project the encyclopedia indeed. There is no battles and punishments on wikipedia. That's not the point of this website. When an editor is percieved as disruptive, they are blocked. And if they continue they are blocked longer. As editors of a project to freely distribute knowledge and assist those who seek it, there is no leeway for nonsense. To say wikipedia is not to be protected agaisnt this sort of stuff is entirely inapropriate. -Zero 10:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Context

Re: He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". That's not the context at all. Alienus was discussing ideas on how to reduce edit warring on the 3RR policy talk page.

Since nobody appears to have examined the context, and since the context is being misrepresented by the blocking admin, here are the relevant bits:

Alienus:

Jossi, if edit-warring is, as you say, a bad thing, then you should lead by example. Start by walking away from your edit war to hide all mention of the view that Objectivism is a cult. Show us that admins are better than the editors they ban, please.

Jossi:

This talk page is to discuss policy, not to discuss content disputes.

Alienus:

Yes, and this policy is about averting edit wars, so the fact that you're an edit warrior is relevant.

Jossi:

Before you call anyone "edit warrior", look at the mirror.

Alienus:

Anyone taking a look at your contributions as of late will see a much clearer picture of an edit warrior. You seem eager to strike the word 'cult' from every article you touch, including the one about your Maharaji.

Anyhow, my point remains. You're here arguing about how well the rules stop edit-warring, yet you're edit-warring yourself and no rules stop you. You're an admin, so you should be an exemplar of proper behavior. Instead, you're a role model for how to succeed as an edit warrior without getting caught. This is distressing.

So we have a user and an admin, who are both admittedly engaged in a content dispute, calling each other edit warriors. One user is blocked for three days, while the admin doesn't hear even a whisper of a complaint for engaging in the very same behaviour. It appears that the admins are held to lower standards that the inmates.

And is this even a personal attack? The fact is, if you are engaged in an edit war, you are a de facto edit warrior. In libel cases, "statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory". ^^James^^ 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between saying, "That edit is incorrect" and "You're a liar!". One addresses the problem edit, the other is a personal attack. This is not a libel court. A personal attack may be true and still be offensive. As for Jossi's remark, I don't see it on the page as it was apparently removed. If Alienus had been as diligent about removing personal attacks then his comment wouldn't have come to my attention. Instead of withdrawing his attack, he repeated it. I don't see how I've misrepresented the matter. As I've said, the context of the block is the continuing incivility of Alienus. I'm not sure what content dispute you are referring to - the discussion was over a policy proposal. -Will Beback 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you now claiming Alienus called someone a liar? This just muddies the waters. Please stick to the relevant facts. You misrepresented the matter when you wrote: He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". That was not the situation at all. They were having a discussion about reducing edit wars, and it had nothing to do with a POV edit. No, this isn't a libel court. But to simply state a fact, even if it reflects poorly on someone, is not a personal attack. You haven't made a case, and now you apppear to be relying wholly on some vague and unspecified "context", which could be used to justify anything. ^^James^^ 18:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus has repeatedly, both before and since his block, stated that jossi, an administrator who presumably practises TM, is a member of a cult. This is an unacceptable personal attack, at any time, on Misplaced Pages. After his block, I observed, catalogued and cited about half a dozen personal attacks made by Alienus even while blocked for personal attacks . It was for that reason that his talk page has been protected. And this was by no means uncharacteristic behavior for Alienus. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep silent, as Alienus is not able to respond until his/her block expire, so I would only suggest to read my interactions with Alienus in Talk:Ayn_Rand#Cult_censorship, as well as the non-so-veiled attacks on his talk page after the block was enacted. Also note, that due to the toxicity of these attacks, I have decided not to edit any longer any of the articles related to Ayn Rand, with which I only got involved after a fellow editor made a request on one of the policy talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony: So now it's a shell game. If one charge doesn't stand up, simply level another... as long as Alienus gets blocked. When you treat someone blatantly unfairly, you are sure to provoke an unpleasant reaction. To then use his reaction as a new justification for the block seems disingenuous. Perhaps Alienus will wise up to this possibility. But I do think it's difficult for him to have good faith in the process when administrators are ganging up on him so vehemently on the basis of such a flimsy charge. It's only human to get a little upset.

As for the "cult" charge, Jossi states very clearly that he is a proud student of Maharaji. Here are some relevant tidbits from the wiki article:

• "a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control"
• "In the aftermath of Jonestown, Mishler and Hand felt compelled to warn of similarities between Guru Maharaj Ji and Jim Jones. They claimed the potential for another Jonestown existed in the Divine Light Mission because the most fanatic followers of Maharaj Ji would not question even the craziest commands..."

If wikipedia describes this religious movement as a cult, if reputable sources describe it as a cult, why is it wrong for Alienus describe it as a cult? This is what their edit war was about apparently: Jossi removing or hiding "cult" references. ^^James^^ 19:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

James, there is no dispute that some critical ex-followers have leveled accusations of cultism agaist Maharaji. But that is very different from a fellow editor calling you one. It is unnecessary. It creates animosity and it is by all measures a personal attack: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse). Do you believe that it is OK to use pejoratively your sexual, religious, sexual preference or any other personal affiliation, as a way to make your point in content disputes? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I agree with you in principle, but looking at the diff Tony cites, it appears to me he was simply trying to show partisanship on your part. That happens all the time on wikipedia. You happen to be a student of Maharaji, a cult leader according to some. And the edit war you were involved in had to do with you removing "cult" references. So his statement is both arguably accurate, and relevant. Yeah, Alienus can make snarky comments at times. But the point is that he is being held to impossibly high standards, standards not even expected of admins, who merely get a mild "that's not helpful" in response to far more blatant and mean spirited ridicule, here in this very thread! The fact is, admins are now left splitting hairs in an effort to maintain some semblance of justification for this block. Remove it, show some good faith, and perhaps Alienus will be less snarky in the future. ^^James^^ 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages. from WP:NPA' policy in a nutshell. Also note that I cannot remove the block, as there is no consensus amongst sysops to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On James' "shell game" suspicions I must say that I've followed this block from almost the first few hours, and did read what Will Beback said about his reasons for imposing this block.

Will first warned Alienus about calling circumcised men or advocates of circumcision "snippies", saying: "Terms like that make editing a hostile activity. You have been blocked for it before repeatedly, and I will block you again if necessary." . Alienus' response was not promising .

Two weeks later, Will remarked that he had spotted this personal attack on another editor but looking at the talk page he found a long series of warnings for attacks, and so he had decided to block for three days . Alienus' attack quoted by Will was an accusation of duplicity, "you're a role model for how to succeed as an edit warrior without getting caught". --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a question that several editors have asked that has so far gone un-answered. Alienus and jossi both called the other an edit warrior. Alienus has been blocked; nothing has happened to jossi. It appears as though jossi is trying to help at this point, and I am sure that is greatly appreciated by many. However, the point remains that there was incivility attributed to both parties, and only one is being punished. Please, please will someone just answer the simple question of why? I understand that Alienus is also being charged with multiple incivilities; fine, but that's not the point here, so please don't just come back (like many have so far) with that statement. This is about one instance, and there is one legitimate question that (unless I missed it, in which case I am sorry) has not been answered by anyone. Thank you, romarin 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question: 1) Jossi's remark seems to be saying that the ad hominem argument of Alienus is invalid and hypocritical. 2) He seems to have realized that it was unnecessary and removed it promptly. 3) Jossi does not have a talk page full of complaints, unlike Alienus. 4) Jossi has never been blocked for anything before, unlike Alienus. 5) I sent a private note to Jossi regarding his remark, so it did generate an admin response. 6) As I explained to Alienus, the block is not a punishment. Instead it is an enforced break from Misplaced Pages, a "time-out" or "cooling-off period", so that Alienus can calm down. -Will Beback 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your straight-forward answers. romarin 21:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Would this be acceptable to sysops?

1. Removing protection of Alienus's talk page;
2. Requesting from Alienus a unambiguous statement that he/she commits to not engage in personal attacks follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL;
3. If such statement is made, remove the NPA block, with the caveat that additional personal attacks and uncivility will result in an extended block ;
4. Starting a user conduct RfC on Alienus, so that the community can give him feedback about his behavior.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @

That's generally acceptable to me. However, since I believe that he doesn't thinks he has committed any personal attacks, a promise not to make anymore is perhaps empty. Perhaps a better request would be a committment to follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I appreciate the generous spirit of Jossi, a subject of some attacks. -Will Beback 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed proposal as per Will's suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is already a request for arbitration underway although not accepted at this time. --Lar 23:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Amended proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that editors blocked for making personal attacks can always be unblocked as soon as they agree, wholeheartedly, to comply with policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

How many times does that hold true, though? Simply apologizing after every personal attack does nothing to resolve the issue as far as the targets of those attacks are concerned. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we don't use blocks as punishment. Persistent recidivism is ultimately grounds for banning. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will then unprotect Alienus talk page, as per my proposal above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Accepting Alienus committment to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as per proposal above, I have removed his block. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The above unblock works for me, subject of course to Alienus abiding by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. It should be noted that the judgement of whether he is abiding or not is not his to make but rather the community's, so he should do his level best to abide, as even if he thought he was before, segments of the community think he was not. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My reblock

Pending an email discussion with Alienus, I have undone the original block as I do not fully agree with the reasons. From the talk page, the original reasoning for the block is that he called jossi an edit warrior which can be personal attack, but to be fair, jossi responded by suggesting he was also an edit warrior. I feel there is some major inconsistency there. However, because Alienus did call jossi a "long-time cult member", along with the consistent attacks on other admins on his talk page, something absolutely insulting and not to be tolerated, I have reblocked him for 48 hours. I realise the undoing may not sit well with some of you but I feel this is much more justified. However, if any of you think this is not reasonable, feel free to undo it. I will not argue. Sasquatch t|c 00:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how to assess this new block - the language used above is couched in lovely PC terms but the net effect is Al has yet block in his list and is also now blocked for even longer. Can Sasquatch please confirm whether this was his intention and why he thinks any admin may be uncomfortable with him adding to Al's "crime list" and blocking him for longer than he was? Is this at all motivated by the impending Arbcom case and can I ask what happened to the RfC that should precede this move? Are we skipping the "trial" phase and fast forwarding to sentence (and execution no doubt)? Sophia 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sasquatch (since you are now the "blocking admin"), do you agree with Jossi's proposal, posted above, for unblocking Alienus? -Will Beback 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeated removal of cleanup tags, blanking of talk page and general refusal to discuss

ZMAN (talk · contribs) persists in removing cleanup tags from History of Wyandotte, Michigan (which BTW, is in dire need of assistance). ZMAN has also repeatedly blanked the talk page Talk:History of Wyandotte, Michigan, removing discussion between myself and Derek Balsam (talk · contribs) about possible copyright violations on the page. So far ZMAN has not disussed his/her actions at all, despite repeated requests. ZMAN has also blanked his/her own user talk page and , ignoring recent requests for discussion and warnings about copyright. older ≠ wiser 19:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Lukas Podolski page, moved here at other users advice

Note moved here per

Matyldalondyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 87.227.28.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Users, who are likely the same person persistently re-add deleted dubious trivia from the Lukas Podolski after being asked for sources to verify a trivia piece about the subjects singing of national anthem before game. Said users edits are seen here.

Other users have identified said trivia as dubious as well and have deleted. Only to have it re-added by the said users. Other deletions are seen here.

Users have been asked for sources to verify information, neither have provided, leaving me to believe that they're only editing for the sake of inserting vandalism. Their contribution history clearly affirms this. , . I thank you in advance for helping to deal with this persistent inclusion of dubious and unsourced vandalism. Batman2005 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked already. Sasquatch t|c 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, blocked after violating 3RR, which took place after I posted my complaint here. Batman2005 23:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced changes are not vandalism. Repeatedly reverting to remove or restore unsourced changes is edit warring. I blocked Batman2005 for violating 3RR himself in this matter. --CBD 10:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so...a person with an obvious vandalism/nonsense only account is able to just add unsourced statements to pages because he wants to, yet when a well meaning editor removes those after repeatedly asking for sources, the well meaning editor is blocked. And, adding unsourced information that's clearly false isn't vandalism? It's the very definition of vandalism, in the real world its called bullshit. Batman2005 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Being totally ignorant of the actual facts involved in the article, I don't see how you can assert either of those are "vandalism only accounts". They've only got one contribution (repeatedly, of course) between them, and it's a content dispute, not vandalism. What's "clearly false" about what's being added? Of course, it makes sense for me to defer to you -- I assume you are knowledgeable about football players, and I am not; but I can't see how asserting that a player refuses to sing the German national anthem is "clearly false". I don't want to argue it -- I'm just talking from the point of view of an observer. The edits violate 3RR, and seem to be against consensus judging by the talk page -- are they defamatory? Are they provably wrong? If either of those, sure, they could be vandalism. Anyway, most editors deal with situations like this by asking for help rather than risk violating 3RR themselves; article RFC's and AN/I can be useful to get the attention of unbiased third parties. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to the ongoing complaints and swearing I looked into it. Turns out the "clearly false" "vandalism" about a soccer player not singing the national anthem was actually correct. Mind you, I didn't know that when I blocked Batman2005, but I didn't need to... there was a clear edit war with 3RR violations on both sides, no discusion on the article talk page, and no obvious proof that the information was false (which, in fact, it wasn't). --CBD 11:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the information is false, if you'd watch the world cup games you'd see that the player NEVER sings the national anthem, whether playing against Poland, Ecuador, Argentina, etc. And I had asked for assistance and none was given, thus...the two users....who in all actuality were probably the same one (again, a violation that they were not punished for) continued...after being proven wrong by an entirely different editor, to insert the dubious information...thus....inserting nonsense and misinformation into the article....which is vandalism. Batman2005 15:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Aylesbury Grammar School

Same old story, students from the school are adding nicknames of the headteacher, photographs of penises drawn in snow outside the school and other nonsense to the article, claiming they have a right seeing as they go to the school. It's in my watchlist so reverting vandalism isn't a problem however I have a personal interest in keeping the article clear of rubbish aside from the norm. Would a couple of others mind watchlisting it for future vandalism please? -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 00:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to mine. Iolakana| 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Not To Be Tolerated

Why in the world do we allow vandalism to go unchecked on the Tiannamen Square page but not the Chinese Democracy page? Any thoughts?Martin Briley 00:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square. It appears that there is no vandalism on the article as of this note, and when there was vandalism, it appears to be consistently reverted. If you have specific concerns, preferably including diffs that show our lack of concern, we'd appreciate being able to review them. Thank you for your input! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• because that's not how you spell Tiananmen Square?--205.188.116.65 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot Archival of this page.

As you may have noticed, I just added Werdnabot archival of this page, as CrypticBot is currently MIA. This was per a request on my talk page. I just ran an emergency job to clear this page out, and I'm pleased to inform you that the archival removed 55 sections with no posts in three days; a total of 108kb. Hopefully, this should clear out the page. Please note that I'm working on having the archive number automatically incremented, and this will be sorted shortly. Werdna (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Werdna for responding to the request! Netscott 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional. Thanks Werdna -- Samir धर्म 03:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, as a result of this bot this page is currently down to 205KB. :-) Netscott

Jeb berkeley

There's a vandal going around named Jeb berkeley, or some variation of that. Here are some of his sockpuppets:

Jeb berkeley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
That Jeb Berkeley guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jeb Berkeley on wheels! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's more in the IP Block list. If someone could do something, that would be appreciated, since he seems to be targeting me and my subpages. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I believe they all stem from banned user Jeb Berkeley (talk · contribs). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. See also:

Jeb Berkeley on the railway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jeb Berkeleys next move (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Others with similar tendencies (pages after, and mentions of Jeb Berkeley). DVD+ R/W 02:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lsyv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rocos Rorrhum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've notice that Tetleys (talk · contribs) has placed tags on many suspected Jeb Berkeley socks. Tetleys contribs lists about 15 of them and might be a valuable reference in proceeding with this case further. DVD+ R/W 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the "North Carolina Vandal". Jeb Berkeley = Jake Remington, etc., ad nauseam. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You think this guy's the North Carolina Vandal? Jeb Berkeley's attack pattern doesn't seem to match the NCV's, as far as I know. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm as close to 100% sure as I can get without actually watching him at his computer. Look at the five edits attributed to Jeb berkeley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Single-line breathless POV statements on Beer, vandalism of articles on small towns in North Carolina, all-caps edit summaries that are invented words, an obsession with southernness and rednecks, -- I've been following this kid for more than a year now and he hasn't changed a bit. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow banned from article

As his mentor, I've just banned T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) from List of Justice League episodes for two weeks as part of his probation. He has been trying to railroad changes that have generated significant opposition from other editors, ignoring their concerns and being generally incivil. Further disruption will terminate his mentorship and will trigger the six-month ban clause of the Arbitration case between him and Dyslexic Agnostic. Titoxd 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A friend of mine was messing around on wikipedia from my computer after i showed him my two edits and that "anyone can do it". if you look at my ip address, you will notice precisely two edits done to wiki articles that were "serious" changes. i did not defame anyone.

Fidel Castro and Teemu Ruskeepä

User:Teemu Ruskeepää has ignored many, many requests that he cease promoting an extremely unpopular "talk page restructuring" on various Cuba related pages, notably Fidel Castro. Despite warnings from myself, other users and admins that his behaviour is potentially disruptive and may lead to a block, he has continued unabashed, adding confusing lengthy polls to each talkpage addition. He is materially obstructing much needed work on the page, which is a view held by all, and I believe the patience of the many has just worn out. May I suggest an editing embargo on Teemu, or even an exploding cigar?--Zleitzen 09:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving other users comments violates policy, but apperently there's one article where the rules don't apply. El_C 10:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on his talk page, and will ask him nicely to desist. Note that he is continuing to restructure the talk page into an extremely counterintuitive format, despite having 7 editors opposed to the restruturing, and not one (other than Teemu) in favour. He's being disruptive, knowingly now, and if he continues, the next step is a short block. I don't want to do that as he's plainly a good editor, and well-intentioned, but continually and unilaterally going against the wishes of his editors because 'I am right' is not acceptable. However, note that editing (not moving) other user's comments violates policy/guidelines. Refactoring of talk pages (when done with approval, either explicit or tacit) is not the same as editing someone's comments. But continuing to do it when he has been expressly asked to stop is disruptive. Proto///type 10:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Teemu previously about this situation after being informed, and now see that there is little change, and hs has instead been adding a poll to each discussion section. Proto apppears to have already left him a message, so we'll see how he responds to that.--MONGO 10:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the only real consensus that's ever been reached on the Castro page. --TJive 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've initiated a request for comment relating to Teemu's activities on the Fidel Castro talk page, here at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää. Teemu has been given many opportunities to acknowledge that both his talk page restructuring and additional lengthy polls do not have consensus. Each request seems to expand the resistance. The talk page is now dominated by his activity - and related fluff - to the detriment of any progress. On my talk page a user has stated that she would rather not want further involvment with the page, referring to Teemu: "he targets me. He had done damage to me in the past. His remarks about me recently have been minor but still he singles me out. I'll admit that I am intimidated". .--Zleitzen 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All that really needs to be seen to know what his intentions are is this. --TJive 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On that entry Teemu states "Misplaced Pages should be transformed entirely according to my plan, because the debate doesn't work otherwise. Do you agree?". That these comments appear on the Fidel Castro talk page should be beyond irony.--Zleitzen 11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to sound extreme here - but if this user continues (since so many messages have been left there), a short block (24 hours) for disruption would probably not be misplaced. Ian¹³/t 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Editingoprah (talk · contribs)

I am currently involved in a quasi-revert war with this user over several pages (they make POV edits, blank sourced work, etc. and I revert). Could someone please review their edits (eg. ) and block the user for a time so that I may clean up this mess? Please just leave a quick note on my talk page when this is done so that I can get to the cleanup. Thanks. Harro5 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please someone address this revert war. Harro5 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the user for 15 minutes to stop the madness for a bit. Look at the Oprah Winfrey history. This is a user who has been here for two days, and hasn't done anything but tear up solid articles. Harro5 09:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am still investigating these things now. I am not convinced that the edits to Oprah Winfrey constitute simple vandalism, although the edits to gay icon look dubious at best. I have protected both articles (at the m:wrong version of course) until the dispute can be settled. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Editingoprah has been blocked for 24 hours by Francs2000 for the 3RR violation. If I am to levy criticism against Harro5, it would be that this rollback does not seem quite necessary. Also, I don't know if it was such a good idea to block someone who you were edit warring with. Even so, Editingoprah has been rather uncooperative, with edit summaries such as "you've contributed nothing to this article. Why are you even here?", so the situation is quite borderline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I know the block was a bad move, but I'd been doing a mad run to get an admin to act and all the while the editor continued to revert changes to bad versions. As for the revert you cite, that's a more than legitimate edit, but maybe not rollback-worthy. Sjakkalle, with the user now blocked for 24 hours, do the articles still need to be protected? The revert war only existed between him and me, and I'm not going to make any changes other than to restore the correct version on Oprah and hope this dies away. Harro5 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I had noticed the edits too. I don't know if the user was responsible for the huge pictures, as for the gay icon thing, even though heavily unsourced, I had just gone ahead and put it as "impact on gay culture" and redirected the section to the gay icon page.

TechsMechs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I blocked indef. as a sock of Amorrow. Please review. FloNight 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

a) Where's the message on his talk page (a la User:OlympiaDiego, User:Pinktulip, and his other socks)?

b) Where's the proof he's Amorrow? Proto///type 09:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This past week Amorrow has been evading his ban with IP accounts in 75.24, 75.23 range.

Looks like Elizabeth Morgan article is being written by a group of Amorrow socks. Can someone else sort this out. FloNight 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any proof that TechsMechs is a sock of Amorrow - you didn't answer either of my questions. Proto///type 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking for someone else to review the situation. Plently of admin are aware of his pattern.

Looks like he just confessed on WillBebacks's talk page. FloNight 10:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not so much a confession. But yep, that's Amorrow (you should have provided that in the first place!) Block endorsed. Please leave the necessary messages on the sock's talk page. I think Elizabeth Morgan needs semiprotecting again. Proto///type 10:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that his ISP, AT&T, changed their operations on his circuit in Palo Alto. He is now active on IP addresses other than just

• 71.139.176.0 - 71.139.191.255 (16 Class C's)
• 71.139.192.0 - 71.139.207.255 (216 Class C's - I only got a subset)
• 71.141.0.0 - 71.141.31.255 (32 Class C's)

To even being to attack the problem, you would have to start with

http://www.scconsult.com/sbclist.shtml

but even this information is a year old and getting more and more out-of-date. The current round of admin actions against him have adversely effected other users in Silicon Valley, including the inventor of Nagle's algorithm, John Nagle. You could argue that this vital conribution to the TCP/IP protocol stack helped to create the Internet. See User talk:Nagle/Archive 2006-05-30#Excessive block by User:SlimVirgin . How is this obsession about this one person who comes in as anon user (so you cannot even argue that he is trying to build up some kind of personal credit for himself) helping the encyclopedia? -- 64.175.42.196 11:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because he is disruptive, sneaky, amends articles subtly using a multitude of sock puppets to adhere to his POV, and then, when he doesn't get his own way, descends into tirades of hysterical abuse in language that would make a pimp blush. He has been particularly vile when 'communicating' with female editors. Amorrow is a poisonous troll. And keeping him at arm's length - which is all we can do until someone has a real word with AT&T to get him kicked from their service - benefits the encyclopaedia by making participation a lot less painful and frustrating for everyone else. Good enough reason? Proto///type 12:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• He's also been editing Bill of attainder and Terri Schiavo. I've semi-protected Elizabeth Morgan, which is Amorrow's main focus. —tregoweth (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's just look at that last little update that happened:

67.121.147.25 (talk · contribs)

Go to the talk page and click on the RWHOIS America link:

http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=67.121.147.25

Fairly small range:

• 64.175.40.0 - 64.175.43.255

BUT, it seems that my circuit is also being served undocumented subnets. The only info that ARIN has about some of my previous IP's are this very course information. Note: these ranges do have some documented subsets, especially at the beginning of these ranges, but those are not the IP's that I have been served These new numbers tend to cluster at about the sizes I had before with those 71.* addresses, but now the starting numbers are all over the place:.

• 67.112.0.0 - 67.127.255.255 (16 class B's)
• 67.182.0.0 - 67.182.63.255 (64 class C's)
• 75.0.0.0 - 75.47.255.255 (48 class B's)

So maybe you can complain to AT&T that they are not updating the ARIN database with every little subnetting that they are internally doing with these huge ranges they own. Those three ranges above are all huge and I am probably only being served small subsets of them, but only AT&T knows the details. Maybe you should complain that they are not updating the ARIN database to your satisfaction. That is not about me, that is about AT&T. If you just tell that the info is vital for your tracking needs, then they will probably do something about it. I am sure it does not really take a lot of work to update the ARIN database and, since the change was in the past month or so, maybe they have just not gotten around to doing so yet. Really, I did not change anything on my end. I am simply not being served that narrow range of 71.* addresses anymore. This is just FYI. It is about ANYBODY in the USA that uses AT&T whom you might need to track. -- 75.25.183.52 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and remember to specify PPPoX in the San Francisco area, SNFC21 and PLTN13. Those are the ranges you want finer-grain and up-to-date data on at ARIN. -- 75.25.183.52 23:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Irpen

One user keep inserting a new section to his summary already endorsed by some other users. Other users are moving the new section to the talk page. I cannot act as I am involved in this RfC (he keeps inserting his comment on my summary). Please, somebody make a look. abakharev 11:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100

I'm not sure exactly what he believes, but Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) is moving articles about Catholicism despite the fact most, if not all, other editors who edit the subject disagree with him.

Vaquero100 has changed references to the Roman Catholic Church to drop the Roman part and generalize things when the article in question didn't include any other Catholic devotions. Apparently, they want to remove mention of "Roman" Catholicism from Misplaced Pages. While the Roman Catholic Church is commonly referred to as just "Catholic Church", we need the Roman prefix to distinguish ot from other varieties of Catholicism. If both names are valid, things shouldn't get moved (just as with variety English spellings)

And just today, he has been making moves like redirecting Consecrated life to Consecrated life (Catholic Church) or Catholic spirituality to Spirituality (Catholic Church). The last one is particularly annoying for a naming conventions nut like me (so I undid the move). While it indeed discusses several different Catholic denominations, titles should generally not contain modifiers in brackets wherever possible.

This user is basically annoying others to further their own POV. Can someone please talk to him?

Disclaimer: I don't usually edit religion related articles and I don't plan to in the future. - Mgm| 12:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is going on for some days, including remarks that the "Roman" designation is a Anglican/Lutheran/X slander of The Catholic Church. --Pjacobi 12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heavens! If he thinks that the Anglicans are out to get him, he should talk to members of the Greek Orthodox Church, which might well have a thing or two to say about the RCC being "the Catholic Church." (The "Roman" distinguishes from Greek, Syrian, Russian, inter al.) And that's not even to get into the question of "the" Catholic Church, which is tantamount to saying, "the one true church." Very nasty, there. Geogre 13:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have given a polite warning. Let's hope it is heeded. Geogre 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuing pattern. Last month he moved most of the articles in Category:Roman Catholic Church in Europe. Septentrionalis 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's (Roman Catholic) POV-pushing. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself the Orthodox Catholic Church, and believes that the 'Church of Rome' (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) is not the legitimate Catholic Church. Anyway, all other encyclopedias use the terminology 'Roman Catholic' to refer to that church, so how bad can it be? --Tēlex 19:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That was the point I tried to make to him: we need to use the terms our readers expect. True and false are beside the point: useful and unuseful matter more. (And I pointed out to him that I, as an Anglican, consider my church catholic but absolutely not Roman Catholic.) Geogre 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cozzlewood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked the user as a page move vandal. Please revert his changes to Penis as this would be an inappropriate page to open at the office. I took care of everything else.--Kungfu Adam 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This one looks to be related to User:Havenstone and User:Sunwood, who are all sockpuppets of banned user Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Armando (blogger) - courtesy blanking

The AFD for Armando (blogger) was recently closed as redirect, in substantial part due to serious WP:BLP concerns. The entirety of the information that was possibly in violation of WP:BLP remains in two locations - the talk page of the article in question and at this user talk page. I have asked the user to request their user space page be deleted, and expect they will do so, and I attempted to blank the talk page in question as a courtesy to the individual whose privacy was allegedly repeatedly violated. The courtesy blanking has been repeteatedly undone without comment. I could, again, use more admistrative eyes on the situation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Evading block?

Please take a look at Dmolloy36. This account was activated today while Owwmykneecap was on a 24 hour block and is continuing the Dutch Gold edit dispute. The only other edit Dmolloy36 has made has been to the user page of Owwmykneecap! BlueValour 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi

I'm posting this here so the community can review the actions of User:Tobias Conradi since the block has been questioned by a friend of his who is an admin, and I wish to avoid any type of unblocking war. User:Ezhiki has already unprotected his (Tobias's) talk page. pschemp | talk 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I've noticed that you extended Tobias's block and labeled User:Hauke as a sockpuppet. I've been in contact with Tobias, and according to him Hauke is a friend of his. Please file a checkuser request if you have doubts; the results will be negative.

I would also like to reconsider your approach towards Tobias. I will agree any day that he may be stubborn, difficult to deal with, and lose his tempers easily, but he is not here to compromise Misplaced Pages, nor is he sticking to some malicious plan of sorts (please check his contributions history).

I spoke to Tobias last Friday, and promised to investigate what happened myself. From what I found the whole thing looks like a relatively simple misunderstanding, that gradually elevated to the exaggregated mess it is now. Let me outline the things the way I see them. Tobias definitely deserved a portion of his block, but not all of it.

I am crossposting the following summary to the talk pages of all involved parties.

1. The stub about Eisenkappl, which Tobias created, was deleted by User:Jimfbleak on June 30. Jim later explained that the deletion was due to the stub not providing enough information for a reader to understand what the stub's subject was. This is a valid reason, however, it was not explained in the deletion summary.
2. Tobias re-created this article and moved it to Bad Eisenkappel, making an inflammatory edit summary ("fight against admin power abuse...") in the process. While making a summary like this is not constructive, it should be understood that it was made in response to Jim's deletion, for which no reason was given.
3. Tobias later added a "this user is a deletionist" note to Jim's user page. Again, this was not very constructive; Tobias should have requested a reason for the stub's deletion instead of losing temper.
4. The new stub on Bad Eisenkappel was deleted by User:InShaneee. No reason for deletion was given in the edit summary.
5. InShaneee then blocked Tobias for 48 hours for "vandalism, personal attacks". When I asked for details, InShanee explained that Tobias was blocked for "disruption" and "for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages". While the latter is true, the former referred to moving Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel. While I see how such a move can be interpreted as intentional vandalism, the "Bad" portion is actually a part of this village's name, as a google search would attest.
6. At this point of time, the situation from Tobias's perspective looked very much like admin abuse—stubs he created were deleted by two different admins, both of whom gave no reasons for deletion. Tobias himself was blocked for "vandalism/disruption", the meaning of which was also not explained. This edit of Tobias's is a good illustration of the way he felt.
7. A moment later, Tobias was further accused of violating WP:POINT—no details provided.
8. Understandably, Tobias's aggravation grew.
9. InShanee protected Tobias's talk page in order to prevent him from removing the warnings and extended his block for incivility.
10. In response to his talk page being protected and his account being blocked, Tobias launched an anon IP campaign. While this was a direct violation of sockpuppeting guidelines, the user could not contend his block from his account as his talk page was blocked from editing at that point.
11. In response, Tobias's user page was protected from editing by User:Pschemp and his block was extended for sockpuppetry.
12. On July 2, User:Hauke account was created. Soon after it was labeled by Pschemp as a sockpuppet of Tobias and blocked. According to Tobias's email communication to me, Hauke is a friend of his, not a sockpuppet account. I asked Tobias to stop sockpuppetry on June 30, no matter how unfair the situation seemed to him, to which he agreed.

Summarizing the situation: while I in no way want to defend Tobias's less than stellar behavior in response to the accusations against him, I can see the situation from his perspective. Hopefully, this summary will allow you to do the same. I cannot, however, justify the behavior of the administrators involved in this case. Instead of trying to study the situation and finding out the cause of Tobias's aggravated response to the actions against his, the administrators pretty much reacted on emotion, thus complicating and elevating the situation, instead of trying to relieve it. Denying the user his right to contend his block by blocking both his talk and user pages is especially worrisome.

My opinion is that both sides largely ignored WP:AGF, refusing to listen each other. I thus urge the involved parties to shorten Tobias's block from unbelievable six weeks to a total of seven days (three of which he has already served) for not assuming good faith, for refusing to inquire about sanctions against him at the earlier stage of the conflict and resorting to inflammatory edit summaries, and for failure to challenge his block through legitimate means (such as placing an unblock template request at his user/talk page when it was still possible). I ask Tobias to apologize to the people to whom his was incivil. I also urge User:InShaneee, User:Pschemp, and User:Jimfbleak to apologize to Tobias for not providing the reason for their actions and to impose a self-block for refusing to assume good faith, for acting on emotions instead of reason, and for denying the user right to be heard through his talk page.

Being a proud Misplaced Pages administrator myself, I would not ask anyone to do something that I personally would not be ready to do in a similar situation.

Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for my extensions was sockpuppetry which he clearly repeatedly engaged in and he was clearly told that this was the reason. Considering that he used multiple IP's for the the socks, it is quite easy for him to set up a new account with a different IP that would of course not show the same as his on checkuser. The new account also edited tango articles, (Tobias's listed interest) and used the same grammar as Tobias right before requesting that the protection on his talk page be lifted. At the very least that qualifies as a meatpuppet. I'm sorry, but Tobias used up his allotment of good faith quite a while ago with his personal attacks and repeat sock use, and I will not unblock him, nor will I apologize. I see you are his friend, but that doesn't mean his actions were appropriate. You forgot to mention his many other infractions up there, such as removing warnings from his talk page, calling decent editors vandals, and his history of incivil remarks (and prior blocks for this incivility!) and personal attacks in edit summaries. Some examples just from edit summaries:

1. 19:38, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tobias Conradi (→Name calling - delete nonsense again you asshole) <- And how would you assume good faith about this comment?
2. 19:35, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tobias Conradi (→Name calling - delete nonsense)
3. 19:24, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jimfbleak (→James Janderson - jimmy likes deleting)
4. 19:16, June 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Jimfbleak (This user is a deletionist )
5. 20:18, June 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Samsara (ubuntu vandal) (top)
6. 13:28, June 27, 2006 (hist) (diff) Ubuntu (Linux distribution) (rv vandal rmv of cat) <- note user Samsara is not and never has been a vandal

Also, his blanking without archiving of most of his userpage and some of the civility warnings on it as soon as you unprotected looks very bad. Sorry, but the facts are, when you use sockpuppets to evade your block (which was originally short) your block gets extended. He had plenty of opportunity to use {{tl:unblock}} and has done so in the past, and has not put that up since you unprotected his page, so your accusations of him being not allowed to contest the block are baseless. Email is always possible too, and he seemed to be able to use that just fine to contact you. Also, he admitted to using the socks, so I see no reason to overturn the block. Just because you admit to your bad deeds doesn't mean that it nullifys your action or justifies them. A wiser user would have sat out the orginal short block. Please speak to InShanee about the original block, as I had nothing to do with that. I only dealt with the sockpuppets. pschemp | talk 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry just isn't on nor are incivil edit summaries. Support the initial block and the extensions, InShanee and Pschemp acted correctly here, and I see no reason for apology or self blocking(!). Civility is a fundamental requirement here and block evasion is just not good. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. I would like to reiterate that I am not trying to present the matter at hand in a way that would make Tobias look like an angel. My main point is that the whole mess started as a misunderstanding. When you create an article and it gets deleted without explanation, and so does one that you re-create, and then you get blocked for something you did not do (part of Tobias's block was for "disruption and vandalism" because the title of the new article he re-created happened to start with the word "Bad", which was interpreted as vandalism), you have all the reasons to be angry and confused. It is true, Tobias's choice of the way he decided to convey his anger was largely unacceptable, but that does not change the fact that some of the very early actions against him had been unfair. All I am asking is understanding and apologies for what became a spark for further hostilities by both sides. If the community decides to apply the rules without looking further into the human factor, I will, of course, submit and withdraw, but it will indeed be regrettable. With all Tobias's downsides, he is a valuable editor. Knocking him in the head and kicking him in the groin every time he makes a mistake, harder and harder every time based on his "previous conflicts" history, will not make him a better Wikipedian. Understanding his concerns and helping him out in conflict situations will, although one would be naïve to believe it will happen overnight.

I will welcome any further comments.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no apology or indication on Tobias's part at the moment that he regrets any of his actions or considers them mistaken. He is of course, free to contribute civilly when his block is over.pschemp | talk 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He will not be able to personally apologize for the next five and a half weeks, which is the duration of the remainder of his block. In the meanwhile, you are welcome to contact him directly about his intentions to apologize; I cannot speak for him in these matters, only make suggestions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He is welcome to make an apology on his talk page, and certainly is able to do so as his vast amounts of editing it today have shown. I would consider reducing the block should he show geniune contrition, but I think completely removing it is incorrect. pschemp | talk 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked users can still post to their own talk pages unless there has been egregious vandalism or uncivil behaviour or other abuses, as by practice, we do not protect talk pages of blocked users unless there is a need. So he can comment there, if after reviewing this thread, he wishes to do so. My suggestion is that he consider his actions so far and think about the consequences. If some contrition were shown, some understanding that even if things go badly you still can't be incivil, some agreement to abide by the norms here, I'd be inclined to look more favourably on a request to reduce the length of the block request, should one be made. As yet I've seen little sign of that understanding. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Leonard23, at it again

Leonard23 is continuing to be a problem user, labeling my edits vandalism, and admitting he is using a sockpuppet, along with making personal attacks and threatening me. He also made parts of a logo in Paint, that I cut off but he continues to revert back. Please take care of him. CFIF (talk to me) 17:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both users for 24 hours for WP:3RR. Both users want "their" version of the TV station logo, both users revert the other's move as "vandalism" (it is not), and neither gives sufficient reason why "theirs" is the preferred version. I welcome review. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Link spam and Solar22

Solar22 (talk · contribs) keeps adding links to a website that offers audio samples of people/tv shows: , , , and . I reverted these edits as I thought that they did not add to the article in any shape or form. I would like to see if other people here agree that these edits to the website could be seen as link spam. I have warned the user about it, but I am having an on-going discussion with the user at my talk page and his/hers. Iolakana| 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The User:Gibraltarian problem

The indefinitely banned User:Gibraltarian is still continuing to cause problems on Gibraltar-related articles, as he's still editing through anonymous dynamic IP addresses. I've just responded to a request for page protection for Algeciras and San Roque, Cádiz. He's also still hitting Gibraltar, so I've semi-protected that article as well.

I see from the protection log that semi-protection has been tried before but hasn't deterred Gibraltarian. I think we need to start thinking about stronger actions given his persistence. Realistically, I think we have two choices: leave the affected articles semi-protected semi-permanently, or block his entire IP range (i.e. 212.120.0.0/16). Any thoughts? -- ChrisO 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• you unfortunately can't block the entire IP address range without a great deal of collateral damage, it's the biggest dialup ISP in Gibraltar. Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse#Blocked_User:Gibraltarian. ~Chris (talk/e@) 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The user(s) of this range have permanently denied involvement!!! This is a hard case! -- Szvest 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Might not be the best thing, but I would block the range. According to Communications in Gibraltar#Internet, Gibraltar only has "severaly thousand users" - which is (in comparison to many other countries, like the States) simply a small number of people. Also, not everyone is using the same ISP. I'd block. Iolakana| 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Singapore has a small number of users, lets block them. Compared to the States Canada has a small number of users, lets block Canada. AOL is a small minority of the States users, lets block them, like you do every night. Innocent users? F em. Hort Graz 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By "you", do you mean me directly? Iolakana| 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean the many block happy admins here who care less about collateral damage. Hort Graz 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your semi-warning on my talk page because I used YOU instead of YOU GUYS is ridiculous. Please do not try to create a personal conflict between us just because you disagree with my opinion on blocking. I do not know you. Hort Graz 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. The developers are working on a solution to the AOL problem. --mboverload@ 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we'd block any range containing vandal edits, just because said range housed a minority of users, soon enough you'd have no users left. Take for example Camebridge University. Last year, I dealt with massive vandalism from one of their IPs. No doubt blocking the entire range would've hit many innocent users. It's simply not worth it. - Mgm| 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  A sensible admin. My guess is that you have been a admin for years, its the new admins who show little regard for innocent victims from what Ive seen. Hort Graz 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct admin conduct?

A admin leaves a homosexual joke on a talk page and then threatens the user that reverts it with these words:

you seem to have forgotten that I am a sysop. Going around removing sysops' comments on other people's pages, which you have no business "moderating", is a really dumb idea, and you will be blocked for it.

In the interests of completeness, the entire comment was: Just to be clear, somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the idea that it's okay to remove people's comments and call them "trolls". This isn't the case. In addition, you seem to have forgotten that I am a sysop. Going around removing sysops' comments on other people's pages, which you have no business "moderating", is a really dumb idea, and you will be blocked for it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

IS this how our admins should behave? Hort Graz 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used Cyde's words myself, but if you're planning to set yourself up as the morality police on Misplaced Pages I suspect that you'll be in for a rough ride. I see nothing objectionable about Cyde's initial edit. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So you don't mind if I post the LOVE MEN picture on your page? Its not morality, its common decency I ask for. Being a admin doesn't make you a higher life form exempt from common civilty. Hort Graz 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove it, but that's because I like my user page the way it is. Nothing wrong with either edit. Now, making the same edit repeatedly after being reverted...Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

...same edit repeatedly... OK, but you were the one who didnt care about the wheel warring of a few days ago. You confuse me sir. Hort Graz 21:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not fond of his words, either, but half the context is missing from the second edit, and these diffs are comments to two separate editors, not the same one. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He made the threat to the user who reverted him, who was not the user he made the joke to. Hort Graz 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot more context is missing: Cyde later changed his initial message to refer to GeorgeMoney. Not a particularly polite action on his part, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"add awards here"? is this myspace.com now, or is anyone still writing an encycolpedia? dab (ᛏ) 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Awards ensure people feel appreciated and continue working on Misplaced Pages. I know it works for me. - Mgm| 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see no problem with his initial edit, but his second edit is just plain uncivil. He should've asked why he reverted or explain the joke. Threatening with your admin powers is just not acceptable. - Mgm| 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

After a complete read-through, the whole thing looks like WP:BJAODN from several angles... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. El_C 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad joke indeed. But waving the sysop bit around like that is contraindicated....really bad form. It is unacceptable to threaten people with your admin status like that, we seem to be having a problem with that lately. 24.94.192.247 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot state often enough my objection to administrators even thinking that they have "powers," much less threatening with them. We have duties, not "powers," and we serve, not are served. This was not handled well, even if the action is ok. I wouldn't say anything, except that Cyde has been a bit imperious in other contexts. Geogre 04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the joke was in poor taste, and it is okay to remove comments perceived as personal attacks, even if they are made by admins (who should be held to a higher standard of civility). —Quarl 2006-07-04 09:24Z

• Yeah. This is exactly the puerile sort of "joke" that vandal fighters have to waste their time with every day. If a non-admin had done it, they'd be admonished for vandalism (or, at least, breaching WP:CIVIL.) I don't see any reason Cyde should be able to act like a 12-year-old without at least being questioned. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of 'Blatant vandalism' please

Would you please remove the 'Blatant vandalism' template from my History. This was placed by Owwmykneecap as part of an edit dispute on Dutch Gold. Using this template in this manner is against WP:Vandalism and his constant, false, accusations of vandalism against WP:CIVIL. He is presently on a 3RR block as is his alter ego Dmolloy36. I should be grateful if you would ask him to stick to the issues and cease this unpleasantness. BlueValour 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Typically, history deletions are only done when personal information has been posted about a user. In this case, just remove it and forget about it. --InShaneee 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• They're still picked up by VandalProof even after reverting, because the program needs to know when a vandal removes such templates. I think I saw such a request from someone earlier. - Mgm| 21:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like rollback material... not sure if rollback policy allows for this type of thing though. Netscott 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• It was the VandalProof concern that I had. I hope something can be done else irresponsible users can permanently damage fellow editors. I also think Owwmykneecap should be warned otherwise this could be a recurring problem. BlueValour 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• yes I have the same problem (as mentioned above). --Charlesknight 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Owwmykneecap and deleted the relevant version per Misplaced Pages:Use common sense. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

New template for dealing with spammers

Please see {{spamonly}} - this was created by me today.

Using the template, it produces:

This user is a spam-only account, and has been blocked indefinitely.. See block log. Please do not subst this template.

Use this if you see a spammer. Hope it helps. Based on the Willy on Wheels template. --Sunholm(talk) 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirection flood

Something's odd with these contributions, but I can't nail it. -- Omniplex 22:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, following a move from Quebec route 111 to Route 111 (Quebec) with a move from Route 111 (Quebec) to Quebec Route 111 (etc.)... Where have I seen that before? · rodii · 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Armking and socks. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more of the controversy over California road naming conventions.· rodii · 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Juppiter blocked for 24 hours seven days

Juppiter (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been blocked for 24 hours for vandalising User:OrphanBot repeatedly recently and ignoring warnings not to do so, by Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). This user has been warned repeatedly about this, as far back as March of this year. The user also moved OrphanBot to BastardBot, not once but twice, for which he was also warned. Enough is enough, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

24 hours is pretty lenient, considering his history of being warned for doing this same sort of thing. Agree with block. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving a userpage? Particularly of a tool? IMO, 24 hours is very lenient especially given the history. Netscott 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is to be hoped that the user will realise that change in approach is needed and further that incivil edits such as (now deleted, so only admins can see it) this one won't recur. It's the first block after all. I certainly won't wheel war about it though. ++Lar 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that he's now encouraging other users to vandalize, I'm not terribly optimistic. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If he picks up again after the block ends, he can always be re-blocked. I commend Lar for giving him chance, even if it's a bit too optimistic. - Mgm| 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as optimistic any more, I guess. Based on what Mindspillage pointed out and his response to her, Freakofnurture (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has extended the block to 7 days. Which I support. ++Lar 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Let's see, Juppiter, we clean up after you, we make you go to your room and we dont get paid for it—yup, we're your mother... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Let him ponder policy for a while. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

IP adress 65.221.146.3

has been making edits that are obviously vandalism, as you can see here False Prophet 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing should go to WP:AIV. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Murder and rape threats by 205.234.223.167

I'm fairly new around here, but User:205.234.223.167 has been making multiple murder and rape threats against several people today. He's gotten a 2 week block for bad behavior, but still has access to his talk page. I know Misplaced Pages likes to go through a series of escalating sanctions before permanently blocking someone, but do you always have to do that? Can't there be bad enough behavior (as in threatening to drive to someone's house, murder the editor and rape his wife) that admins might be justified in just cutting to the chase and permanently blocking the IP address altogether?

Here's just a sample of his many cheery messages today: 1, 2, 3, 4.

And another question -- Misplaced Pages is very strict about "no legal threats"; editors taking legal action off Misplaced Pages is highly discouraged. Yet threatening rape and murder is a felony in every U.S. jurisdiction (and with good reason). I think this guy should be reported to authorities in his jurisdiction (somewhere near Chicago?) now, rather than later, but I'm concerned this would get me in hot water with Misplaced Pages. Personally, I feel only slightly physically threatened, but I suspect that this guy represents a much more real physical danger to people in his own community. If he's a psychopath, I suspect his antisocial behavior is not confined to Misplaced Pages. I'm happy to report him, but I am concerned that I would have problems with Misplaced Pages.

So what's the next appropriate step here? Where do I take this issue?

--A. B. 01:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about that user here. Garion96 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that at least that IP address has now been permanently blocked. (User talk:205.234.223.167).--A. B. 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have a girlfriend who's ex-boyfriend has just been sent to prison for 3 months (18 months suspended) for making death threats and other threats via email. I suggest that this matter is dealt with in a more serious fashion and this users IP is traced and reported to the relevant authorities (i.e. Police) in his jurisdiction. He sounds like an idiot, but in the USA (for example) any death threat is treated seriously (which it should be). Better safe than sorry. (User Name witheld for obvious reasons!).

Reversion and Protection of HRE RfA

I, Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted, then protected Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4 in order to effect a closure, (the diffs between that protection and the subsequent tagging as an WP:OFFICE closure are here) based on discussion on IRC (#wikipedia-en-admins) that there was a revert war underway, and that Danny was asking for the RfA to be closed pending further investigation. I posted a notice to the talk page, and subsequent discussion can be seen here . suffice it to say that it was not universally accepted that I did the right thing, it was alleged that I violated the protection policy, point 2 by first reverting and then protecting. (I would say I was implementing the desire to have it be closed that Danny expressed) See also this series of exchanges on my talk page. I also reverted the reinsertion of the RfA into the currently active list. stand by my actions but put myself up for review here. ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that what happened, as I see it, was a miscommunication caused by parallel discussions on WT:RFA and IRC — those not on IRC, such as myself, were unaware that Danny was going to use his OFFICE prerrogative. Yes, this shouldn't happen, and this is why we should not be making Misplaced Pages-related decisions on IRC, but this situation was most unusual, and very grave. Danny, Lar and everybody else were only trying to find a smooth resolution to the problem, all the while showing HolyRomanEmperor, his family and, well, the whole situation itself, the due respect. It happens, and it pales in comparison to the possibility that a long-standing Wikipedian might have died. Redux 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to commend you for having the decisiveness and courage to clarify something that was becoming a drawn-out confusion, where nobody knew what was going on and nobody was willing to do anything about it. That is what admins are appointed for—to take such responsibility when necessary. These are extraordinary circumstances, and I have no doubt your actions were with the best interests of wiki in mind. I find that this alone justifies them. The fact that you were acting on instructions from OFFICE means there should be no further debate involving you. Tyrenius 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, and it does appear there is reason to believe so: May I be the first to suggest the typical "memorial effort" idea for this situation? That is, of granting him status as a administrator, blocking him, and subsequently having a developer acting to further prevent a login? While I don't know much at all about MediaWiki, I'd wager that there is a way via database manipulaton (such as ruining the password hash?) and that a developer would do it (or try to) if asked by Danny. --Avillia 05:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a memorial. Sorry but I thinks that's proabably not a good idea.pschemp | talk 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The not memorial policy applies to articles. That said, there should be other ways to honour one besides posthumous adminship, especially given that in life adminship is supposed to be "no big deal." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... How? Throw up a giant statue to him at Wikimania? There are limited avenues to be taken for any kind of memorial effort; Considering the repeated attempts to gain adminship, it seems like a option. If the option to use those administrative powers is removed, it becomes a title. A ceremonial title, and a title which quite likely will be the most fitting thing the Misplaced Pages community can do, whether it is for his memory, for our mourning... Whatever. --Avillia14:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

HRE is not the first Wikipedian to die (although I suspect he is now the best-known simply because of the curious circumstances), and there is no particularily good reason why we should turn his account into some sort of memorial when we've not done the same for others who have predeceased him. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't really know what happened to HolyRomanEmperor as far as I'm aware. Evidently the account has been compromised and should be watched. Nothing would be served by those of us who didn't know him well pretending that we did. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Act in haste, repent at leisure. I suggest not making any hasty decisions with long lasting consequencies, particularly as we have incomplete information. Stephen B Streater 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nod. Which is why I think protecting and temporarily delisting the nomination under WP:OFFICE, pending understanding what is going on is actually a very prudent thing to do, it's the least disruptive and allows for change later. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad username User:Doug E Fresh

Doug E Fresh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This would be a username after a famous person, namely Doug E. Fresh who's an 80s beatboxer. Kevin_b_er 04:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is the possibility that this user is Doug E. Fresh. It may be worth asking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have very good working email at the moment, but info@dougefresh.com is the address to ask such a question from his official site. Kevin_b_er 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. If he later claims to be Mr Fresh then we can arrange confirmation. --Sam Blanning 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and AfD nominations

Please see Gay Nigger Association of America, Tom Biddigan and Matt Spokes. Some new editor by the name of User:Jaunio has no edits other than edits nominating these articles for deletion. Reversion of the articles, adding {{prod}} boilers, or comments on his Talk page have no effect. And now that he has reverted each article exactlly three times, one User:Osieer shows up, doing the exact same thing. Obvious sockpupperty, and blockable offenses in any event. Please, someone, take a look. -- Ec5618 09:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And we're done, thanks to expedient assistance from FireFox. -- Ec5618 10:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Vaquero100 again

see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Vaquero100 above.

I've just blocked Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for continued disruption, disregard of concensus and failure to use proper channels before making changes. After User:Andrew c warned him again yesterday (approximately the fifth person to do so in 2 days) Vaquero100 went and changed Catholic to his preferred version again today. It appears he thinks the Roman Catholic Church should be referred to as the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, but ignoring the fact there's multiple varieties of Catholicism. Anyone who disagrees with him is accused of oppressing "The Catholic Church" and attempting to remove it from Misplaced Pages. I welcome review, but what I really want to know is how to take it from here. - Mgm| 12:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. 24 hours as an attention-getter is appropriate, because argument isn't making any progress, and I also gave a warning and "cease and desist." Geogre 13:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator could use some backup

Bishonen has been politely and patiently trying to persuade a stridently disruptive editor to alter his ways. Unfortunately, that has only made her a target of the editor's venom. She probably could use some backup from other administrators. Askolnick 12:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I'll take a gander. --Woohookitty 13:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thank you for your concern, Askolnick, but I'm cool, the target part doesn't bother me. I've just blocked Peterklutz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three days for disruption of the Talk:Transcendental Meditation page in the form of persistent incivility and personal attacks, and more eyeballs on the block would certainly be appreciated. Feel free to alter the length of it in either direction. Please note that it's difficult to get any overview of the editor's contributions, as he often edits from a variety of IPs without being logged in; see the Transcendental Meditation history for some of these IPs. I think it's essentially the case that any anon contributor in the history is Peterklutz. The subject of the article is controversial, and Peterklutz is apparently at Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of inputting POV in TM-related articles. If he won't learn to work with others--and I can see no sign of it yet--I can foresee stepping up the sanctions to the point where he can no longer interfere with these articles. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I thought it was the least I could do for giving you extra work to do -- having to delete my own inappropriate additions to the TM article. I added them in the smoke and fury of the edit war last night, minutes before you blocked him. Sorry for doing that. I let myself get carried away by my growing frustration.

I haven't the slightest doubt you could handle the problem. But I thought I'd ask for help here anyway, so you wouldn't need to. Peterklutz turned his attack on you, accusing you of being on the side of the "Christian Fundamentalist" anti-TM conspiracy he keeps shouting about. I thought it would be helpful for additional administrators to point out the error in his ways. Askolnick 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well I'll monitor it as best I can. --Woohookitty 14:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I found some of Peter's IPs in this declined CheckUser request (I've no doubt they're his all right)
• 213.112.235.43 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 213.112.235.81 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 213.112.235.53 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.30.186.206 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Bishonen | talk 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Trolling on Talk:Sikhism

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818(http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ARYAN818 see talk]) and user:Elven6 for continual violation of WP:NPA (includes personal, religious and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL and for committing vandalism and WP:TROLL. Their behavior from July 2 till now has played a disruptive effect, and despite warnings from myself,user:Ragib and user:Dbachmann they have heaped a lot of abuse on user:Sukh.

Relevant diffs:,,,,,,

Thanks, This Fire Burns 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am placing a warning on these users' talk pages. At the next personal attack, they will be blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop me a line or send me an email if these persist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

seeing the user's history, I would have considered this a clear case for a block. This user has been skimming a permaban as a troll from the beginning, and has been all bother ever since. I'll not override your warning, but I might issue a permaban in the (likely) case that the trolling continues. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a rather long drawl on User:ARYAN818's talk page... it seems to me like he didn't quite understand what he was doing wrong, but kept getting angrier/more frustrated as people warned him. I'd definitely endorse a 24hr-1 week block if he continues with the trolling past here (and I'd probably endorse a 24hr right now to get his attention). --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps {{TrollWarning}} should be added to said talk page. — Jul. 4, '06 <freak|talk>

818 is code for H.A.H. -- "Heil Adolf Hitler". I'm indef-blocking the user name. Feel free to review. JDoorjam Talk 17:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to point this out. I endorse this block.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Spambot on Jack Abramoff.

What looks like a spambot has been making numerous posts to Jack Abramoff recently, replacing an entire section with links to prescription drugs. Every edit has been from a different IP, but they all share several key features; they try and place html <a href= links instead of Misplaced Pages links, and they generally put something about "great site!" or so forth in front of their additions. I assume that this is a bot intended to post to messageboards and guestbooks that has somehow followed a link to Misplaced Pages. Example edits include: --Aquillion 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another possible spam blacklist addition: seems bot like too. Netscott 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Point, 3RR?, Harassment

Could an admin take a look at User:24.211.192.250 contributions. This user seems to be engaged in harassing User:Karl Meier and violating a number of policies in the process. Thanks. Netscott 18:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Anirudh777 (talk · contribs)

Despite repeated warnings, user continues to spam Hinduism-related articles with links to ambedkar.org, which has had its Alexa ranking increase by 300,000 as a result. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way--user's previous block was, in fact, a mistake and had nothing to do with spamming (or so it appears). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous sockpuppetry and personal attacks

User: Imacomp is now running two sockpuppets; User: Azuredeltascribe and User: Deltascribe following some conflict with users on Freemasonry, leading to an RFC on his conduct.

He is now using the User: Deltascribe account to launch personal attacks using the sock tags on the various accounts.

on User: Azuredeltascribe 4 July 06

on Freemasonry 3 July 06

on User: Deltascribe 4 July 06

on User: Skull 'n' Femurs 4 July 06

Sockpuppetry assessed as likely at this case.

The latter point probably supports the assertion that Imacomp is a sock of USer: Skull 'n' Femurs who was blocked in February by User: David Gerard on the basis of a stated intent and actions to systematically remove information from Misplaced Pages.

Grateful if an admin could deal with the sockpuppetry as appropriate.ALR 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dyslexic agnostic and User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow banned from comics-related articles

User:Dyslexic agnostic and User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow are banned from comics-related articles for two weeks, the ban expiring at 05:35 17 July (UTC). This ban is in accordance with the terms of their probations at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. The two have recently engaged in edit warring at various articles, including List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes, It's Never Too Late (Batman: The Animated Series) and On Leather Wings (Batman: The Animated Series). I have discussed this with User:Titoxd, a moderator to User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow and we feel that a ban from a few articles for two weeks will simply move the conflict to another article. Note that User:Dyslexic agnostic is currently blocked for a personal attack for 24 hours by myself after this edit, per his probation. Steve block Talk 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection is a two-way street

• http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/now_lets_bury_t.php

See y'all at Wikimadia! -- 67.121.145.7 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this is. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 21:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Move of Israeli Apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid while Request for Move poll in progress

We have a problem with Israeli Apartheid again. As some may recall, activity on this article has generated considerable controversy. A few weeks ago, the page had to be locked for a time, and one user is banned from editing it.

One of the several controversial issues pending is whether the article should be moved to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. There's a formal request for move poll in progress on this at Misplaced Pages talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa" with a start date of 26 June 2006. The poll hasn't yet been closed, and no consensus has emerged.

Today, we have this action: 20:11, 4 July 2006 Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: NPOV title). This is a unilateral move while a vote on the move is in progress. That is arguably vandalism. Discussion of the matter can be found at Misplaced Pages:Central discussions/Apartheid.

We're going to need some administrator intervention again. Would some uninvolved administrator be willing to take this on? It won't be fun, but somebody has to do it. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The article had this offensive title since May 28. The polls only served as a magnet for certain editors eager to besmirch Israel. No consensus was possible and no compromise was acceptable. Read the article and tell me allegations is incorrect title. ←Humus sapiens 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back. I agree entirely that the move was out of process and improper. I also have to say that I have serious concerns about the way that a number of admins, including Humus sapiens, have been behaving concerning this article. I've already expressed my concerns to Humus on his talk page (see User talk:Humus sapiens#Bantustan again) regarding his conduct on an article linking to this one. As I said on Humus's talk page:

You clearly have a strong POV on the issue but you as an administrator, of all people, should know by now that WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox: "Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind." It's simply not our job to "refute a slanderous accusation" or for that matter to promote it. All we are here to do is to describe neutrally what others say about the issue. WP:NPOV#A simple formulation states it better than I could - "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves".

This is really basic stuff. Frankly I'm surprised and dismayed that I'm finding myself having to explain it to a fellow administrator, even a relatively new one. Misplaced Pages has more than enough partisan editors - as administrators, we should be pushing for objectivity, not pushing our own partisan POVs. If you hold a strong POV on an issue, that's all the more reason for consciously trying to avoid letting it colour your editing.

I think some people need to take a refresher course in what the NPOV policy requires. It's not surprising that some editors might not understand the policy, but if administrators don't understand it (or worse, don't want to follow it) I have to question whether they should be administrators in the first place. If admins don't or won't defend NPOV, who will? -- ChrisO 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards