Misplaced Pages

I believe this not a fanclub but related to the new feature that lists newly-created accounts. A bot is being worked on that will flag up usernames suggestive of impending vandalism. — Trilobite 02:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make the names explain exactly what I was doing. :-) (Except for the last one; that was some joker who wanted not only to test the bot but mess with me as well. He has been suitably dealt with! :-)) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that anyone else who wishes to create these sort of test accounts should block them as soon as possible after you have done with the test. Or at the very least, make a note on the user page and/or talk page using your regular account. It will be hard to tell in the future which ones are legitimate test accounts and which ones will be an attempt by a vandal to get by... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Zephram Stark

Zephram Stark has been causing problem at Terrorism and (since the page was protected) Talk:Terrorism for many weeks. He was recently blocked for personal attacks and in response, blanked his talk page with the edit summary "This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before all you fucking Jews came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything against you before this. Now I see what people mean."

I'm not Jewish myself, but I'm extremely offended and do not believe Zephram has any chance of making a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. This is so far beyond unacceptable behavior that I'm requesting for a permanent ban by community consensus. I will not enact such a ban since I've been involved with him in the past. Carbonite | Talk 03:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Not having followed this user's contributions in detail I'll leave others to discuss the question of a long-term block. For the remark you quoted, however, on the back of other behavior that had already landed him a block, I've extended it to 48 hours pending discussion. I'm inclined to agree that he doesn't have much of a future here. — Trilobite 03:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Legal threats, antisemitic comments, obstruction, disruption, etc. Not much to discuss. El_C 07:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd oppose anything like that—you need to take it to the ArbCom if he's such a problem. "Banned by the community" is too fuzzy unless we can have a poll on it. Everyking 12:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't be serious. What possible contributions could he make to Misplaced Pages at this point? Now, instead of having to assume good faith, we have confirmed bad faith. That's fine if the ArbCom would also like to ban him, but this is not a user that belongs on Misplaced Pages. The community as a whole should make that crystal clear. Instead of having a poll, I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks that Zephram should continue to edit on Misplaced Pages. Carbonite | Talk 13:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything that it said above. But let me just discuss punishment. He has not vandalized other pages or other Users, unlike others who normally hold his views. So for his terrible comment on his talk page, the 48 hour ban seems appropriate. For the terrorism edits, I think a ban on that page is appropriate as he has never made a productive edit as far as I can see. But it seems that he ought to be given the opportunity to attempt to make productive edits on some other article (granted, he might not be able to or interested, but we should not just assume). --Noitall 13:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The "fucking Jews" comments is worse than just the insult. It reveals what motivates Zephram's edits, at least pages such as Terrorism. Editing Misplaced Pages is not a right and we don't have to accept editors that are blatantly antisemitic. We also need to judge whether other editors will be driven away (from certain articles or off Misplaced Pages entirely) should Zephram remain. In my opinion, the answer is a resounding yes. Carbonite | Talk 13:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark seems to be trolling. He has made no useful contributions that I'm aware of. His only edits to Terrorism were to introduce original research, namely his own (incredibly silly) views on how terrorism ought to be defined, which were opposed by every editor on the page, now protected because of him. He has engaged in a revert war using sockpuppet accounts and open proxies, then claimed consensus for his edits because, as he put it, he was being supported by readers all over the planet. He now spends his time on the talk page trying to start polls to decide various issues, but if anyone takes him seriously, he changes the subject to e.g. the difference between science and religion, followed by outraged protestations of innocence if anyone calls him disruptive. It's very similar to what the feces troll did (e.g. User:Eyeon) for anyone familiar with that one. An indefinite block would be a mercy. SlimVirgin 23:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. (Oh, more grist for the Jayjg-SlimVirgin-Jpgordon conspiracy theory.) I've still paid no attention to the actual ingredients in the content dispute; I've just been watching his behaviour on that talk page, and the acts of bad faith demonstrated by this editor are escalating. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Milk man

...has created three accounts I've seen in the last couple minutes (MilkManiac (talk · contribs), MilkMan and Cereal (talk · contribs), and one I forget the name of) . I've blocked all of them, but be on the lookout. Meelar (talk) 04:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE:See User talk:MilkMan Has A New Route. I have not blocked this account--I'm supposed to be writing a paper anyway. I'll leave this to people here. Meelar (talk) 05:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Please block User:James Jones Esq.

This user James Jones Esq. (talk · contribs) should be blocked. See his contributions. Could he be a sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) ? Ann Heneghan 11:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely for now. Please unblock if you disagree. His first edit was completely inappropriate, and directed equally against Linuxbeak and Taxman (thus it could also be a sockpuppet of MARMOT, not that it matters). --MarkSweep✍ 12:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please block User: Ihcoyc

I am not sure what this person’s problem is, but they keep editing your Saint Philomena page. This user seems to have the unfortunate notion that Saint Philomena has been removed as a Saint.

This is not possible. Once the Catholic Church Canonizes a Saint, they are always a Canonized Saint. No one has the power to remove them. She was removed from the Liturgical Calendar in 1961, and yes, there is a petition drive to request she be added back on, now in the hands of the Vatican, but this user’s notion that some are trying to revive her is erroneous.

Signed User: filumenae

What has this user done that you feel warrants a block? There needs to be more than just disagreeing with you. Has there been a violation of the 3RR? If it's just a content dispute with no violations of policy involved all you can do is work it out on the article talk page. Everyking 13:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Having looked now, I see Ihcoyc only reverted twice, so we can't block. Also I should point out that this article is not in line with any kind of Misplaced Pages standard. It needs a full rewrite to be made compatible with NPOV and also to improve the format and style (needs an intro, for instance). Everyking 13:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I see the problem now: you copied all that from another website over our previously existing article, which looked OK to me, so I reverted to that. Please don't copy material from other websites unless it's in the public domain. Everyking 13:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

HELP, User: Larzan

My Nick is Larzan, and i'm being wrongly accused by User: Radiant! to be a sockpuppet of the flying spaghetti monster, whatever a sockpuppet may be.

I am not able to respond to that, because this user has not provided an email address, i dont know what he wants from me, i can only assume that he is opposed to the page of the flying spaghetti monster, for which i voted on the related site. I thought wikipedia is a place of free speech, and now i am thrown out just because i told you my opinion?!?!

I'm outrageous, that cant be! I can only assume that this Radiant is abusing his permissions, or is just trigger happy. In either way, I would like my account back!!!!!!!

Ok, i looked up sockpuppet. What do you want from me?! i have an account on the german wikipedia under the same name, but that can hardly be a sockpuppet situation, so please release my account and lecture this Radiant person to be a bit more thorough with his research before he blocks a user.

Thank you for your help, Larzan

blocklist entry

13:59, 8 September 2005, Radiant! blocked #37025 (expires 13:59, 9 September 2005) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Larzan". The reason given for Larzan's block is: "Flying Spaghetti sockpuppet".)

added: I have never been warned about anything even though i provided my email address, noone notified me that i am being accused, no one apparently checked my contributions to verify the accusations, is this how wikipedia is supposed to work?!

Ha! They did the same thing to me, and then a few administrators emailed me amd asked me to provide info. proving I wasn't another user! I was to say the least offended. I never edited and spoke up about something on a page one day and they apparently found it a convenient way to argue with another user there, by calling me a sockpuppet. I watched the page after that just to see what would happen next and it seems to me some of the "rules" are arbitrary.--EKBK 18:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've contacted Radiant!, and your case will be reviewed. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, because Radiant! is busy, I've unblocked Larzan, given that Radiant! had unblocked another one of the Flying Spaghetti Monster sockpuppets in the past; I'm also assuming good faith. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank You for taking the time to review my case, i had to spend 2 and a half hours finding out how i might be able to get back on wikipedia, i'm sorry for the harsh words in which i presented my case, but, i was very frustrated how sth. like that could happen.
But i am glad that Misplaced Pages is indeed a place which i took it for, a place for the people who want to help and are in good faith.
Thanks! --Larzan 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Illinoisian

Repeated violations of WP:NPA on User_talk:Illinoisian. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I gave him a fairly stern warning, but that hasn't worked for anyone else so far and he's had plenty of opportunities. Honestly, a permanent block wouldn't bother me in the slightest, if others think it's applicable. --Scimitar 19:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He vandalized my user page recently and once I reverted it, he had a major problem with me reverting. The vandalism consisted of replacing my Barnstar ribbon bars with that goddamn Barnstar-eating bear. He did it to other users, but not sure what their reactions were. 22:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Zoe has placed an indefinite block on this account. Maybe a trifle harsh, but I certainly plan to do nothing about it. --Scimitar 23:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Leonig Mig

Vehement abuse; worse abuse, real-life threat. This has been going on for some weeks. Andy Mabbett 20:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So write an RfAr. I see no threat on the link you provided. Zoe 20:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think this—"I even considered looking up his address and going round to his house, and ... well anyway."—was what was meant by threat. Everyking 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, Andy has been stalking and harrassing Leonig Mig for months. I do not condone all of Leonig Mig's comments to/about Andy, but I understand his frustration given Andy's repeated refusal to acknowledge Leonig Mig's distress. —Theo (Talk) 00:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've stopped editing the wikipedia. It's the only way of capping my blood pressure. Can someone mediate- tell this editor he cannot keep policing my edits. Leonig Mig 19:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Willy

Willy appears to be on a sleeper-account creation spree at the moment. We've caught two new users in the past couple of minutes. Could you keep an eye on special:log/newusers to check. I'm off to bed in a cuople of minutes and although Everyking and Evercat also appear to be patroling, more eyes are always welcome. Thryduulf 00:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

University of South Florida

The following was recently posted on Misplaced Pages:School and university projects, since it involves what could possibly be construed as vandalism or at the very least, a violation of official policy, I have decided to post it here. There is also some further discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (news). While we should be able to ride this out without too many problems, perhaps we should consider contacting the school or this professor to let him know that this sort of thing is inappropriate, lest he decide to do it again. -Loren 00:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been reported that Alex Duensing, adjunct professor of English at the University of South Florida, has been setting his students homework involving creating made-up words and posting dictionary articles about them to the encyclopaedia to promote their made-up meanings, in violation of the Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and no original research official policies.

The homework for the next class is to come up with a word, write the definition, and post it to Misplaced Pages, a community encyclopedia on the Internet that allows anyone to write an entry on any topic. It's the perfect medium for a reality-questioner like Duensing. Once a word is there and defined, he argues, who can say it's not real? — Linsky, Max (2005-09-07). "For unconventional USF teacher Alex Duensing, life is what you make of it". {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |org= ignored (help)

WikiLex (AfD discussion), one such identified dictionary article on a made up word, has been listed for deletion.

Kiyama (AfD discussion), another found by searching the Special:Newpages for ". . 131.247", which is the IP range for USF.

Searched Newpages from 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC) back to 03:24, 3 September 2005 (two found, listed above).

The full list of applicable IPs is at . -Splash 00:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Has someone already contacted Duensing and asked him to stop? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:School and university projects#University of South Florida an email has been sent, threatening a university-wide IP block if this continues. At least two users have rsponded to the Weekly Planet article linked above. DES 19:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

User:66.69.128.146

I have just reverted userpage blanking for this user. It appears that he did it himself, and the restored userpage notice states to post here if activity is noted. Uh...so here it is :)--inks 02:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for general knowledge, according to the notice 66.69.128.146 (talk • contribs • block) is a sockpuppet of Enviroknot, etc. Shouldn't this account be blocked again? JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The only edits that account has made lately is removing the notice. Seems to me a block is only necessary if he tries to edit articles or user talk pages or so forth again. Odds are good that he knows he wouldn;t get away with it on that IP without erasing those comments identifying him, and if he did try, investigation back to those notices would get him banned. As a practical solution for right now I'd think just it's fine as is and it'd be esay enough to take care of it once a substantial edit somewhere happens. DreamGuy 18:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Chris 73's blocking of Witkacy (again)

He blocked me again. --Witkacy 09:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction, I would have blocked you yesterday as I stated on your talk page, but mistyped your name (User:User:Witkacy). Hence you were not blocked. But since you continue going against consensus, I have blocked you now again. Details can be found on your talk page (unless you deleted the comments). For comments by other users, see the topic with the same title above. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

On returning from his last block Witkacy (talk · contribs) immediately engaged in the same behaviour that resulted in his last two blocks: removing German city names from articles that had both Polish and German names. No attempt at discussion was seen, and those were the only type of edits he made before being blocked again. I note that a number of other editors–representing both sides of the Gdanskig debates–have managed to behave with rationality and civility; compromises at several articles have been worked out through the use of discussion pages rather than edit warring.

If other editors behaving equally badly are drawn to my attention, I will warn them and block if necessary. I presume Chris 73 is willing to do the same. I have no interest in taking sides, beyond sheltering editors who engage in constructive discussion from the actions of edit warriors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Rapid-fire creation of new user accounts

A large number of user accounts (Gaurav Khurana; Harman19; Hugo l. iran; Ktserpes; BhupeshPANDEY; Bganeshkumar; Amitchouhan; Anchorite*; Anshum; Love3sixty; Luccha; Urbanshaman; V ahuja; Wargenix; Tserpes; Takashi11; Moa nalo; Mouhammadreza; Sottocolle; Zemadmax) have all been created in rapid succession. Update: more accounts have now been created in rapid succession: Hyppnoss; J Featonby; Malbertus; Rtspace; Seifried. Could this be a prelude to vandalism, or is this is a whole class of students all creating new accounts at once as part of a class exercise, or just a chance fluctuation in the background rate of user account creation? -- The Anome 10:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Try a carefully worded welcome message to all of them. Susvolans ⇔ 12:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Given the high rate accounts are being created since newuserslog was enabled, I'd say it's not that unlikely to be just a chance fluctuation. --cesarb 15:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Assume good faith. We cannot really determine the fluctuation rates before the newuserslog was enabled. Nor can we determine yet if these new accounts are indeed for vandalism, are a part of a class exercise, or because of the increased publicity of Misplaced Pages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keeping Assume good faith very firmly in mind, it may or may not be worth noting that none of the first group have made a single edit as of this time (except Zemadmax who has made one.) Just a data point I guess. Rx StrangeLove 19:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  AFAIK most accounts on Misplaced Pages have either no edits or a single edit. It's not that unusual. --cesarb 19:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:SaltyPig

Could somebody have a talk with this person concerning personal attacks? Zoe 19:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I've warned him and Masterofthesky, as well as removing the comments.--Scimitar 23:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And he reverted your deletion, calling it interference. I have given him a final warning. Zoe 06:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • He reverted the warnings and reverted to the attacks. I have blocked him for 24 hours, and have warned him that if he reverts the Talk page again, I will protect it and extend his block. Zoe 19:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The threat of ~~AIDS

~~AIDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left the following message on WP:AN half an hour ago:

This is a message from Love Virus. In exactly 1 hour, wikipedia will experience the most extensive attack since it came into existence. The administrators will have to work all day just to prevent the encyclopaedia from disappearing. Oh, and I tested the new code. That's 600 edits/minute/per installation. Enjoy.

So perhaps people should be on the lookout half an hour from now. Both ~~AIDS and ~AIDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created at the same time) are now blocked. Dragons flight 23:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ignore it. This user, who is probably Willy, seems to feed off the discussion of his actions. The more we talk about it, the more he vandalizes. He has also made similar threats in the past, none of which have materialized. Love Virus has quite clearly demonstrated that he does not have the wherewithal to run a bot. It is, however, almost exactly a week since Curps block bot and other measures went into effect, so I wouldn't be surprised if Willy is spending the next hour industriously loading as many Firefox windows as possible to do some page moving or other vandalism. While this is aggravating, he is putting far more effort into his attacks than it takes us to revert them, so it doesn't represent much of a threat. - SimonP 23:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

You don't honestly believe that, do you? Not only is it simpler for him to do it than for us to revert it (It doesn't take an hour - He merely needs middle-click "random page" 50 times), but it's quicker. We are expending far, far more effort into fixing what he does than he puts into doing it. --Golbez 23:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Try it. With Misplaced Pages operating at its usual speed it takes at least five minutes to set up group of thirty pages to be moved. To set up 600 it would take at least an hour. With the new tools these attacks are being fairly quickly reverted. It took three minutes for all of BBB's 17 moves to reverted, 6 minutes for VB.NET's 27 edits, and about 15 for 99 Willys's 127 moves. If we add in the time and effort he spends creating accounts and waiting for them to mature, his vandalism almost certainly takes more time to do than revert. - SimonP 00:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

What new tools? --Golbez 01:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The ability to rollback page moves, the page move log, CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter, and just recently Curps' bot and the new users log. - SimonP 01:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

And, as expected, the half hour passed and nothing happened. --cesarb 00:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the recent block list is somewhat entertaining. The new user log is already turning out to be useful. Dragons flight 00:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's not Willy, it's MARMOT. Look... he's done this before. We're going to deal with him once and for all. For more information, please hop on IRC. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where do we go to report suspicious new usernames?

I came across the following just by glancing at the new user log:

Love Virus v1.3 (talk · contribs)

Rdsmith4 has no brains. (talk · contribs)

Rdsmith4 has a 75,000 km long PENISPENISPENIS! (talk · contribs)

Rdsmitt4 (talk · contribs)

Rdsmith4- (talk · contribs)

Rdsmith4 and his gay partner (talk · contribs)

99BottlesOfMilkOnTheWikipedia (talk · contribs)

MilkcomesfromyPENIS (talk · contribs)

MilkTheMilkieMan (talk · contribs)

(The three 'milk' ones appeared in rapid succession, which--aside from the one in the middle--was what makes them suspicious; I think Willy used a 99-bottles type name recently, too.) Aquillion 00:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This page would seem to be a fine place to report them. I happen to have blocked all of these already, but thanks anyway for pointing them out. — Dan | Talk 00:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, oops. In the future I'll try and remember to check the blocklog before reporting them. Aquillion 00:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If the people on newuser patrol use the templates like {{imposter}}, {{indefblockeduser}}, etc. it would mean everyone else wouldn't have to double check. Dmcdevit·t 02:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• For future reference, I made this category, awhile back for a quick reference of the different templates and blocked categories. Category:Misplaced Pages user intervention. Hope it's helpful for those who do RC patrol. ∞Who?¿? 07:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Some more ones that didn't seem to be blocked, at least not when I checked:

Hamster Sandwich on Wheels (talk · contribs)

SlimVirginsDoggieGonnaDie (talk · contribs)

SlimVirginEatsDoggieCunt (talk · contribs)

SlimVirginIsAFatWhore (talk · contribs)

Fatwhore (talk · contribs)

--Aquillion 09:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thing you can do is add one of the templates like {{Usernameblock}} with an edit summary similar to: {{Usernameblock}} recommend block, and the admins doing RCp will usually block them when they see the changed userpage. ∞Who?¿? 20:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That seems a little roundabout, so I've created {{should block}} and Category:Misplaced Pages:Usernames that should be blocked. ~~ N (t/c) 20:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well yea :) but when I was scouring through 1000's of usernames and/or logs, I was doing quite a few, and they were usually blocked soon after. I only added {{Usernameblock}} to the very obvious ones, or previously blocked. But that new template is a good idea, I should have thought of it D'oh!. ∞Who?¿? 01:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI. I can't block them myself. User:No I'm Not Banned. -MilkMan V, User:MilkMan IV, MilkMan III. · Katefan0 22:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be worried that adding the "has been blocked" template to a user's page might sometimes actually delay their being blocked, at least if nobody catches your edit summary on RCp, since an admin going rapidly over the newuser log or somesuch might just glance at their userpage, see the message saying they've been blocked, and assume that someone else already handled it. Aquillion 01:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

All three have been blocked by Phrozaic. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Precedents

There have been some changes to this page in the very recent past and the editting is moving faster than the discussion. It could use some more eyeballs (mmmm... eyeballs).
brenneman 09:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Need someone to brighten your day? You guessed it, it's Willy!

I just banned the one, Mikegodwin on Wheels (talk · contribs), and Violetriga caught GraemeL on Wheels (talk · contribs).

So it looks like Willy is ready for another bout of constant name-swapping. Be on the lookout.

I swear, we need to hard-code in an autoban for anyone using "on Wheels" as part of their username. Garrett 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, by letting him have these user names he's easy to identify, and also he would of course just use something different in his names instead. Everyking 12:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: WTF? I'm getting a no such user error when I try to block Hamster Sandwich on Wheels (talk · contribs) and Caerwine on Wheels (talk · contribs). Is this just me? Does this work for someone else? Garrett 10:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could tell us exactly what you are clicking/entering. But looking at Special:Ipblocklist, it looks like you were both successful. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac Has A Vagina And A 75000km PENISPENIS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ~~ N (t/c) 16:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• LOL This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions, I guess with all that time to kill the vandals have to come up with "creative" names Ryan Norton 17:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've been laughing about that for quite a while now. Too bad I didn't get to block them though, I would have used the reason "thanks" or "*slaps you with the penis*". Oh, and don't forget that within seconds it grew 25,000km. :) --Phroziac 17:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm.... 25,000km / 5 seconds... that's 5,000 km/sec. Multiply that by 60, you've got yourself a penis that grows at a rate of 300,000km/hour. Damn! You could poke an eye out with that thing! *ducks* Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, even though he was already blocked, you could still block him anyway. Users could be blocked by more than one administrator at once. :) --Ixfd64 19:35, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
    • One presumes Linuxbeak has just defined "Willy on Wheels". ] 18:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Meals on Wheels

This user was blocked less than two minutes after account creation as a possible Willy sockpuppet. What happened to assume good faith? Meals on Wheels is a U.S. Government program; the user could have named himself after that. If it's been a week or so and there have still been no contributions, then MAYBE we can start suspecting bad faith. --SPUI (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

we need to think about our approach here. What is the point of blocking random accounts if the vandal just creates another one? We need the option to temp-ban the IP behind the account, without clogging up the blocklist with hundreds of single-edit accounts. I take it that Willy is using open proxies, otherwise he could not be back as quickly with new accounts (his IP would be banned). Admins need

• either, access to IPs, so we can rangeblock Willy's ISP, even when he's only editing logged in
• or, ar least, the ability to block the IP behind an account, and if possible, the ability to check if that IP is an open proxy, or if the IP is a major ISP, so we can decide on the length of the block.

I'm serious. Enough with this "IPs are privacy" nonsense. Not knowing vandal IPs seriously impedes our ability to fight logged-in vandals. Admins need to see IPs of vandals, or let the developers look after Willy. dab (ᛏ) 17:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, we should still assume good faith. Don't judge a book by its cover. If he is really Willy, then Curps' block-bot should get him pretty quickly. --Ixfd64 19:30, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
• I agree dab. Maybe not all admins need IP abilities, but certainly many more. Got an idea of a good place to bring that up? I think that proposal would float pretty well. - Taxman 23:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision

What's holding up final resolution on this case? Zoe 20:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

probaly arbcom fatue. when are the next lot of elections due?Geni 21:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

December. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Uncommonly nasty vandalism

Recently I encountered what is probably the nastiest vandalism I have seen in nearly 2 years at Misplaced Pages. It came from 2 IP addresses:

• 210.0.200.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.112.194.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The edit summaries were vicious, obscene personal insults to a good Misplaced Pages contributor. This was the kind of thing obviously intended to drive someone out of a community. Before they were stopped, each of these IPs did multiple vandalisms: various articles, equally nasty edit summaries.

This is one of the few times I think it would be worth someone going in and removing edit summaries. After all, if we don't do that, these will be visible to anyone looking through the histories of these articles. And we will be suggesting that there is a way to permanently attach obscene, personal attacks to articles of wide interest. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

He's been at it since at least the start of September and from a lot more ips than that. See the history of User talk:Gamaliel for a bunch more. —Cryptic (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been going on for some days. The vandal shows up and vandalizes five or six articles in rapid succession at about 4:00 UTC, is blocked, and returns the next day. He seems to use open proxies, several of which have been indefinitely blocked; if someone would care to portscan the above two, I'd bet they're open as well. — Dan | Talk 06:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Since any user can now view the edit summaries of deleted pages, even selected deleting those revisions would not help. See Special:Undelete/Piss for example where I removed the 2 most recent edits to test this. Admins see the old content, deletion log, and page history. Non admins just see the deletion log and page history. Perhaps a feature request could be made for edit summaries to be editable, but Brion has objected to that in the past since they are meant to provide a permanent record. Angela. 10:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Non-admins should see the deletion log and not the page history. I agree with Brion that edit summaries should be a permanent record. dbenbenn | talk 03:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

... and I agree thoroughly with dbenbenn on both counts. — Dan | Talk 04:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up, but doesn't that approach provide an easy means to make libel a permanent part of our site? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive edit summary. -- Tim Starling 03:59, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

If nothing else I'd appreciate it if someone checked all those IP addresses the vandal used for open proxies, or show me how to do it. Thank you. Gamaliel 07:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Both have already been checked, found as being open proxies, and blocked indefinitely. Check the block logs. --cesarb 19:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

User problem?

Not sure if this is the right place to put this. Ive seen a user page which looks like it could be a problem. User:Tlkirby writes " In time, one will be able to read my entire life on this online encyclopedia", and has a template on his page which Ive seen already on an artical for a band thats on afd, Xascdv. Perhaps an admin needs to have a word with him? BL Lacertae 07:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

He may mean that he's going to write about himself on his user page. If not, his article will be deleted, no big deal. Everyking 07:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully he means that now... His user page is actually a userification of an article (Thomas Kirby). Alai 07:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like the template you are seeing on both User:Tlkirby and Xascdv is Template:New page which currently is automatically loaded when you use the feature on Help:Starting a new page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Imdaking

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this problem, or if I'm going to have to go through the Misplaced Pages Dispute procedures instead. I and other editors are having some problems with User:Imdaking. See, for example, this post to User talk:Paul Klenk.

Since he first started editing on the Misplaced Pages, Imdaking has been uploading images, first claiming {{screenshot}}, and then {{fairuse}}, when almost all of them do not fit the criteria for fair use. Because of that, I've been reporting some of them at Copyright problems and leaving a note on his talk page. At first he was just deleting my notices on his talk page. Now he want anyone with a complaint about his editing behavior to hide the message on his special complaint subpage. (see User talk:Imdaking/Complaints).

Even then, he just ignored my messages and continued his copyright violations. One of them, for example, was an unwikified and un-cleaned-up Google translation of a Mexican website. Recently he left this message on my talk page (see User talk:BlankVerse#WackVerse) which included a threat to vandalize my user pages, plus he started modifying my notices on his special complaint page. I tried reverting his modification of my messages AND his modification of my signature (!!), but it's clear that he will continue to do it, even to the point of violating WP:3RR, (which he did the other day with four reverts).

I consider the crossing out of my signatures the same as "capping" a graffiti tag. At a minimum, that is a severe insult, and could even be considered a challenge or a threat. Although it rarely goes to violence, still there have been taggers killed over crossing out tags, and so I consider it an oblique threat. I've politely asked him not to do it, but he has made it very clear that he will continue to revert it ("don't bother, it will only be reverted again." see User talk:Imdaking/Complaints - page history).

There is a rule about not modifying another editor's comments on talk pages, but there is not a specific rule about modifying another user's signature, I still consider it a serious breach of Wiki-eitiquette. If you don't know what "wack" means, look up Wack MC.

In addition, there are more insults and cursing (see ): "shut da fuc up.::Imdaking::", "you too, youre retarded! .::Imdaking::". Also note the link in his edit summary to Missusing the Misplaced Pages policies.

Specific Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy that I think applies include:

• Disruption:
  • changing other users' signed comments
  • No personal attacks
  • Misplaced Pages:Civility:
  • Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Key policies: "Don't infringe copyrights."; "Respect other contributors."
  • Misplaced Pages:Profanity
  • Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines: "No insults"; "Avoid ad-hominem attacks"; "Don't threaten people"
  • Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette: "Don't ignore questions."
  • Misplaced Pages:Avoiding common mistakes: "...removing text from your User Talk page"; "...hide criticism"
• Personal attacks which place users in danger
• Excessive reverts WP:3RR
• Misplaced Pages:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space "Community policies, including Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere."

He has already been warned (see User talk:Imdaking/Complaints#Civility, plus see the edit summaries in the Complaint page history). For my own part, I will admit two cases of incivility myself. After he posted this message on my talk page, "You wouldnt want me to post on your pages that you suffer from a disease, do you?", part of my reply was "Do you want to continue to trade insults...". I also used Imdaluser in an edit summary (see luser). BlankVerse ∅ 09:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend going to the dispute resolution process, perhaps trying mediation first, and then an RfC if necessary. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 12:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

How would you feel if someone started crossing-out your user name and changing your signature to Wackguy instaed of Flcelloguy, and then made it very clear that they would continue to do that? I think that I've made a strong case for a temp block. (Quite frankly, I was very tempted to do exactly that to your signature to prove my WP:POINT, but knew better and restrained myself.)

I'd also like to request, in the spirit of Remove personal attacks, that an admin roll back User talk:Imdaking/Complaints to a version without the strikeouts and cursing and then protect the page. BlankVerse ∅ 16:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no supporter of WP:RPA, in general, but if you feel that way about it, I definitely will revert and lock the page as you request. Done. People shouldn't be using that page anyway. Please post messages, including warnings, to the user on his user talk page as usual. (Incidentally, I didn't claim below that the Imdaking account started editing on the same day that Ronald20 quit; please read my post again if you received that impression.) Bishonen | talk 20:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, alright, all I'm saying is that if you want to take it further, WP:AN/I isn't the right place to take a dispute; after all, we don't have any powers to do anything, and if you want to get community input, that would fall under RfCs. Oh well, good luck! Wackguy | A note? | Desk 22:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just wanted to mention that if you do go to the ArbCom, I would support that decision. And yes, I crossed out and changed my signature, just to illustrate WP:POINT. (I can do it to my own signature, right? :-))

I would recommend showing him the door, actually

I actually wouldn't do all those steps in this case, Flcelloguy; that's how good editors get worn out. I haven't had anything to do with Imdaking myself, but I'm reading his contributions now, and I'm thinking more along the lines of straight to an RFAr. Although he's only been around a few weeks (or, well, a couple of months, if you count User:Ronald20, see below), he has already been warned many times, and many people have tried to help him learn to edit more constructively: the only result is that they get into his bad books, and are henceforth subject to his taunts on their pages. As far as I've read yet, Imdaking's contributions are of three kinds:

1. Uploading of copyright images.
2. Creation of articles by pasting copyright text.
3. Harrassment and personal attacks on userpages.

Maybe I'll come across a useful edit any minute now, but I somehow doubt it. Note also the very similar contributions of these other incarnations of Imdaking (as demonstrated beyond doubt by edit patterns): User:Unike, User:Chriss P., User:68.123.204.81, User:68.126.115.13. I also rather suspect User:Ronald20, an editor with many warnings about copyvios on his talk page, and with a similar interest in pages about TV shows and public transport, who suddenly stopped editing on August 25, the same day that the Chriss P. and Unike accounts were created. Unless somebody can show me something tending to actually help build an encyclopedia coming from this guy, under any account, I'd like to see him go directly to an RFAr. I'll help write it up, if desired. Mediation is surely moot: there is no "dispute", there is only disruption. Paul Klenk and others have tried (first mildly, then more tersely) to explain to him how to avoid copyvios. This has no other effect than annoying Imdaking intensely: when the complaints about copyrighted images on his Talk started to multiply, he simply created a special Complaints talk page and warned all comers from posting any more complaints on his regular Talk. His reply to criticisms on this innovative and fast-growing page is usually nothing, occasionally the kind of childish taunt BlankVerse describes above ("shut da fuc up"). Seems to me the community has made a good-faith effort to integrate this troublesome newbie, while he has never in turn shown an atom of willingness to contribute constructively. Just show him the door, please. Bishonen | talk 13:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, all. BlankVerse asked me to weigh in on this and between him and User:Wiki brah happily trouncing all over this site, it's no wonder that I'm stressed (which, of course, is "desserts" spelled backwards, but I digress).

I'm going through a somewhat stressful real-life period. Misplaced Pages is a pleasant hobby. Hobbies are supposed to help you relax. Uh-uh. These ridiculous threats and personal attacks from this user are too much. Add to that Wiki brah happily skipping on his merry, so-called "mentally challenged" way over such idiotic yet useless subjects as "anal sex in Brazil," "fetishes in Brazil" and that timeless classic, "anal sex in New York" and I am convinced we've been civil long enough. Time for some action, IMO. - Lucky 6.9 16:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that I've made the case for at least a temp block of User:Imdaking. I'm willing to do mediation after that if Imdaking wants to and there is a mediator who is willing to help.

I first came across User:Imdaking because of some pages that were on my watchlist because I had been tracking User:Ronald20's edits. I highly doubt they are the same editor. Imdaking first started on 22 August 2005 (although he edited well enough that I doubt that he was a complete Misplaced Pages novice). Ronald20 quit editing on 25 August 2005, so there is a small overlap. Ronald20 also stuck to very simple language and very short edits and NEVER communicated on talk pages. Ronald20 said that he was from El Salvador, and some edits also suggest that, and that he was going to a school in the LA Unified district. Indaking says that he is a college student and appears to have some connection to Talpa de Allende, a small Mexican town in Jalisco, central Mexico. Ronald20's anon edits were from o1.com and lausd.org, while Imdaking's anon edits are from dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net. The only thing they share in common are a few edits to a couple of Los Angeles bus transportation articles and the occasional uploading of company logos.

I do wonder, however, if there is any connection between User:Imdaking, User:Wiki brah, and User:LILVOKA. BlankVerse ∅ 16:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits this guy has made, I've never seen more personal attacks from any user. I blocked him for 48 hours to stem the tide of his nonsense so that we can more easily regroup and decide what to do. That LILVOKA character has me wondering as well. He left a note on Paul Klenk's talk page as well. I've asked him politely not to fan the fires. - Lucky 6.9 16:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done. No good faith editor who chooses to spend their time here, contributing, writing articles, should have to put up with attacks like that. –Hajor 17:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Block Imdaking, please, and his sock puppets

Imdaking has been harrassing me off and on for a month, after I reworked a copyvio article for him.

• Putting my name on a "List of Annoying People" on his page.
• Nasty comments on my page.
• Using sockpuppets Unike and Chriss P. during the initial encounter with me. Imdaking has edited using 68.123.204.81, self-admitted (I am certain about this), and possibly other IPs I have made note of. (A very out-to-lunch admin blocked me when I correctly tagged Imdaking's sock puppet pages. This admin has never, ever answered any of my questions about this incident and has refused to communicate with me about anything. I will make sure he is notified about this.)
• Promising not to use those puppets, but he has used them since then. It is possible he is not keeping track of who he is when he signs in and out.
• Retaliating for helping me to clean up his terrible work, even after I cleaned up his copyvios.
• Telling me not to touch "his" work.
• Singling me out for image violations, moments after his history indicates a dash to clean up his own work (which he then denied).
• Deleting photos from an article when he know I already had GFDL licensing, and was merely having difficulty putting the information up. I asked him to help and he was no help whatsoever. His deletions were probably not kosher, either.
• Baiting other gullible admins into taking his side.
• Continuing and joining in on Wiki brah's recent harrassment and insults aimed at me.
• Nominating himself for Adminship, requiring quick assistance from Dragon something to have him remove the nomination.

I was on to Imdaking the first day I came back after two years of not editing. I have racked up a lot of contributions since then, and realize my initial instincts about him were right.

Please get rid of this creep. He is nothing but trouble. paul klenk 18:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

He's now trying to circumvent a lousy 48-hour block by leaving "unsigned comments" via his neighbor's IP, which is now blocked as well. If someone is willing to block this guy for good, I think that few tears will be shed. Just my two cents'. - Lucky 6.9 00:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless he's just using another of his dynamic IP's, like the two I mention above, 68-126-115-13 and 68-123-204-81 (dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net)? No tears, but we may not add many laugh lines either by trying to keep a guy with nimble dynamic IP's out. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Irvine, California, eh? Two-hour drive from here. Wonder how he'd like it if the very large and very Italian Lucky 6.9 showed up on his doorstep...?  :) Seriously, I'd never really do something like that, so please spare me and my user page from an onslaught of protests. BUT...all joking aside, it does seem like a valid request of the sysops to contact pacbell.net and ask them to shut down this guy for TOS violations. - Lucky 6.9 00:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No physical threats appears to be a redlink, so you could always cite WP:BOLD (a hallowed bluelink) in your defence. -Splash 00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:BOLD primarily refers to editorial, not administrative decisionmaking. I believe the pertinent policy item is Personal attacks which place users in danger, and WP:NOT Wait, what aren't I talking about here? El_C 01:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sock check requested

I've entereda request for an IP comparison of Imdaking, Wiki brah, and LILVOKA on David Gerard's talkpage. (As for Unike, Chriss P., 68.123.204.81, and 68.126.115.13 being operated by Imdaking, I know they are, no proof is needed beyond the edit patterns.) Bishonen | talk 15:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bish, I think that LilVOKA's interest in everything hip hop is the most likely explanation of his friendship with Imdaking.

Folks, let me point out that the very first contact I had with Imdaking, not only was he sock-puppeting, he was logging out and leaving anonymous "Warnings" on my talk page, in very official-sounding language. I was tagging his three known and confirmed pages with sock-puppet tags, completely within procedure. I had read up on it and had even asked for help understanding the rules. These tags were being removed with lightning speed, including by Jtkiefer. He and Imdaking were leaving warnings on my page, and I assumed Jtkiefer was one of Imda's socks. I then incorrectly tagged Jtkiefer as his sock. (I couldn't believe at that time that someone could be so stupid as to 1] ignore my well documented tags, 2] stand up for Imdaking, and 3] blame me for this.) I'm telling you this to put things in perspective. Very quickly later, Ryan Delaney, an admin, gave me one, maybe two warnings, calling what I was doing vandalism. Again, as he didn't identify himself as an admin, and I couldn't imagine anyone being so stupid as to not see what Imdaking was doing, I continued reverting what they were deleting. That is when Ryan blocked me for 12 hours.

You may not think 12 hours is serious, but when you are new and are being harrassed, it really p*sses you off, pardon my French. Ryan has not once replied to any of my repeated messages to him about that incident so we could sort out what happened. He completely ignored me. I have seen Wiki brah and Imdaking get better treatment from admins than I did that day.

At that time, Imdaking was a very new username. It is clear that he has been here far longer. No one who writes and edits so poorly, could also understand the rules enough to do what he is doing. He is here for two things: 1] Use WP as a plaything, and 2] Game the system's attempts to block him from doing it. Sorry -- I forgot to sign. Will do that... now: paul klenk 22:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Klenk (talk • contribs) 16:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Admins don't really have any more power over users, other then the extra features, which they can use to uphold community consensus and to keep people in check through policies, and that we are supposed to be smart. So, I don't think mentioning he was an admin was really relevant. Maybe after the first few warnings you should have discussed it with one or two of the warners? --Phroziac 04:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User:203.62.10.3

203.62.10.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has a history of vandalism stretching back for more than a year. The account has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism. It appears to belong to "Asia Pacific Network Information Centre", Milton, Queensland. Is there any way we can permanently block this ID? User:Zoe| 05:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

210.10.116.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is another long-time vandal from APNIC. User:Zoe| 05:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: APNIC is the one who distributes IPs for the Asia Pacific Region, not an ISP. 203.62.10.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) comes from a school in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, while 210.10.116.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is connecting via AAPT, an ISP in Victoria, Australia. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You're probably looking these up at ARIN and getting the result of APNIC. But APNIC is not an ISP, it's one of the five regional Internet registries, like ARIN. ARIN refers you to APNIC (or the appropriate regional registry) if you look it up at ARIN. To find out who these IPs are, you need to look them up in at APNIC's "whois": the first, 203.62.10.3, is ACT Department of Education, Manning Clark House, Tuggeranong (I know, big surprise, vandals from a school....). The second, 210.10.116.67 is AAPT Limited, 180-188 Burnley St, Richmond VIC 3121. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

So I guess that means we can't permanetly block them, then, I guess. Sigh. User:Zoe| 07:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The APPT one would be problematic to block, since it's dynamic, but the school one may be static. If you can determine that the vandals are coming from one particular IP in the school's range, then that one can be blocked. I've been doing that to one particular computer in a school in Singapore, for example, since that computer seems to be the one being used for vandalism. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps a polite note to the school alerting them of the use their students are making of their computers at school might result at least in an annoying lecture to said students.... - Nunh-huh 22:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Radman1

I have blocked Radman1 (talk · contribs · block log) for one hour for repeatedly abusing me despite a request that he stop. I am sure this will result in a firestorm of controversy, but I will not put up with his nonsense. If he continues to do it, I will block him for a longer period of time. User:Zoe| 06:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, can you say more about what he was saying and the context? SlimVirgin 06:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

He keeps following me around on AfD pages calling me by a name which is not my User name. The entire tone of his comments is highly condescending. The name itself is not offensive in and of itself, but the refusal to use my proper User name and the reversion of my edit to remove it, after I had requested that he desist, caused me to block him. User:Zoe| 06:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

see this edit. User:Zoe| 06:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, if you were in a content dispute with him at the time, which includes a VfD, you shouldn't block him, unless it's vandalism or clear disruption. How often did he call you that or any other name? Would you consider unblocking him? SlimVirgin 06:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't block him for the content dispute, I would not do that. I blocked him for his repeated comments to me. It has happened three or four other times. This is only the most recent one. I will only unblock him if he promises to stop being condescending and to either use my User name or not speak to me at all. User:Zoe| 06:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that by looking at the page history and at the brief exchange between Zoe and Radman on User_talk:Radman1#My_User_name_is_Zoe, it's clear that Radman had a malicious intent. I wouldn't have done the block myself if I were Zoe, but I think its possible to infer why Zoe is so angry. Sorry to butt in. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't have done it, but his attitude has gone over the edge with me. User:Zoe| 06:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I've looked at the page and the history and I'm not seeing anything that would justify a block. Could we have some diffs please showing the personal attacks? SlimVirgin 06:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what more to tell you. The link above is what I'm referring to. I asked him to use my User name, not to call me by the name he repeatedly uses for me, and he refused. User:Zoe| 06:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

And do you really think that "There there... you poor thing" is acceptable? User:Zoe| 06:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently in the tiny kingdom of Zoe-stan, failing to address the queen by her proper title and lineage results in a small 1-hour naptime. A shame, because it will eventually drive away radman1, a fervent contributor to the community.--Jscott 06:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)